The Non-Establishment Clause requires no less, as does a functioning society. Many churches do not recognize marriages performed by a justice of the peace, let alone common law marriage, for good reason. I am told that couples in TX are legally married if they live together for six months and either says they are married with the knowledge but not denial of the other. Few churches consider that marriage, but the law does, with all pursuant rights, privileges and obligations (and TX is a community property state.) Just as obviously the Christian Church does not recognize Muslim marriages, Islam does not recognize Hindu marriages etc. etc. The law recognizes each of them, because it concerns itself with law, not religion, as the Constitution requires.


No, but the Equal Protection Clause would still require tolerance of them. No one is demanding the law force religious acceptance regardless; churches are, as always, free to marry anyone they like, or not—except, of course, federal and most state laws do not recognize gay marriages even when performed by churches. What does the Non-Establishment Clause say about that?

This whole debate is a stunning study in cognitive dissonance: The "Keep Big Brother out of my life and pocket" brigade demands government tell everyone whom they can marry. Authoritarian government is bad precisely because individuals cannot pick WHICH authority is in charge or hold it accountable.