Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Religious Discrimination

There is an arguement out there that allowing same-sex marriage discriminates against traditional or religious people.  let's explore why this is not the case.

Dictionary.com Definition:
Discrimination: (noun) treatement or consderation of, or making distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.  Example: racial or religious intolerance and discrimination.

Encyclopedia:
Same-Sex Marriage: the practice of marriage between two males or two females. Although the institution of marriage between male and female partners has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses to same-sex marriage have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.

So, what does all this tell us about it.  You COULD look at the legalization of same-sex marriage as religious discrimination, but there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is being targeted because of their religious affiliation.  No one has said that you as a group can no longer believe something.  You are more than welcome to continue believing gays and lesbians are evil.  You just can't act on it, just like we don't allow religions to practice other arcane practices and rituals like sacrificing animals or children, burning and drowning women, or starting wars in the name of purging the infidels.  quite the contrary, the religious people are doing the targeting and acting in a way that is outside of their constitutional right to beliefs.  I really want to make this point clear, you have the right to BELIEVE anything your religion chooses to believe, you do not always have the right to PRACTICE or ACT on it.

You would also have to assume that it is the right of religion to define who is and who is not allowed to get married, and they alone can perform those marriages under the law.  If you did this, then you could make the argument that we are discriminating against them by taking away their rights.  BUT again this is not the case.  In the United States, each state has the right to regulate or define marriage is they see fit AND to establish who may perform those marriages, not religious institutions.  For example, the following is the text from the Family Code of CA:

400. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:

1. A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme Court.
2. A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
3. A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
4. A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.

(e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a Member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while that person holds office.

So in reality, it is possible for a person to get married without EVER setting foot in a church or talking to a religious official.  Thus marriage can safely be assumed to be secular practice where we ALLOW religious officials to be involved.

So, when a religion claims that they alone have the right to define marriage and it is discrimination to stop allowing them to do so, they are, in fact, lying.  It is not their right.  Thus, equal marriage is NOT discrimination.  In fact, since religious groups are stepping outside of their constitutional right to belief and are actively discriminating themselves, they are the perpetrators, not the rest of us.

Furthermore, since marriage is a secular institution, any regulation that distinguishes who may and may not receive marriage benefits based on their status as part of a group or catagory (i.e. gays and lesbians) is perpatrating discrimination.  Without at least a rational basis, this is not acceptable.  It should require a compelling state interest, but that is a different issue.

**For those stupid enough to believe that this opens the door to incest, polygamy, and sex with children or animals, I'd be happy to walk you through the differences (namely those are choices, NOT orientations, and there is a rational basis for prohibiting those practices.  Except polygamy, I really don't see a problem with that other the exploitation of women piece, which can be regulated without prohibiting the whole practice.).**