@fredsbend there are issues in terms of the legal benefits afforded them

such as survivor benefits and such

It will be interesting to see if state-licensed ministers are soon required to perform same-sex marriages. In that case, some ministers will give up their ability to perform state marriages, and some Christians may choose to be married only by the church, and not the state.

@LeeWoofenden I really don't understand the American notion that the government is something foreign, separate from society, preying on it. Government is us. It's how we organise ourselves. That is all.

@Nathaniel Should you have to pass a state employee's personal religious test before they'll serve you?

@AJHenderson There is evidence that an abundance of money removes empathy.

@TRiG I'm not arguing one way or another; just saying that it's a natural consequence of the ruling. Just like bakers won't be able to refuse to bake a same-sex marriage cake, even more so will a "state employee" (minister) be unable to discriminate. It will be interesting to see the effects... we may have many Christians who currently abhor unmarried couples "living together" having to reconsider their position with respect to state marriage.

@Nathaniel which well then bring up the question of if you can do that legally

in NY you can't

last I checked anyway

but they also don't require licensing of the minister

just witnesses

@TRiG what evidence is that?

@AJHenderson so the minister has no recourse if a same-sex couple wants him to marry them? There must be some process by which he becomes able to perform any marriage in the first place. Otherwise, any random person, who has never married anyone, could be sued by a same-sex couple for not performing their wedding, right?

@Nathaniel maybe, but there is also a categorical difference there between creating something neutral that happens to be used for something they disagree with. If the same sex couple asked for a cake for someone's birthday party, they wouldn't object. It doesn't really make sense to deny service because of what someone is going to do AFTER your service is provided

it's a very different situation to try to require a service someone disagrees with be provided

it is a subtle, but key distinction

@Nathaniel I don't know, I was just commenting that some states don't allow you to call something a marriage if you don't go through the legal process. We couldn't get a marriage without getting a state license, which bothered me a lot

not that I would have avoided getting one if I could have, but it was kind of a disturbing level of state involvement in something that should probably only tertiarily be a state matter constitutionally speaking

but alas, I must go afk

@AJHenderson Right. I wonder how many Christians will bother in the future, and if other Christians will consider their "church-only" wedding legitimate.

@Nathaniel I happen to believe that the connection between church marriages and state marriages should be legally severed, such that they are two different things. Those who want a spiritual marriage get married by the church. Those who want a legal marriage get married by the state. Those who want both do both.

Much of the heat on the issue of same-sex marriage arises because of the current unconstitutional (in my view) intrusion of the state into church affairs.

A legal marriage is really just a contract between two people and the state conferring certain legal rights on the couple vis a vis each other and the state. Confusing that with a sacramental marriage, which is a spiritual event, is the cause of much conflict and grief in society.

@TRiG You're forgetting the state's right to use guns to do the "organizing." No other organization has that right. All other organizations must rely upon freely entered contracts that can be terminated at will by either party.