Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[Daniel2]

MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2013

BREAKING: Judge Shelby DENIES Stay Demand, Marriages To Continue

[jwhitlock]

"Bludgeon" is extreme hyperbole. As is often stated, "Freedom of Religion" does not mean "Freedom FROM Religion," and "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Criticism."

Affirmation is by far more a religious gay group than a legal, civil rights gay group. While they certainly will try to exert social pressure to attempt to persuade the LDS church to change, such attempts are fully within their right, as protected by their freedom of speech---just as it is Mormons' right to resist such efforts and continue to exercising THEIR freedom of speech to persuade others that homosexuality is sinful and heterosexuality is superior. Such is the nature of freedom of speech. (Full disclosure: I'm not and never have been a member of Affirmation and have little interest in that group).

Social pressure by religious gay groups like Affirmation should not be confused with the government finding any legitimacy to forcing a religion to marry individuals against their religious beliefs. That has never happened (i.e. interracial and mixed Faith marriages), and, I believe, never will.

Daniel

 

Not hardly. In fact, given the anti-Mormon statements that came from SSM supporters after Prop 8, "bludgeon" would actually be charitable as a description of what may come.

 

Aside from that, your comments demonstrate a surprisingly narrow point of view about what is actually going on in the world. If you really think that we here in the U.S. have never experienced forced "Freedom FROM Religion" or "Freedom from Criticism", you really need to become more aware of what's going on around you, and what has happened historically. While neither is rampant today, there are cases where such things have been mandated and enforced. And of course, other countries, which many times influence U.S. judicial opinions, already have track records of active suppression of religion and speech. Hence, those can't be so blithely dismissed as impossible.

 

With Affirmation, I was - as I suspect you know - not talking about social pressure. I was talking about legal pressure, and again you don't seem to want to acknowledge the ways the church could be punished for not performing gay sealings or recognizing gay marriages in its employment practices. So the foray into "social pressure" is simply misdirection from the real issues at hand. Again, since those who perform marriages recognized by the state are licensed by the state, the state could revoke licenses of Mormons, such as bishops or sealers, as ordered by some activist judge. Tax exemptions could be revoked. A myriad of things could be done to legally pressure the church to conform to what groups like Affirmation want it to do. Given Affirmation's mission statement, and given the clear propensity of SSM activists to resort to legal means with sympathetic judges to get their way, it is a very, very real possibility that the church will be legally challenged and punished because of its stance on gay marriage. The precedents exist and I doubt that at least some gay groups or activists will be reticent about using those as a bludgeon.

 

Otherwise, I'm surprised you would even make the suggestion that government would never force a religion to marry someone. We as Mormons well understand the abuses of government when it concerns marriage, and if you don't think it's just a small step from prohibiting polygamy to forcing the church to perform gay marriages, then you don't really understand how government and special interest groups readily abuse power. Since Mormons who perform marriages are licensed by the state, and since there is amply precedent of the government forcing those it licenses to provide their licensed services to gays, I would be more than willing to bet that there will be a suit to demand that Mormons licensed to marry people perform gay marriages. It also is a very, very real possibility now that an activist judge has foisted his agenda on Utah through fiat.

[rockpond]

Otherwise, I'm surprised you would even make the suggestion that government would never force a religion to marry someone. We as Mormons well understand the abuses of government when it concerns marriage, and if you don't think it's just a small step from prohibiting polygamy to forcing the church to perform gay marriages, then you don't really understand how government and special interest groups readily abuse power. Since Mormons who perform marriages are licensed by the state, and since there is amply precedent of the government forcing those it licenses to provide their licensed services to gays, I would be more than willing to bet that there will be a suit to demand that Mormons licensed to marry people perform gay marriages. It also is a very, very real possibility now that an activist judge has foisted his agenda on Utah through fiat.

 

Wait... is it your position that it was wrong for the government to interfere in our practice of polygamy?

[Daniel2]

Judge denies Utah AG’s request to halt same-sex marriages

By Marissa Lang And Brooke Adams

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Dec 22 2013 06:15 pm • Updated 5 minutes ago

After listening to an hour of arguments regarding his controversial ruling last week allowing same-sex marriages in Utah, a federal judge on Monday denied the state’s request for a stay.

State attorneys had argued before U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that same-sex couples who marry in Utah may be irreparably harmed if their continued efforts to overturn the judge’s ruling succeed and those marriages are later invalidated.

Federal district Judge Robert Shelby’s ruling that struck down Utah’s Amendment 3 touched off a political firestorm and a mad rush by LGBT Utahns seeking marriage licenses to county clerks’ offices across the state.

On Monday at 12:15 p.m., Jennifer Napier-Pearce discusses the legal, cultural and political repercussions of the opinion with University of Utah law professor Clifford Rosky, Q Salt Lake editor Michael Aaron and BYU law professor Lynn Wardle.

A hearing began at 9 a.m. to hear the state’s request for a stay. Shelby retired to deliberate at about 10:20 a.m. He issued his decision at about 11:15 a.m.

Shelby said the state had only regurgitated the arguments he had already thrown out.

Meanwhile, hundreds of same-sex couples resumed obtaining marriage licenses on Monday.

But while some clerk’s offices were issuing hundreds of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, others were not — indicating they wanted to see how U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby would rule later today on the state’s request for a stay.

Assist. Utah Attorney General Philip Lott had argued Monday that court should impose a stay because the order caught everyone by surprise and disrupted the status quo. And because the state will otherwise appeal, and all same-sex marriage licenses issued would be null and void, if decision is overturned.

Lott said there was "a cloud of uncertainty over the same-sex marriages currently taking place."

"No one wins, if Utah’s marriage laws are changed back and forth," he argued. "The status quo should remain in tact."

"There is a great irony in the fact that for Utah to be allowed to become a state, it was compelled by the federal government to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman."

He said that traditionally, marriage has been defined as a man and a woman and that "opposite sex marriage serves society’s interests."

Lott said Shelby in his ruling last week had "jumped the gun."

Shelby said to Lott: " We have a complicated state of affairs. We have people standing in clerk’s offices right now. And the 10th Circuit waiting to see how this court rules."

He asked the state that if he did not issue a permanent stay, would they accept a temporary stay, until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals can make a decision.

Peggy Tomsic, who represents three same-sex couples in the lawsuit that challenged Amendment 3, told the judge: "Fundamentally, the state is asking you to go backwards."

Tomsic argued that the state’s reasons for asking for a stay were no different than the reasons that initially used in previous arguments. She said that if those arguments were not compelling enough to win initially, they were not compelling enough to win a stay.

She called the state’s Monday presentation, "a repackaged and dressed up version of the arguments the court has already rejected."

"The status quo has changed," Tomsic added. "The cloud of confusion is in the minds of the state."

She noted that many licenses had been issued since Friday and couples continued to be married on Monday morning, even as the court hearing was proceeding.

"There is no cloud of confusion," Tomsic concluded. "There is a federal order explaining what the law in Utah is. Please do the right thing."

On Sunday, a federal appeals court rejected the state’s emergency request stay the ruling, saying it couldn’t rule on a stay since Shelby hasn’t acted on the motion before him.

But on Monday, acting state Attorney General Brian Tarbet filed an emergency request with a federal appeals court for a temporary stay to stop licenses from being issued.

Meanwhile across the state, same-sex couples were waiting in line as county clerks’ offices opened their doors on Monday morning, but some counties were refusing to issue marriage licenses.

At the Salt Lake County clerk’s office, the line for marriages wrapped around two floors, and there was an audible cheer when the door finally opened.

In Weber County, the first couple in line included a minister who had pushed to the front so he could get married and then officiate for others. Every time a couple leaves, license in hand, cheers erupt from those waiting outside. By 9 a.m., there were well over 100 people waiting in line for marriage licenses. The county had four desks issuing licenses, and had reportedly processed 35-40 by about 9:45 a.m.

Across the street at the Hilton, 44 marriages had been officiated in a conference room, as of 10 a.m.

The Summit County clerk’s office also was reportedly issuing licenses. And there were 25 gay couples in line early Monday in at the Davis County clerk’s office to be married, according to the Standard-Examiner.

But in Utah County, the clerk’s office was not issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and they turned away at least three couples. The clerk’s office issued a statement saying they were waiting for a ruling from Judge Shelby this morning, or clarification on his previous ruling from the Utah County Attorney’s Office and the Utah Attorney General’s Office.

In Cache County, the clerk’s office was closed "until further notice," according to a statement issued by the county on Monday. The statement said the office was closed "to sort out the legal issues and confusion created in the wake of Judge Shelby’s opinion." The statement noted that Gov. Gary Herbert had affirmed that the state would seek a stay of Shelby’s order.

And in Box Elder County, where no gay couples had attempted to get a license and two sheriff’s officers stood near the doors, officials said they would not issue a license if anyone tried. A staffer said the office did not want to violate state statues. They will take applications, but don’t plan to issue licenses.

Carbon and Wayne counties also were not issuing same-sex marriage licenses, both saying they were waiting to see how Shelby rules on the stay request.

There were 22 couples married before 9 a.m. at the Washington County clerk’s office, according to the Spectrum. And in Uintah County, three marriage licenses were issued, according to The Vernal Express.

The Grand County clerk’s office was reportedly prepared to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but no one had requested one as of about 9:30 a.m.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints released a statement Monday regarding Judge Shelby’s ruling on Friday legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah:

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs who sued the state over Amendment 3, which banned same-sex marriages, say Shelby already found the law harmed gay couples and demeaned their children. That harm would be extended if a stay is granted, particularly given that more than 100 marriage licenses were issued on Friday to same-sex couples.

"The status quo in Utah is that same-sex couples are marrying and their marriages must be recognized," attorney Peggy A. Tomsic said in the plaintiffs’ response.

A stay would harm couples who want to marry but haven’t yet had a chance to do so, Tomsic said, and would allow the state to continue to violate same-sex couples’ constitutional rights.

That "cannot be considered a legitimate public interest," Tomsic said in her response. And the state has not shown how it will be harmed "in any meaningful way" if the order remains in place, she said.

The state wanted the emergency stay in place to "preserve the status quo" and prevent county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Monday morning, while they wait to hear what Shelby decides.

On Saturday, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert advised county clerks to check with their attorney, council or commission about how to handle requests from same-sex couples for marriage licenses while Shelby weighs the stay request.

But Cliff Rosky, a University of Utah law professor and Equality Utah board member, said without a stay in place the clerks have only one option: Issue licenses.

"Right now there is a federal court order that stops the state from enforcing Amendment Three," he said. "County clerks, anyone in the state, is bound to comply with a federal court order. If they refuse to issue a license to a same-sex couple, they are in contempt of court."

Rosky became an ordained minister over the weekend and plans to be at the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office at 8 a.m. to perform wedding ceremonies at the request of same-sex couples who get a license. About 20 people were lined up in front of the county complex’s doors as of 10 p.m. Sunday.

"It’s like Black Friday for gay people," said MickieVee Cochrane, one of the women in line.

Park City government sent a tweet saying Mayor Dana Williams will be at the Summit County courthouse at 8 a.m. to officiate.

But the state will urge Shelby to follow the example set in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted a stay while opponents of same-sex marriage appealed a decision that found California’s ban on such unions unconstitutional.

"The only potential harm plaintiffs may suffer if a stay is granted is, at most, a delay in their ability to marry in Utah or, in the case of an out-of-state marriage, recognition of that marriage," the state says in its motion. "Granting the stay simply preserves the status quo."

In her response, Tomsic said that "trivializes" the situation of same-sex couples in Utah, including plaintiffs Karen Archer and Kate Call. They were legally married in Iowa, but Utah does not recognize that marriage.

The pair "are facing the real and patent risk that Karen will not survive long enough for an appeal court to reach a decision on this court’s ruling," Tomsic wrote. "A delay for these plaintiffs would be tragic and not a mere inconvenience."

The state argues that Shelby’s decision is at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, neither of which have "issued a decision holding that the constitutional right to marry encompasses same-sex marriage."

Moreover, the only circuit court to rule on the issue has upheld the constitutionality of a traditional definition of marriage, the state says.

Other courts also have concluded that "opposite-sex" marriage serves a legitimate interest in regulating sexual relationships "so that the unique procreative capacity of those relationships benefits rather than harms society."

In addition, traditional marriages increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable family units with a biological mother and father, the state argues.

In his ruling Friday, Shelby said none of those arguments was compelling and found Utah’s ban violated the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples who want to marry.

Tomsic said that courts that have considered the issue since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor have refused to stay their rulings.

— Tribune reporters Jim Dalrymple II, Jessica Miller, Erin Alberty and Matt Canham, as well as Lennie Mahler and the Associated Press, contributed to this story.

[jwhitlock]

Just to be clear... it's okay for you to demonize a sub-group of gays by claiming that it's their goal to take away our religious freedom but it's wrong for me to correctly state that our church's efforts in support of Prop 8 removed legally recognized gay marriage in California?  And to correctly identify that as oppression of a minority?

 

What you call judicial fiat is actually just an interpretation of the constitution that differs from your own.

 

I have not seen where you have demonstrated that SSM is problematic.  If you'd like to point me to your concerns, I'll respond.

 

Have you read the anti-Mormon sentiments expressed by gays during the Prop 8 debate and then after it? I would challenge you to find anything equivalent from the LDS side.

 

You seem to think that it's ok for your agenda to be supported via judicial fiat, but it's not fair for the people to express their will in correcting that fiat. I fail how you can stretch your claim of persecution and oppression of a minority when judges provide special privileges above the rights of others to a minority group, and civic minded people then try to reassert appropriate direction to the government through a referendum. Given what really happened your mis-characterization of us as oppressors and persecutors is simply unfounded and hyperbolic.

 

Judicial fiat is a judge overruling the will of the people in any particular case. It's happening quite often in this country now as judges dictate law in defiance of the clear constitutional separation of duties. "Interpretation of the constitution" has been extensively abused by them to the point that the constitution has been effectively shredded as a document; it only means what some judge "interprets" it to mean, which often bears no connection to reality.

 

Otherwise, read the thread. My original comments are back on the second page, if I remember. I've been fairly clear about my concerns, and no one from the SSM cheerleading side has made any cogent response. All I've gotten is ridicule, misdirection, dismissiveness, and non-acknowledgement of them.

[jwhitlock]

Are you willing to stand by this argument if someone chose to apply it to LDS temples?

 

Temple marriage is something designed only to appeal to a very small demographic group, which makes it a privilege.  Temple worthy Mormons could still be married in any other church like the rest of the population.  Therefore, we shouldn't have legally recognized temple marriages.

 

You look at SSM and see a demand for a special privilege.  I see a minority asking for the equality of being able to legally marry the person they love.  Something I took for granted when I dated and, ultimately, took my wife to the temple.

 

Of course, this is an invalid comparison. Temple sealings are not regulated by the government nor are they legally recognized by the government.

[jwhitlock]

I agree with you, SS, insofar as government coercion is concerned. My intent was to suggest that my freedom of religion doesn't mean they my religious freedom is being violated by being exposed to other religious ideas (and potentially criticism) in the public/social realm. My religious freedom is not being violated if someone wishes me Merry Christmas, or tells me that God says homosexuality is a sin, or that God says homosexuality is fine. In a social sense, freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from other people expressing their religious beliefs, including criticism of mine, and even encouraging me (within reasonable limits) to change mine--which is what both LDS missionaries AND members of Affirmation do.

 

Again, you need to refrain from misdirecting this into a "social pressure" thing. We're not talking about that. We're talking about legal pressure.

[ERayR]

Are you willing to stand by this argument if someone chose to apply it to LDS temples?

 

Temple marriage is something designed only to appeal to a very small demographic group, which makes it a privilege.  Temple worthy Mormons could still be married in any other church like the rest of the population.  Therefore, we shouldn't have legally recognized temple marriages.

 

You look at SSM and see a demand for a special privilege.  I see a minority asking for the equality of being able to legally marry the person they love.  Something I took for granted when I dated and, ultimately, took my wife to the temple.

 

And I see a special interest group trying to redefine marriage.  As I understand it, it is not the temple marriage that is legally recognized.  It is the legal recognition, by the state, of the authority granted to the clergy to perform marriages.

[jwhitlock]

Why is nobody able to successfully make JWhitlock's argument in front of these judges?  Crazy activists and their insistence on constitutional liberties.

 

Ever been before a judge who won't allow certain arguments? It's evident with the updates Daniel is gleefully posting here that the judiciary has their mind made up about this and they're going to mandate this by denying motions on technicalities. Any responsible judiciary would recognize that this fiat ruling has far reaching effects, and would impose a review period in order to make sure all aspects are considered. But that's not what's happening here. It's been foisted on the state of Utah, which is scrambling to respond the best it can, and the judiciary is making full abusive use of its powers to quash opposition to this.

 

It's disgusting and pathetic purely as a demonstration of the judicial abuse of power - something everyone should be concerned about. But hey - SSM are getting their way, so cheers all around!

[jwhitlock]

Wait... is it your position that it was wrong for the government to interfere in our practice of polygamy?

 

Try hard to not over-interpret my response for me. The example was given in response to the claim that government doesn't interfere in marriage.

[Stone holm]

Try hard to not over-interpret my response for me. The example was given in response to the claim that government doesn't interfere in marriage.

 

And that wasn't interference in marriage?  Trying to follow the logic here.

[jwhitlock]

In reading what Daniel has posted about Shelby's ruling (and I do appreciate that lengthy article in #179), it's apparent that Shelby is just parroting SSM activist talking points, and dismissing some very valid concerns from the state of Utah out of hand. Not a good reflection on our judicial system.

[jwhitlock]

And that wasn't interference in marriage?  Trying to follow the logic here.

 

Then re-read the posts.

[jwhitlock]

I will mention in passing that it is indeed ironic (as mentioned in the article that Daniel posted) that the federal government, which persecuted the church until it agreed to marriage being between one man and one woman, now is going to be persecuting the church for not recognizing gay marriages. I wonder when activist judge Shelby is going to recognize the inconsistency of the government's position, and order the government to compensate the church - with interest - for what it did in the nineteenth century.

 

In the meantime, I'm not going to hold my breath. This whole thing is spinning out of control and is going to result in a huge legal mess. That's what we get when special agendas start to rule the judicial docket.

[Daniel2]

Again, you need to refrain from misdirecting this into a "social pressure" thing. We're not talking about that. We're talking about legal pressure.

You mean by Affirmation?

If so, CFR on legal pressure that Affirmation has applied on the LDS church.

Daniel

[Daniel2]

Try hard to not over-interpret my response for me. The example was given in response to the claim that government doesn't interfere in marriage.

CFR that anyone has claimed that "government doesn't interfere with marriage."

Ironic that you're requesting others not to "over interpret" your comments when it appears that's exactly what you did, with mine. The government clearly prohibits certain types of marriages. What I said it's never done is FORCE any religion to PERFORM a marriage. The difference is enormous.

[jwhitlock]

You mean by Affirmation?

If so, CFR on legal pressure that Affirmation has applied on the LDS church.

Daniel

 

This is rich. I say that there is a high probability that groups like Affirmation will apply legal pressure on the church, and you want a CFR that they've already done it.

 

Try again.

[jwhitlock]

CFR that anyone has claimed that "government doesn't interfere with marriage."

 

Your post #156:

 

"Social pressure by religious gay groups like Affirmation should not be confused with the government finding any legitimacy to forcing a religion to marry individuals against their religious beliefs. That has never happened (i.e. interracial and mixed Faith marriages), and, I believe, never will."

[Daniel2]

Your post #156:

 

"Social pressure by religious gay groups like Affirmation should not be confused with the government finding any legitimacy to forcing a religion to marry individuals against their religious beliefs. That has never happened (i.e. interracial and mixed Faith marriages), and, I believe, never will."

My post doesn't say what you claim it says (see my previous edited post, which double - crossed your response).

[jwhitlock]

My post doesn't say what you claim it says (see my previous edited post, which double - crossed your response).

 

So are you saying that government does interfere with marriage, and that it's a real possibility that the government will bring legal pressure to bear against the church to accept gay marriages and perform gay sealings?

 

Edited to add:

 

And the point is that if the government can do what it did to the church, it can also force the church to perform marriages for gays. After all, LDS leaders who perform marriages and sealings are licensed by the state, and the state has - as I noted in a previous post - set precedent for demanding that anyone it licenses provide those licensed services to ALL people - including gays.

[Daniel2]

This is rich. I say that there is a high probability that groups like Affirmation will apply legal pressure on the church, and you want a CFR that they've already done it.

 

Try again.

So, gay marriage has been legal and coexisted alongside lds temple marriage for over 10 years within the United States. I'm unaware of Affirmation attempting ANY legal pressure on the LDS church so far.

What evidence do you have that there is a "high probability" that will change?

[jwhitlock]

So, gay marriage has been legal and coexisted alongside lds temple marriage for over 10 years within the United States. I'm unaware of Affirmation attempting ANY legal pressure on the LDS church so far.

What evidence do you have that there is a "high probability" that will change?

 

Because they will now have a legal bludgeon available right in the state of Utah.

 

I've already noted that gay rights groups have a very clear history of using every legal channel available to them in punishing those who disagree with them. Affirmation's web site states clearly that its goal is to make everything the church offers available to gays - no exceptions.

 

The only thing that they may be waiting for is the feds to finally regulate SSM as the law of the land. Then again, since a federal judge has already overstepped his bounds in this case, they may be emboldened enough to make a try for it now.

[Daniel2]

So are you saying that government does interfere with marriage, and that it's a real possibility that the government will bring legal pressure to bear against the church to accept gay marriages and perform gay sealings?

No--that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Try hard to not over-interpret my response for me. ;-)

Although it licenses others to do so:

The government doesn't force religions to marry interracial couples.

It doesn't force religions to marry mixed-religion couples.

It doesn't force religions to marry divorcees.

It doesn't force religions to marry people who don't meet their membership requirements.

It doesn't force religions to serve alcohol.

It doesn't force religions to stay open on Sunday.

There is NO evidence that supports the Chicken Little notion that our government will force any religion to perform same-sex marriages.

And the point is that if the government can do what it did to the church, it can also force the church to perform marriages for gays. After all, LDS leaders who perform marriages and sealings are licensed by the state, and the state has - as I noted in a previous post - set precedent for demanding that anyone it licenses provide those licensed services to ALL people - including gays.

I haven't seen any evidence where the state has set a precedent of demanding that anyone who is able to provide a license be required to do so. I've never seen the state force any clergy member to perform a marriage ceremony against their beliefs. Consider this another CFR for your claim about the state.

[jwhitlock]

The government doesn't force religions to marry interracial couples. It doesn't force religions to marry mixed-religion couples. It doesn't force religions to marry divorcees. It doesn't force religions who don't meet their membership requirements. There is NO evidence that supports the Chicken Little notion that our government will force any religion to perform same-sex marriages.

I haven't seen any evidence where the state has set a precedent of demanding that anyone who is able to provide a license be required to do so. I've never seen the state force any clergy member to perform a marriage ceremony against their beliefs. Consider this another CFR for your claim about the state.

 

Oh please. Though your side pooh-poohs the lawsuits filed against pharmacists, for instanced (licensed by the state, BTW) that have forced them to provide services they object to on religious grounds, those things do set a precedent. Perhaps you're not aware, but any professional licensed by the state must provide those services to people as directed by state law. And if state law concerning marriage between a man and a woman has been struck down, those licensed to perform marriages can be sued to perform those services for anyone. I've been licensed in another profession (no longer am); if I had refused to provide my licensed service to gays, then it would have been my head on the block. In reality, I had no problem doing that and rather enjoyed the diversity of people - including gays - that I came in contact with.

 

The licensing issue is a fact. You have to provide the service under the structure of what state law tells you to do. If you are licensed to marry people, then you have to provide it to all people under the particular definition of marriage in the jurisdiction you operate in. While you may sniff at the idea that such things will ever override religious freedom, the government has a very poor track record in keeping any kind of reasonable perspective when it comes to religion, from my experience. That is especially the case when some favored interest group finds a sympathetic activist judge that is only too willing to "interpret" the law (as Shelby has done) in helping them further their agenda. And while gays can always find someone to marry them, that's not going to be good enough. Someone is going to want to force a Mormon bishop or temple sealer to marry them, and since they're licensed, they may be forced to do so or lose their license.

 

So there you go. Not particularly unreasonable as a scenario. Government hasn't been particularly trustworthy when it comes to keeping "religious exemptions" intact, so I won't be surprised at all when the bludgeon comes out.

[rockpond]

Of course, this is an invalid comparison. Temple sealings are not regulated by the government nor are they legally recognized by the government.

 

Temple sealers are licensed to perform legally recognized marriages.  Under your logic this is a special privilege and therefore falls outside of constitutional protections.