Gay Marriage Infringes on Religious Freedom

Many supporters of gay marriage use the separation of Church and State argument when explaining why same sex unions should be legalised. They argue that religious views on marriage, and religious laws, should not influence state legislation, especially in secular societies. However gay marriage proponents forget two well known truths:

1. that our laws were influenced by religious articles like the Ten Commandments; that the monotheistic faiths have had a very important hand in building the basic structures of law and order that keep nations like Australia and America stable and free from anarchy.
2. That separation of Church and State works both ways. The government is prohibited from creating a state based religion. No man may be discriminated against based on his chosen religion, or even if he chooses to have no religion.

This is true. But it also applies the other way. Government may not interfere in the running of the church. That includes interfering in the conducting of services, altering rules that make up the dogma and tenets of that church, and forcing the church to abide by laws that contradict it's own rules and infringe upon it's freedoms.  

In fact, the original notion of a separation was intended to protect not the people from a tyrannical theocracy, but to protect the Church from an interventionist and tyrannical government. Legalisation of gay marriage would wipe away this basic tenet of Western freedom. If gay marriage were to be legalised across the whole of America, the whole of Australia, (not civil unions, but full marriage rights) that would mean churches would lose the right to practice their faith free from government interference. Government legislation would dictate who they can and MUST allow to marry. Any church that refuses could, and most definitely would, be sued.

The Christian belief, that marriage is between a man and a woman only, would be trumped, stamped out and swallowed up by government busy-bodies. Essentially, the State interfering in the Church. As a Christian I find it hard to stomach that atheists and other alleged champions of "rights" and "freedoms" think these precious things only apply to themselves and other non-religious types.

Places like North Korea show us that atheist societies can be just as oppressive as theocracies. It's an example of what a fine line there is between the giving of a right to one group and the taking of a right from another. Lovers of freedom - atheist and theist alike - can only hope that current and future politicians keep in mind all whose rights are likely to be effected by changes to marriage laws.