Adam MacLeod debunks the myth that marriage law bans same-sex relationships.

Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the Ban Myth

by Adam J. MacLeod

It's a myth that marriage law "bans" same-sex relationships 

because it treats marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The project of using marriage law to secure society's approbation 

of same-sex intimacy is by its nature intolerant of anyone 

who 

is not willing to participate in the approval. So, the options are clear. 

Either the Supreme Court creates a new fundamental right 

to same-sex "marriage" or it preserves religious liberty.

In a column at CNN.com, Marc Stern asks whether "gay rights" will infringe religious liberty. By "gay rights" he means eradication of sexual complementarity from marriage laws.
His answer is yes, sometimes: "In some instances the rights of same-sex couples will unavoidably trump religious liberty rights." Why? If the Supreme Court redefines marriage by judicial fiat, religious observers will be forced to choose between obedience to conscience and full participation in public life, because the definition of marriage applies to everyone, including those who perceive inherent differences between men and women.

The evidence is now too extensive to ignore that one effect of redefining marriage is to force everyone to embrace a conception of marriage as a genderless institution, grounded in norms of companionship and personal fulfillment, rather than complementarity, fidelity, and permanence. Even half measures, such as civil unions, leave few domains for religious liberty. When the law abandons the traditional conception of marriage and sexuality in favor of the companionate conception, citizens must deny sexual complementarity, even in contravention of their core religious convictions, in order to participate fully in public life.
......................

Stern seems to think that same-sex unions are illegal in those states that uphold conjugal marriage (an error that CNN anchor Don Lemon persisted in even after Ryan Anderson repeatedly explained to him how marriage law works). Stern writes,

Religious liberty, as the American Jewish Committee told the Supreme Court recently in a friend-of-the-court brief, does not give anyone the right to demand that someone else be deprived of the "right to live the most intimate portions of their lives according to their own deepest convictions." That some religious groups regard same-sex marriage as an "abomination" does not authorize the government to ban such relationships.

It is difficult to imagine where this idea came from. It certainly did not originate in any informed understanding of law. There are no criminal or civil penalties for being in a same-sex relationship. No administrative agency will assess fines against those who solemnize same-sex relationships. No law prohibits unlicensed marriages.

Call it the Ban Myth. It seems to be doing a lot of work in public debates about marriage these days. The Ban Myth allows some people to portray marriage law as a restriction of the liberty of same-sex couples, rather than what it is: a legal distinction between inherently different relationships.

........................Read more here: www.thepublicdiscourse.com