Although many religious groups do not recognize same-gender marriages, many others now honor those marriages. And even more denominations allow clergy in local areas to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies.

While the decision frees the supportive denominations to perform same-gender marriages, it does not force any religious group to change its theology or traditions. The decision made the court’s position clear on this point:

“Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)”

I agree with the court that marriage is both a legal right and a sacred rite. I believe in preserving the boundaries between religion and government, and this opinion recognizes the important differences between the legal requirements for the civil institution of marriage and the theological requirements for the religious institution of marriage.

I also agree with the court that “the right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people,” as established by the Constitution and international law in several treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

The Interfaith Alliance stands for faith and freedom, and this opinion honors and strengthens both.