With the bickering over same-sex marriage, it’s been long forgotten that marriage used to not be a state matter. Many libertarians — largely of the more radical variety — including myself have pointed this out, & argued that the shift towards state licensure is the reason that people opposed for religious reasons came to raise such a fuss about it.
While only 29 percent of those polled said they would support same-sex marriage, those numbers shot up 14 percent if assurances were made that by law “no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay couples.” Never mind that no church at this very moment is required to marry anyone, gay or straight; that simple assurance means that 43 percent of all adults and 60 percent of younger adults would suddenly support same-sex marriage.
What that says to me is that if churches are guaranteed to not ever have to deal with us on a human level, they’re fine. So, if they can keep us as theoretical beings somewhere out there, where they don’t have to see our unions in their churches, then marriage is just fine with them. Church privilege, or “church’s rights,” are apparently the 30 pieces of silver they need to sell out the “sanctity” argument. (emphasis mine)
If this is the common view, then the opposition isn’t based on interpreting legal same-sex marriage as government endorsement of homosexuality. Indeed, it CAN’T be, because under such a scenario there’d be no difference as far as government involvement, and other churches would be free to grant their blessing to the marriages the hardline ones didn’t.
In other words, when their ears hear “same-sex marriage”, they aren’t thinking Uncle Sam co-signs homosexuality, they’re envisioning forced integration of gays into their pews. Why they’re thinking that? Hell if I know.