Waves
of change sweep the West. The waveform merits exploration. The Supreme Court of
the United States rules that marriage equality is a constitutional right, but
what constitutes marriage equality, and marriage itself?
I
contend that modern marriage actually comprises two components:
-
"Part A" is essential, general and secular. This component is
recognised by the secular state and carries legal and economic rights.
-
"Part B" is optional, and worldview-specific. This component is
different for each worldview and may not exist for those with a purely secular
worldview. Examples may include any spiritual joining and recognition by
deities.
A secular
wedding comprises Part A only. A legal religious wedding comprises both Part A
and Part B in the one process. A religion that believes in polygamous marriage
performing such a marriage in a state where polygamy is illegal comprises Part
B only.
No religion
or other worldview owns a monopoly on marriage as a whole. Secular legislation
of same-sex marriage pertains to Part A and not Part B. Purely theological
objections to same-sex marriage pertain only to Part B and not Part A.
Therefore, purely theological arguments have little bearing on whether the
state should legalise same-sex marriage. Conversely, however, state
legalisation of same-sex marriage does not necessarily mean that all religious
instutitions should be forced to perform them.
In cases
where the realms of Part A and Part B conflict, a balance is needed between two
ethical principles now in opposition:
-
Autonomy. People have the right to their own choices. Such as in the case of
medical treatment, good works, etc, the right to "opt-out" of certain
actions generally overrules the ability to force others to "opt-in".
-
Distributive justice. Laws should apply equally, and religious exemptions
should be avoided, lest people circumvent laws by simply creating new religions
wherein their illegal acts are doctrine.
While
discrimination is abhorrent in the general setting, it is actually allowed in
specific settings:
-
Women-only gymnasiums, traditional gentleman's clubs, nightclubs, etc are
allowed to discriminate by sex.
-
Chinese students associations, etc are allowed to discriminate by race. For
example, it is inappropriate for a non-indigenous person to even attend some
Australian Aboriginal initiation ceremonies.
-
Religious institutions are allowed to disciminate by religion. For example, for
a wedding in a Roman Catholic church, at least one bride or groom must be Roman
Catholic.
As a
general rule:
-
Institutions that interact with "society in general" should not
discriminate.
-
Institutions that interact with "societal subcultures" are allowed to
discriminate. Furthermore, worldview-specific institutions should not be forced
to provide things that do not exist in their worldview. Just as I cannot force
McDonald's to serve me KFC, a Muslim butcher should not be forced to provide "halal
pork."
Therefore
a marriage clerk employed by the secular state should be required to facilitate
legalised same-sex marriage if they are to keep their employment, regardless of
their personal religious beliefs. A religious cleric should not be required to
facilitate legalised same-sex marriage in their clerical capacity, if this is
on the basis of their religious doctrine. A cake shop serves "society
in general" rather than a "societal subculture" and therefore
cannot refuse to cater for a same-sex wedding on religious grounds any more
than it can refuse to cater for a particular race on religious grounds. A cake
shop can still refuse to serve, for example, a pro-terrorism cake on principles
other than purely theological grounds.
Some
grey areas may remain. For example, distinctions between "state"
versus "religious" and "society in general"
versus "societal subculture" may not be always clear.
