Fourier analysis

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.