Dauric wrote:Not in that way though. Priests can do whatever they want, they're authorized to perform the ceremony but there's a purely secular government position authorized to do the same called a "Justice of the Peace". Before the ceremony can take place though is issuance of the license which is a purely governmental function, and in Texas the Attorney General is backing county clerks in not issuing the licences, not priests, secular government employees demanding 'religious accommodation'.
In The Netherlands something like this was a compromise for the first decade that we had gay marriage. Civil servants were allowed to refuse to marry gay couples*. That was clearly unfair, but it wasn't a huge deal, since there were always plenty of civil servants around who had no objections to perform the ceremony. And most gay couples do not want to be married by someone opposing their lifestyle anyway. The non-christian parties got rid of the compromise in 2011 (The Christian Democratic Party was in power from 2002 to 2010, so they couldn't do it earlier). But by then gay marriage had become so utterly normal that no one really cared about it anymore.
I don't know how things work in the US. Would such a compromise work? If a country clerk refuses to issue you a license, can you just go to another clerk, or is that not possible? It's not exactly fair, but it might help as a compromise.
* Marriage in The Netherlands works a bit differently than in the states. The legal marriage is actually performed by the state. Originally, marriages were performed by the church, and this is still the case. So for religious folk a marriage typically has two parts. First they marry for the church (which they consider to be the real marriage) and then they sneak off to the city hall to quickly sign the actual marriage papers. Some non-religious people copy this pattern, with a ceremony of their choosing instead of the church ceremony. Others promote the legal marriage to a full ceremony.