by Sandy » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 am
It's hard to see how this ruling "threatens" traditional marriage. That's an empty argument anyhow, given the divorce rate, and the almost completely ineffective way that the church, collectively, handles its own members when it comes to respecting and believing in "traditional" marriage. Nor is this some sort of "tipping point" on God's moral report card of the United States that will trigger some kind of Old Testament judgment and punishment. "Religious freedom" as a constitutional guarantee is not rocket science. A free conscience when it comes to religion means that all religious beliefs are a protected and guaranteed civil right under the constitution, including the right not to hold any belief, and to live in accordance with those principles. The civil authority has co-opted marriage and turned it into a legally binding contract which means that it is a civil right, and it has been defined by the state via the legislative process. Some people get married in a religious context, and decide on their own to follow the principles associated with it. I don't see this as anything different from those who decide to get married but don't do so under religious authority. Since the divorce rate among Christians who get married under that authority is about as high as it is among the secular population, the bigger problem for the church isn't the handful of same-sex marriages that will happen (or already have), but why so many of their own members don't respect the Christian definition of marriage that is now being trotted out and defended.
On the other hand, this ruling will not stop churches from marrying heterosexual couples in a Christian context. It will not bring about persecution of those who hold to traditional, Christian principles related to marriage. It will not open the door to lawsuits or arrests of pastors and church leaders who refuse to perform same-sex weddings on religious grounds, and it does not, in any way, shape or form, weaken anyone's religious freedom, in fact, by extending this freedom to those who are non-religious in a Judeo-Christian context, it strengthens the principle of religious freedom. If someone can be discriminated against, or persecuted, because their religious beliefs are either different, or aren't in the same realm as the majority, then no one's religious beliefs are protected and safe.
Personally, with Jesus' definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, which clarified not only the polygamy argument, but the gender one as well, I am not inclined to believe that the church should perform same-sex ceremonies. I think that endorses sin, bypasses the need for repentance and consigns gays and lesbians to hell more than any Bible-thumping fundamentalist preacher does, because it prevents them from seeing their need for repentance and grace. But the US constitution was not written to direct people to salvation, it was written to protect the rights of the nation's people.