Now the point has been made marriage between for other relationships are also prohibited. That might be so. But so far as I know, marrying a same-sex partner is merely a nullity under the law, not a crime or misdemeanor. Marrying a second or third spouse, sibling, 1st cousin (goat, pig or horse) may in some jurisdictions be a crime even a felony. So the parallel is not apt. Those solemnizing a same-sex marriage would be breaking a law, but are standing outside of the law--i.e doing something that the law does not provide for. Oddly if this impact of this statute is as described, it only make the officiant a lawbreaker, not the couple. Whereas in a bigamous marriage the bigamist would be the lawbreaker and the officiant only insofaras he/she was a knowing participant.
Bigamy, for example, is mentioned in the same section as same-sex marriage is mentioned. Performing either would equally make the officiant a lawbreaker with the exact same penalty for both, regardless as to the culpability of those getting married. This is directly parallel.
And Islam does allow for multiple wives, yet our laws against bigamy prevent this religious allowance from taking place. This is parallel to those denominations that see same-sex marriage as allowable, and the law prevents this religious allowance from taking place in the same way.
Your answer does not account for the illogical prohibition of solemnizing something (same-sex marriage) which is not a crime, where as in solemnizing a bigamous or polygamous marriage would be
participating in a crime. But in this instance an underlying crime is not being abetted by the solemnization.
It would seem to me that in order to effect the intent of this statute it would also be necessary to declare same-sex marriage a crime (whether you call it a fraud or whatever) with appropriate punishment attached, but to make it a crime only on the part of the officiant is, well, odd.
Because bigamy is mentioned in the same section of the law as same-sex marriage, does not make the association accurate or logically plausible. It is not a equal application of the law if one is a crime and one is not.
Moreover, it applies to all officiants including judges, city clerks, mayors, etc and not only religious ones. In that way, it is not targeting a religion directly, either Islam or liberal Christianity.
Officiants such as judges, clerks, mayors etc. are employees of the state and I would assume may restrict them in any way they wish since office they hold belongs to the state.
The town I used to live in set a cap on how much a public officiant might receive as an honorarium.
A religious officiant is not an employee of the state. The state accepts our marriage rite as sufficient evidence that the marriage licensed by them has been entered into.
Under that same logic it is quite possible that for the state's own reasons may choose not to accept or acknowledge the marriage we conduct; but I cannot see how they have any authority to prevent us from conducting our rites according to our precepts.
At the same time, that may well mean that the couple cannot represent themselves as married or seek benefits under state law.
So you agree that a state that requires adoption agencies to consider all applicants for placement of children equally, without regard to sexual orientation, does not infringe on religious freedom since the law applies to all adoption agencies equally and does not target a religion directly?
