When discussing same-sex marriage, I’ve often said that if “marriage” is to be held as “sacred” then the state has no business regulating it in the first place. It follows, logically, that if a recognized religion should decide to marry same-sex couples, the state should have no say in the matter, and taxes should not be based on “marital status.” Here’s an interesting take on the subject from a blog I discovered today:
Take that logic further, reductio ad absurdum. If “religious liberty” is the standard, can anything be disallowed? If one religion claims that something violates its liberty, then that something must be disallowed. But then if another religion claims that a ban on that same something violates its liberty, then that something must be allowed. See? It makes no sense. The only solution is not to mix religion and politics, that is, to allow religions and their practitioners to worship freely in the private sphere while the public sphere avoids such entanglements altogether. The religious right seems to fail to understand that the “religious liberty” spin is the thin end of a wedge that will open a door it doesn’t want opened. (HT Crooks&Liars)
Exactly. Because the extreme religious right only wants religious liberty as it pertains to their religious views, not other religions that may take a different viewpoint. Not even others of the same basic religion with a different interpretation. That “you’re either with us or against us” mentality didn’t just spring up out of nowhere.