Religious Liberty


P1. Same-sex marriage is an artificial creation of the state, which requires invasive thought-policing from the state to maintain

P2. It is undesirable to permit any artificial creation of the state which requires invasive thought-policing from the state to maintain

C. Therefore it is undesirable to permit same-sex marriage


This argument is also used against:

In his dissent (Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015), Chief Justice Roberts said:

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise
religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new
right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to
opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption
agency declines to place children with same-sex married
couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision
is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully
those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a
cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same sex marriage. Ante, at 19. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted. Ante, at 19.

Similarly from the Ruth Institute:

[M]ost people resist the idea that same sex couples and opposite sex couples are identical in every respect, just as most people resist the idea that men and women are completely interchangeable as parents, as spouses and as sex partners. If the state commits itself to “marriage equality,” the state will have to enforce this idea upon the populace. “Marriage equality” is a completely artificial creation of the state, which cannot sustain itself. And precisely because it is an unnatural idea that does not spring unbidden to the human mind, the state will end up intervening in every aspect of society that touches upon marriage or gender or parenthood. This is far too much power to grant to the state, far too much social engineering, far too much thought control.