You are an idiot. And I hate to say it, but in this case, Simon is as well.No, they can't. The right to religious freedom does not and should not place the particulars of religious doctrine above secular law. You cannot ban something because it is religious doctrine, but something does not have to be legal just because your imaginary friend says it should be.
Their hearts are in the right place, but their methods are dangerous.
Here is what it boils down to, and the argument the UCC is likely to actually make.
A) When it comes to religious liberty, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny, a law must pass the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), the three prongs of which are as follows:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)
B) The ban on gay marriage was done for religious reasons, and there is no other secular purpose.
C) Even if there was, the primary effect is to enshrine the religious doctrine WRT of one theological group into law, to the exclusion of others.
D) And, even if C is not found to strictly hold, bans on gay marriage still result in excessive entanglement. Even if religious discrimination is not the law's primary effect, it is a secondary effect that fails to meet the third prong of Lemon
Alternatively, they could combine a First Amendment argument with a 14th amendment argument as follows.
A2) Strict Scrutiny applies when the government seeks to discriminate on the basis of religion or religious practice. The requirements for passing Strict Scrutiny are as follows:
1. There must be a compelling government interest
2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal or interest with minimal knock-down effects
3. It must be the least restrictive means available
B2) Bans on gay marriage discriminate on the basis of religious doctrine WRT marriage recognition. One sacrament is valid, the same sacrament performed by a different faith is not valid, based soley on religious doctrine.
C2) There is no compelling government interest in doing so that is not a tautology or based on animus, which is ipso facto not a valid purpose.
D2) Even if there was, banning gay marriage does not serve that interest and is thus not adequately
tailored narrowly. For example, if the goal is to provide an adequate family life for children, gay
parents can do so just as well as straight parents, and thus the law is not narrowly tailored
E2) Banning gay marriage, even in the event that some interest is served, is not the least restrictive
means available. The government could institute a parenting course program, make divorce more
difficult, or do any number of other things that are less restrictive with respect to religious practice.
If it were me, I would argue both simultaneously. Both are perfectly valid arguments, in point of fact, and there is NOTHING saying that they have to pick.
