I really ducked the religious angle in my post, which is cheating, as religious bigotry is usually the foundation for marriage discrimination. To my mind, which I think is pretty rational, the whole passing of Proposition 8 was a clear violation of the spirit of the “separation of church and state” laws. One could argue that, just because a lot of churchgoers voted for the measure, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t voting as citizens. But it’s documented that the largest percentage of funds for the initiative came from the Church of Latter Day Saints, and possibly the second largest bucket from the Catholic Church. This is a clear case of priests and preachers influencing a political situation, and either the measure should be thrown out, or they should lose their nonprofit status.

So, I appreciate the angle that Judge Walker seems to be taken, which is to take the ample evidence that the Prop 8 founders do hold discriminatory attitudes toward gays and void the measure based on civil rights laws. This is a civil rights issue, all of the way. But I’m dumbfounded that the more obvious ruling that civil laws can’t be made to support religious biases isn’t the obvious problem with the ruling.

I was married the same way that most (straight) couples are: with a state-certified license and a church-approved wedding. 50 years ago that might not have been so easily accomplished, and a lot of the opposition came straight from the pulpit. Even Dear Abby has made this simple plea that the government stop factoring religious bias into civil marriage, and make the civil ceremony binding and independent of the religious ceremony. That way, the bigots can be free to believe that marriage is a bond between man and woman, white person and white person, or whatever, but their theological conclusion isn;’t recognized by the state as being more valid than yours and mine, which allows for any two people who are of age, reasonable mind, and in love to marry.

I am a strong proponent of marriage equality, and member of a religious congregation which currently suffers discrimination under opposite-sex-only marriage laws, since only some of the marriages we celebrate are acknowledged by the state. As such, I would hope that those empowered but not obligated to perform marriages which are permitted under the law would be sheltered from civil litigation when they choose not to marry a specific couple. The completely bogus spectre of legal consequences for bigots like Rick Warren during the Prop 8 and other marriage equality battles must remain that: a bogus spectre. Obviously, the rules are and should be different for religious officiants and those charged with executing and enforcing the law. Which is why I’m curious to know if LA Justices of the Peace are empowered to perform marriages, and may therefore make private arrangements regarding fees and so forth, or whether they are the state-provided officiants, intended to serve any couple who are legally allowed to marry.

Certainly no rabbi or priest should be legally challenged for refusing to perform an inter-faith marriage (though my Jewish wife and I are certainly glad that not all rabbis hold that position). I therefore take the libertarian position that other private officiants who take similar stands of conscience against solemnizing a given message, however disgusting and wrongheaded their conscience may be, should not be legally liable for that refusal.