From a netfriend:

In the Pew Forum survey of religion and homosexuality in the USA, on-line at http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39 : “Since 1973, the General Social Survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, has been tracking whether Americans believe sexual relations between adults of the same sex are always wrong, almost always wrong, sometimes wrong, or not wrong at all. The most recent wave of the GSS in 2002 found a slight majority (53%) saying that homosexual relations are always wrong, down from 74% as recently as 1987. The proportion saying homosexual relations are not wrong at all has nearly tripled, from 12% to 32%, over the same time span.”

But the substantial decline since then is due less to older people changing their minds than to the increasing impact of younger people who are relatively unprejudiced, a trend which seems likely to continue (see the images in the Pew survey) towards the current situation in Western Europe. Now it seems unlikely that homosexuality itself is very different in different parts of the world, so it must be the public perception that is different, and has been evolving in at least some cases. As I suggested earlier, this shift of opinion follows the smuch more open discussion of this issue in the countries concerned, and appears to reflect a more thoughtful approach replacing a knee-jerk reaction.

Until recently, most people had very stereotyped ideas abut homosexuals, believing them typically to be effeminate, flamboyant men and assertive, unfeminine women. But the media have revealed not only just how inaccurate these images are, but also the diversity of heterosexuals’ own intimate behaviour, so that homosexuals and heterosexuals are recognised to have virtually everything in common except their sexual orientation. It is no accident that the Swiss cantons where a small majority opposed same-sex marriage are predominantly rural and off the beaten track.

It seems to me that you have to distinguish between the religious and civil aspects of marriage. Of course, people with strong religious beliefs will expect to be able to celebrate their marriage by the appropriate religious ceremony. But in a democratic state no particular religion can have a monopoly, entitling it to impose its beliefs and procedures on other believers and non-believers. That would obviously be intolerable, and so the State must provide a non-religious ‘civil’ marriage procedure which alone is recognised by the State’s administration as conclusive proof of the change of status. In many States, these two procedures are kept separate, but if that is not the case, then again there must be no monopoly or discrimination, and therefore every religious (and humanist or lay moral) group must be equally able to appoint ‘State marriage officers’ with the same powers and duties.

Same-sex marriage would then be no more than another case where different religious and non-religious groups agree to differ on the precise rule-book. Such differences already include the status of divorcees, possibly depending on whether the former partner is alive, degrees of kinship etc. In practice, couples already have to be aware of the potential incompatibilities, and find whatever solution is most suitable for any problems that do in fact arise. Same-sex partners are inevitably liable to find problems in obtaining recognition of their status when in other jurisdictions, but somehow I don’t think that will deter many of them.

Regards,