There’s great truth in this brief segment of an interesting post,
…the majesty of the law can grant access to public benefits; it cannot guarantee that your neighbour will shake your hand and invite you to a barbeque. If gays and lesbians still feel socially marginalised after legalisation, what then? Will there be laws to enforce cheery smiles?
It might sound far-fetched but it’s worth a little more consideration. The current push is not about “equality” (since there is no single legal right that is not currently available under civil partnerships – and if you think that’s wrong then do let us know what additional legal right would be provided) but, rather, it’s state-enforced moral equivalence. The push is on to make people accept a certain view of morality.
Now that’s not necessarily wrong, of course. We take that view on murder etc but we do think it’s ok in a free society for someone (within certain bounds) to say “I think murder is not necessarily morally wrong”. Nevertheless there are good cogent logical reasons for having the murder law the way it is.
For “gay marriage”, however, new legislation means redefinition in the form of reducing marriage all the way down to a lowest common denominator of “love” and then nevertheless placing unsupportable and inconsistent restrictions on others being part of the same contract. It represents the culmination of a massive shift in our expressed societal understanding, even if many of our society don’t actually understand what’s being expressed.
I genuinely think you could open a book on how long it will take before someone is incarcerated for refusing to affirm a “gay marriage” since, in good conscience, they think it’s just a logical contradiction in terms (as it is). We already have moral approbation in sections, led by our Prime Minister, how long till it’s judicial as well?