I guess if it gets the job done, it gets the job done. But as Evan Dawson of Channel 13 reports in their blog, New Hampshire’s governor accepted the new legalization of gay marriage only after an “exemption” was made, allowing churches to refuse to perform the ceremony if they believe it’s contrary to their faith.
So, this was a concern? Have there been cases of Catholic churches forced to perform brisses? Are they required to have a liquor license for the
holy water((Uh, that would be “wine,” not “water.” Though I suppose they’re pretty much interchangeable for JC. . . )) in some states? Are there a lot of traditional Greek Orthodoxy ceremonies being performed – under threat of state sanction – in Jewish temples?
But its the kind of silliness which serves as a proxy for explicit homophobia, I suppose. And as I said before, if clinging to these types of surrogate arguments helps people let go of their ignorance, we should probably just let it go. Evan’s reporting suggests that perhaps adding such language – which doesn’t really change the law in any realistic way – might just push the bill in New York over the top, based on polls in California.
My concern is that adding such language is inherently dishonest and may inadvertently add new interpretative possibilities.