Firstly, the problematic quote:
Creative Minority Report, writes:
"This is a sham, a p.r. ploy designed to cut off debate. Passing a new law protecting churches is all well and good but wasn't there a federal law stating that marriage was between a man an a woman? Wasn't there a statewide referendum declaring marriage between a man and a woman? Those laws were simply overturned by judges who are the real law of the land. This "law" should be an offense to environmentalists because all the paper used for that bill was completely wasted because a judge will simply overturn it.
This "law" is simply a way to shut up those upholding traditional marriage. When proponents of traditional marriage (can you believe marriage needs an adjective now?) say that gay marriage leads to the recognition of polyamorous marriages, they're scoffed at. They're scoffed at because proponents of gay marriage have no other answer than to scoff and mock. But the gay marriage ruling isn't really a ruling about gay marriage. It's a legal redactor. It really erases the definition of marriage and says that anyone and everyone can have their own definition of marriage. Or to look at it the other way it makes marriage meaningless. Anarchi-marriage.
The judge says it's about the rights of the individual to decide what marriage is. But if it's a right how can a priest or clergy deny an individual their rights? So this law passed by the California legislature will be law until it's not. It will have served its purpose which is to cut off argument that churches will be punished for not performing gay marriages...until it's time to punish churches that don't perform gay marriage."Matthew Archbold writing for Creative Minority Report (Catholic special interests coverage; Independent of the state; American Based; Republican special interests coverage)27 / 08 | August / 2010
In South Africa Gay Civil Unions are a de jure right given by the state, and there is the accompanying Freedom of Religion and Expression right, to choose not to partake in the ceremony!
Granted, the judge clearly was making an activist decision, given his disregard of comity- openly attacking Vatican guidelines as "harmful" to homosexuals according to reports, and taking other views, which seem not to be application of law, but of some personal special interests, but activist decisions have a tendency to be overturned, at least in systems where the judiciary are respected. Further, many places with homosexual civil unions, also permit conscientious objections: allowing people to refuse to partake in ceremonies, which is their religious and freedom of expression right. Activism goes only so far.