NationStates

Hirota wrote:

Sahrani South wrote:Marriage is defined by god: 1 MAN 1 WOMAN = 1 MARRIAGE

It is a shame how radical atheists are pushing their agenda via the WA!

Why in all the multiverses should we lavish special attention on what one book on one religion has to say on the matter? Especially given the multitude of other faiths which may or may not have a differing opinion on the matter?

Not only is gay marriage against Christianity, it is also against Islam and Judaism, so legalising it via the WA would be infringing on religious freedom. This resolution would open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior like people marrying animals or dead people; furthermore people would feel encouraged to become homosexual. Marriage has been between 1 man and 1 woman since thousands of years and it should stay that way. Only man and woman can produce new life, children need a father AND a mother. Also this proposal would destroy the meaning and sanctity of marriage.

Wow, nobody is even reading this.
Well, might as well dive in and have fun with it.

Marriage is defined by the state. FoMA recognizes that and thus does not intervene with religious rituals, only with matters of marriage with the secular state.
And no, gay marriage does not open doors to marrying animals or the dead- as neither of those parties can provide legal consent.

Sahrani South wrote:

Hirota wrote:Why in all the multiverses should we lavish special attention on what one book on one religion has to say on the matter? Especially given the multitude of other faiths which may or may not have a differing opinion on the matter?

Not only is gay marriage against Christianity, it is also against Islam and Judaism, so legalising it via the WA would be infringing on religious freedom. This resolution would open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior like people marrying animals or dead people; furthermore people would feel encouraged to become homosexual. Marriage has been between 1 man and 1 woman since thousands of years and it should stay that way. Only man and woman can produce new life, children need a father AND a mother. Also this proposal would destroy the meaning and sanctity of marriage.

"Maybe in your nation. The C.D.S.P. doesn't use gender specific pronouns in marriage law. It never has. We're not sure if that was intentional or not. At any rate, I fail to see how our definition of marriage affects your institutions.

"Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, otherwise the infertile wouldn't be allowed to get married. Likewise for those unwilling to reproduce. Homosexual marriage involves the marriage of two consenting adults. Marriage to a dead body or an animal do not, as they are unable to consent. Children do not require a mother and father: plenty are raised by single parents, as wards of the state, or even as communally cared for by communities.

"Most importantly, this repeal doesn't allow you to discriminate against homosexual marriage, as CoCR already protects them. All of your arguments are bad, and you should feel bad."

Sahrani South wrote:Not only is gay marriage against Christianity, it is also against Islam and Judaism, so legalising it via the WA would be infringing on religious freedom. This resolution would open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior like people marrying animals or dead people; furthermore people would feel encouraged to become homosexual. Marriage has been between 1 man and 1 woman since thousands of years and it should stay that way. Only man and woman can produce new life, children need a father AND a mother. Also this proposal would destroy the meaning and sanctity of marriage.

So to justify special attention on one religion in the entire multiverse, you cite two more. In a multiverse of trillions of individuals, and thousands of known religions and cultures, can you explain why three of those religions require special care and attention?

Secondly if you actually read the resolution under threat of repeal you'd see the freedom for religious groups to ignore this.

Thirdly, as Separatist Peoples has pointed out, this resolution doesn't need to be on the books for gay marriage to be legal in all member states. If you read the actual repeal text you would see it makes the same point.

Finally, your entire argument is the same old recycled arguments we see every time this gets brought up with the same silly fallacies - appeals to tradition (just because we've done it before for supposedly "thousands of years" doesn't mean we should still do it), slippery slopes (if we allow this to happen it does not mean marriage with animals or the dead), appeals to authority (just because the bible says it doesn't mean the bible is correct) - the fact that this resolution is still here after multiple attempts of this kind of argument should demonstrate to you how successful your existing line of fallacious argument is likely to be.

But you just go ahead and carry on with this silly line of argument. If previous member states who have gone down line of argument have demonstrated anything, it's that they do a very good job at putting people off agreeing with them.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, otherwise the infertile wouldn't be allowed to get married.

That said, opposite-sex relationships are naturally ordered towards procreation, given that vaginal intercourse is a key component of human reproduction; the same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. Capacity to have vaginal intercourse is often indirectly a requirement for marriages, at least in jurisdictions where marriages that were never consummated can be annulled.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Railana wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, otherwise the infertile wouldn't be allowed to get married.

That said, opposite-sex relationships are naturally ordered towards procreation, given that vaginal intercourse is a key component of human reproduction; the same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. Capacity to have vaginal intercourse is often indirectly a requirement for marriages, at least in certain ancient backwards societies and areas that have not recognized the passage of time.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Fixed (with emphasis)

Railana wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, otherwise the infertile wouldn't be allowed to get married.

That said, opposite-sex relationships are naturally ordered towards procreation, given that vaginal intercourse is a key component of human reproduction; the same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. Capacity to have vaginal intercourse is often indirectly a requirement for marriages, at least in jurisdictions where marriages that were never consummated can be annulled.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"With the technological advancements of in-vitro fertilization and the accessibility of surrogates, the concern is vanishing. Besides, it doesn't seem to touch those instances of those choosing not to reproduce."

Hirota wrote:

Sahrani South wrote:Not only is gay marriage against Christianity, it is also against Islam and Judaism, so legalising it via the WA would be infringing on religious freedom. This resolution would open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior like people marrying animals or dead people; furthermore people would feel encouraged to become homosexual. Marriage has been between 1 man and 1 woman since thousands of years and it should stay that way. Only man and woman can produce new life, children need a father AND a mother. Also this proposal would destroy the meaning and sanctity of marriage.

So to justify special attention on one religion in the entire multiverse, you cite two more. In a multiverse of trillions of individuals, and thousands of known religions and cultures, can you explain why three of those religions require special care and attention?

Secondly if you actually read the resolution under threat of repeal you'd see the freedom for religious groups to ignore this.

Thirdly, as Separatist Peoples has pointed out, this resolution doesn't need to be on the books for gay marriage to be legal in all member states. If you read the actual repeal text you would see it makes the same point.

Finally, your entire argument is the same old recycled arguments we see every time this gets brought up with the same silly fallacies - appeals to tradition (just because we've done it before for supposedly "thousands of years" doesn't mean we should still do it), slippery slopes (if we allow this to happen it does not mean marriage with animals or the dead), appeals to authority (just because the bible says it doesn't mean the bible is correct) - the fact that this resolution is still here after multiple attempts of this kind of argument should demonstrate to you how successful your existing line of fallacious argument is likely to be.

But you just go ahead and carry on with this silly line of argument. If previous member states who have gone down line of argument have demonstrated anything, it's that they do a very good job at putting people off agreeing with them.

May I point you to scientific research which has proven that gay marriage is wrong: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/science-of-gay-marriage/158265/

Sahrani South wrote:

Hirota wrote:So to justify special attention on one religion in the entire multiverse, you cite two more. In a multiverse of trillions of individuals, and thousands of known religions and cultures, can you explain why three of those religions require special care and attention?

Secondly if you actually read the resolution under threat of repeal you'd see the freedom for religious groups to ignore this.

Thirdly, as Separatist Peoples has pointed out, this resolution doesn't need to be on the books for gay marriage to be legal in all member states. If you read the actual repeal text you would see it makes the same point.

Finally, your entire argument is the same old recycled arguments we see every time this gets brought up with the same silly fallacies - appeals to tradition (just because we've done it before for supposedly "thousands of years" doesn't mean we should still do it), slippery slopes (if we allow this to happen it does not mean marriage with animals or the dead), appeals to authority (just because the bible says it doesn't mean the bible is correct) - the fact that this resolution is still here after multiple attempts of this kind of argument should demonstrate to you how successful your existing line of fallacious argument is likely to be.

But you just go ahead and carry on with this silly line of argument. If previous member states who have gone down line of argument have demonstrated anything, it's that they do a very good job at putting people off agreeing with them.

May I point you to scientific research which has proven that gay marriage is wrong: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/science-of-gay-marriage/158265/

Ooc: none of that is relevant to a social issue. How magnets work is not indicative to human behavior, and it has nothing to do with any of the arguments made here or the repeal on question. Take it to General

Sahrani South wrote:May I point you to scientific research which has proven that gay marriage is wrong: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/science-of-gay-marriage/158265/

I may have missed the part where he demonstrates how human genitals work on the principles of magnetism. Last time I checked, mine don't stick to the fridge.

His entire premise is another logical fallacy in itself - failure by analogy. Thats at least four fallacies you've spouted that are easily dismissed.

I'll wait to be pointed towards the "scientific research" and amuse myself with this "bottom of the barrel" farce in the meantime.

But please do carry on trying to prove your point - I could do with a good chuckle.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Sahrani South wrote:
May I point you to scientific research which has proven that gay marriage is wrong: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/science-of-gay-marriage/158265/

Ooc: none of that is relevant to a social issue. How magnets work is not indicative to human behavior, and it has nothing to do with any of the arguments made here or the repeal on question. Take it to General

OOC: Oh my god, its not a satire site. I looked everywhere and this isn't satire. A legitimate website made of multiple people with the ability to communicate and clean themselves decided that this was legitimately important. I am dying.

Upon representation from the Minister for Justice, I have been instructed to support this repeal attempt on behalf of the People's Republic of Bananaistan. Please note that this is not a flip flop from our earlier contribution in the debate just because of recent comments. The Minister for Justice noticed this proposal and subsequently the cabinet has instructed me to vote in favour when this comes to vote.

The basis of our opinion is that a recent case in Bananaistan found that in a certain universal and one, true church, many parishes were permitting non-parishioners to get married using their facilities. As the particular church views each parish as a "juridic person", the courts found that by allowing non-parishioners to use their facilities, these were "services provided to the general public" (COCR Art 2 (a)). Only if the particular parish permits only weddings between at least one parishioner, would the services not be provided to the general public. Per COCR, any discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation in "access to services provided to the general public" is illegal, therefore, if the parish continues to allow non-parishioners use their facilities, they are now legally obliged to allow homosexuals marry in their church, should any be found who wish to. The point is that, in this instance, the COCR trumps the vague "religious communities" part of FOMA.

Our second reason for supporting the repeal is that not only does the COCR provide stronger anti-discrimination measures, but the "religious communities" exemption is very unclear in theocratic member states or member states where the separation between church and state is not strong.

Lord solaris wrote:As a Catholic nation, and delegate Alliance Of Catholic Nations, of one of the largest Catholic regions on Nationstates, I will obviously be rejecting this repeal, along with my brothers and sisters.

We were quite tolerant in accepting FOMA given its clause on religious exemption for LGBT marriage. Whilst we would obviously prefer all nations shared our views, we are accepting of how other WA nations perceive this issue, however we will not accept any resolution that bars us from following the rites and teachings of the Catholic Church.

You are welcome to entertain such matters as you see fit, but we will not be pressed in to accepting any resolution at odds with our beliefs. Obviously it goes without saying that in the event of a FOMA repeal, which probably won't happen as most WA nations who agree with your concept won't actually read the blasted proposal and vote it down anyway, we as a region will look to create a new proposal which will make Religious Freedoms on this matter more clear and apparent.

Forgive me, but this repeal will not force your churches to marry homosexuals. I believe that COCR still gives allowances to organizations with "compelling practical purposes" to discriminate, which to my mind, at least, would include churches where not discriminating would force them to violate their religious beliefs. This resolution's "religious communities" exemption is only being targeted in this repeal because we consider it unseemly for nations to "privatize" marriage and effectively leave it in the hands of the church, so as to allow de-facto discrimination to continue with the tacit support of the government. We don't care if churches discriminate; we do care if nations take advantage of them in order to corrupt a standing resolution.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Lord solaris wrote:As a Catholic nation, and delegate Alliance Of Catholic Nations, of one of the largest Catholic regions on Nationstates, I will obviously be rejecting this repeal, along with my brothers and sisters.

We were quite tolerant in accepting FOMA given its clause on religious exemption for LGBT marriage. Whilst we would obviously prefer all nations shared our views, we are accepting of how other WA nations perceive this issue, however we will not accept any resolution that bars us from following the rites and teachings of the Catholic Church.

You are welcome to entertain such matters as you see fit, but we will not be pressed in to accepting any resolution at odds with our beliefs. Obviously it goes without saying that in the event of a FOMA repeal, which probably won't happen as most WA nations who agree with your concept won't actually read the blasted proposal and vote it down anyway, we as a region will look to create a new proposal which will make Religious Freedoms on this matter more clear and apparent.

Forgive me, but this repeal will not force your churches to marry homosexuals. I believe that COCR still gives allowances to organizations with "compelling practical purposes" to discriminate, which to my mind, at least, would include churches where not discriminating would force them to violate their religious beliefs. This resolution's "religious communities" exemption is only being targeted in this repeal because we consider it unseemly for nations to "privatize" marriage and effectively leave it in the hands of the church, so as to allow de-facto discrimination to continue with the tacit support of the government. We don't care if churches discriminate; we do care if nations take advantage of them in order to corrupt a standing resolution.

If CoCR considers religious beliefs to be a compelling reason to discriminate, then the door is open to all sorts of discrimination.

Hirota wrote:Finally, your entire argument is the same old recycled arguments we see every time this gets brought up with the same silly fallacies - appeals to tradition (just because we've done it before for supposedly "thousands of years" doesn't mean we should still do it), slippery slopes (if we allow this to happen it does not mean marriage with animals or the dead), appeals to authority (just because the bible says it doesn't mean the bible is correct) - the fact that this resolution is still here after multiple attempts of this kind of argument should demonstrate to you how successful your existing line of fallacious argument is likely to be.

I don't know if by "multiple attempts" you include drafts and non-quorate proposals, but this would be the first time a repeal of FOMA has actually been voted on.

Bananaistan wrote:

Upon representation from the Minister for Justice, I have been instructed to support this repeal attempt on behalf of the People's Republic of Bananaistan. Please note that this is not a flip flop from our earlier contribution in the debate just because of recent comments. The Minister for Justice noticed this proposal and subsequently the cabinet has instructed me to vote in favour when this comes to vote.

The basis of our opinion is that a recent case in Bananaistan found that in a certain universal and one, true church, many parishes were permitting non-parishioners to get married using their facilities. As the particular church views each parish as a "juridic person", the courts found that by allowing non-parishioners to use their facilities, these were "services provided to the general public" (COCR Art 2 (a)). Only if the particular parish permits only weddings between at least one parishioner, would the services not be provided to the general public. Per COCR, any discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation in "access to services provided to the general public" is illegal, therefore, if the parish continues to allow non-parishioners use their facilities, they are now legally obliged to allow homosexuals marry in their church, should any be found who wish to. The point is that, in this instance, the COCR trumps the vague "religious communities" part of FOMA.

Our second reason for supporting the repeal is that not only does the COCR provide stronger anti-discrimination measures, but the "religious communities" exemption is very unclear in theocratic member states or member states where the separation between church and state is not strong.

We consider the Bananaistan government's concerns about the "religious communities" exemption to be obviously in line with our own, and we thank them for lending their support to our efforts here. We have no comment regarding their stance on religious liberty.

Defwa wrote:

I wrote:Forgive me, but this repeal will not force your churches to marry homosexuals. I believe that COCR still gives allowances to organizations with "compelling practical purposes" to discriminate, which to my mind, at least, would include churches where not discriminating would force them to violate their religious beliefs. This resolution's "religious communities" exemption is only being targeted in this repeal because we consider it unseemly for nations to "privatize" marriage and effectively leave it in the hands of the church, so as to allow de-facto discrimination to continue with the tacit support of the government. We don't care if churches discriminate; we do care if nations take advantage of them in order to corrupt a standing resolution.

If CoCR considers religious beliefs to be a compelling reason to discriminate, then the door is open to all sorts of discrimination.

I point once again to the language of COCR, which only permits discrimination to organizations with "compelling practical purposes" to do so. This is not a blank check to do whatever you want because the bounds are very clearly drawn in the cited legislation, and as such it doesn't "leave the door open" to anything except what was intended by the authors. This repeal is not concerned whatsoever with what private churches do in their own very limited jurisdictions, just what governments do in theirs.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Defwa wrote:If CoCR considers religious beliefs to be a compelling reason to discriminate, then the door is open to all sorts of discrimination.

I point once again to the language of COCR, which only permits discrimination to organizations with "compelling practical purposes" to do so. This is not a blank check to do whatever you want because the bounds are very clearly drawn in the cited legislation, and as such it doesn't "leave the door open" to anything except what was intended by the authors. This repeal is not concerned whatsoever with what private churches do in their own very limited jurisdictions, just what governments do in theirs.

You've given people a blank check to do anything in the name of their religion. I someone can refuse to marry a gay couple based solely on their religious choices, then they can refuse service to women during menstruation, they can declare other races inferior and treat them as such, and lets not even get started on the fact that it gives religious individuals the ability to declare anyone an infidel for just about any reason and engage in all sorts of discriminatory action.

Uhh, no. Not anybody can discriminate - just churches, because it might violate their religious liberty; just women's shelters, because their clients might not be comfortable relating their traumatic experiences to a male counselor; just nunneries, because obviously men can't be nuns; just "scholarship pageants," because men don't look nearly as fetching in a bikini. Only organizations with a compelling practical purpose may discriminate, for compelling practical reasons. The terms of the law do not allow, for example, Hobby Lobby to refuse government regulations regarding employee birth control coverage. Hobby Lobby has no compelling practical reason to claim "religious liberty" -- a legitimate religious organization would. If you haven't gotten it already, I don't know if you ever will, and if you have a problem with religious liberty -- well you're in good company, as the World Assembly has refused to pass any resolution protecting it, and thus, you are completely free to squelch it in your own country. [EDIT: as far as Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Expression would let you, in any case.]

Happy now?

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Uhh, no. Not anybody can discriminate - just churches, because it might violate their religious liberty; just women's shelters, because their clients might not be comfortable relating their traumatic experiences to a male counselor; just nunneries, because obviously men can't be nuns; just "scholarship pageants," because men don't look nearly as fetching in a bikini. Only organizations with a compelling practical purpose may discriminate, for compelling practical reasons. The terms of the law do not allow, for example, Hobby Lobby to refuse government regulations regarding employee birth control coverage. Hobby Lobby has no compelling practical reason to claim "religious liberty" -- a legitimate religious organization would. If you haven't gotten it already, I don't know if you ever will, and if you have a problem with religious liberty -- well you're in good company, as the World Assembly has refused to pass any resolution protecting it, and thus, you are completely free to squelch it in your own country.

Happy now?

I fail to see the difference between a church and this hobby plaza example. Both would be owned by religiously charged individuals with the intention of forwarding their religious goals.

A hobby store does not have a compelling practical reason to claim religious liberty. It is not a religious organization, it is not even owned by a religious organization. But I see no further need to continue this fruitless threadjack, anyway; you've already demonstrated in the past that you are willing to reinterpret anything to suit your own goals. People who still respect the age-old maxim "The law means what the law says" (cue TDSR ) know what I mean.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:A hobby store does not have a compelling practical reason to claim religious liberty. It is not a religious organization, it is not even owned by a religious organization. But I see no further need to continue this fruitless threadjack, anyway; you've already demonstrated in the past that you are willing to reinterpret anything to suit your own goals. People who still respect the age-old maxim "The law means what the law says" (cue TDSR gripe) know what I mean.

Indeed, I was going to be polite and not bring up your apparent newfound ability to read between lines and then read further between those. After all, "compelling practical purpose" is just so much clearer than "not [to] ultimately hinder".
Carry on with your completely charitable and honest intentions that we love you so much for.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Uhh, no. Not anybody can discriminate - just churches, because it might violate their religious liberty;.......

If this is the common interpretation of COCR then the repeal is pointless as "religious communities" can still discriminate regarding marriage (and whatever other "compelling practical purpose" they can dream up) and the whole issue around theocratic states is still up in the air. In fact, it would appear that COCR needs tightening up.

Barring a nation's leadership believing that the Fist of the Almighty is actually going to smite them at 6:30 PM on Sunday next unless they reinstitute, say, the stoning of sodomites, I don't see where CoCR's compelling practical purposes clause allows religion to form the basis of legal discrimination. This wasn't my tune originally, but I think any national leadership that can bend words that far over backwards is going to be guilty of far worse manipulations of law (e.g. getting around GAR #9 by saying "Heck no, those anonymous masked thugs in the warehouse aren't acting on behalf of the government! We can't help it if it took us that long to track down this poor fellow's location, and it's a charming coincidence at best that he wanted to give us a confession as soon as we brought him in. Pity said thugs vanished without a trace, but - c'est la vie...").

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:A hobby store does not have a compelling practical reason to claim religious liberty. It is not a religious organization, it is not even owned by a religious organization. But I see no further need to continue this fruitless threadjack, anyway; you've already demonstrated in the past that you are willing to reinterpret anything to suit your own goals. People who still respect the age-old maxim "The law means what the law says" (cue TDSR :p) know what I mean.

It's a reasonable point though, isn't it? The problem with magic invisible clauses is they're invisible. We have no idea what the magic invisible clause in The Prisoners of War Accord says. It stands to reason there might well be a magic invisible clause in FoMA or CoCR explaining all of this, too. We just can't see it, because it's invisible. Given it's been very firmly ruled that the law does not mean the law says, but also means a bunch of other stuff it doesn't say, then getting too into textual criticism is never really going to tell us the whole story.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Barring a nation's leadership believing that the Fist of the Almighty is actually going to smite them at 6:30 PM on Sunday next unless they reinstitute, say, the stoning of sodomites, I don't see where CoCR's compelling practical purposes clause allows religion to form the basis of legal discrimination. This wasn't my tune originally, but I think any national leadership that can bend words that far over backwards is going to be guilty of far worse manipulations of law (e.g. getting around GAR #9 by saying "Heck no, those anonymous masked thugs in the warehouse aren't acting on behalf of the government! We can't help it if it took us that long to track down this poor fellow's location, and it's a charming coincidence at best that he wanted to give us a confession as soon as we brought him in. Pity said thugs vanished without a trace, but - c'est la vie...").

I think the point is more to do with private, non-governmental religious organisations claiming that they have "compelling practical purposes" for discriminating rather than any government. The convent example seems to be a basic enough in that it would ofc be permissible to bar entry to men on the basis that it is a women's only organisation. The problem arises beyond that though. Where do compelling practical purposes end and just exactly what shelter to religious beliefs allowing discrimination does that phrase allow?

Bananaistan wrote:I think the point is more to do with private, non-governmental religious organisations claiming that they have "compelling practical purposes" for discriminating rather than any government. The convent example seems to be a basic enough in that it would ofc be permissible to bar entry to men on the basis that it is a women's only organisation. The problem arises beyond that though. Where do compelling practical purposes end and just exactly what shelter to religious beliefs allowing discrimination does that phrase allow?

Well, all I can ask is: what practical result can you achieve by treating one class differently from another? The example in CoCR is an obvious case of an overwhelming practical advantage yielded specifically and exclusively by means of differential treatment. There'll be statistics showing that women who have been assaulted, whose first psychological and medical help comes from exclusively female professionals, have better or faster positive outcomes than women in similar situations who see primarily male professionals; or if there is no such difference, then it could be shown that it does no substantive harm to male professionals to allow women to freely choose to see exclusively female professionals. In other words, the measure of whether a particular discriminatory practice fits under the compelling practical purpose exception is a measure - you can observe the results and determine that there's a quantifiable advantage to certain practices which, out of context, sound discriminatory; and if you can't show such an advantage then it's straight up discrimination and CoCR prohibits it.

Let's take the issue at hand - same sex marriage. Magic magnetic genitals notwithstanding, there's no quantifiable social good that comes from prohibiting a couple of the same gender from having the same rights in law as a couple of different genders. That is, there's no advantage that can be measured, and thus no practical purpose, let alone a compelling one. The state may have a practical interest in not compelling individual churches to perform them (this would be the only conceivable place where religious liberty enters the equation), but there exists no such purpose for the state to prohibit them.

TL;DR - the key word there is practical - claiming that a voice from the sky told your president not to let the gays have domestic bliss doesn't cut it.

Something about this argument strikes me as just a bit glib, however. What am I overlooking?