Kentucky Clerks Refuse to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

[Skylar]

Homosexual "marriage" ?

What a comical contrivance

And you're more than welcome to believe that. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians are having their marriages recognized by the law.

Everyone wins!

 

[Skylar]

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

 

[martybegan]

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

You say they don't violate the 1st because someone else said so, not because of anything you have written about.

 

[koshergrl]

Four

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

Four members of the SCOTUS happen to agree. But don't let that stop you.

 

[koshergrl]

"Roberts disparaged the majority decision by saying that it was nothing more than a flimsy argument.
"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society," Roberts wrote. "If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law."

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

 

[koshergrl]

""Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

 

[Skylar]

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

You say they don't violate the 1st because someone else said so, not because of anything you have written about.

You have your personal opinion, which you're more than welcome to. But what relevance does your personal opinion have with the real world?

Again, what is there to refute? Your entire argument can be countered by grunting noises: 'uh-uh'. As you have nothing but you citing you. Which is objectively meaningless.

 

[koshergrl]

"Scalia stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy." Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent."
Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

 

[koshergrl]

"... "at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built."
"Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."
"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexual "marriage" ?

What a comical contrivance

Your right- as contrived as 'mixed race marriage'

There is only marriage- regardless of the race or gender of the couple getting married.

 

[koshergrl]

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

You say they don't violate the 1st because someone else said so, not because of anything you have written about.

You have your personal opinion, which you're more than welcome to. But what relevance does your personal opinion have with the real world?

Again, what is there to refute? Your entire argument can be countered by grunting noises: 'uh-uh'. As you have nothing but you citing you. Which is objectively meaningless.

I'm providing the relevance, progressive puke.

 

[Syriusly]

"Scalia stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy." Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent."
Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

Scalia is entitled to his minority opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

You say they don't violate the 1st because someone else said so, not because of anything you have written about.

You have your personal opinion, which you're more than welcome to. But what relevance does your personal opinion have with the real world?

Again, what is there to refute? Your entire argument can be countered by grunting noises: 'uh-uh'. As you have nothing but you citing you. Which is objectively meaningless.

I'm providing the relevance, progressive puke.

The relevance of a Nazi promoting Conservative.

 

[Syriusly]

Four

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

Four members of the SCOTUS happen to agree. But don't let that stop you.

5 members of the Supreme Court agreed on the legal opinion of the court.

The minority opinions of the court are interesting side notes but have no legal relevance.

Meanwhile- Americans in love are getting married in all 50 states- isn't it wonderful?

 

[martybegan]

Four

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.

In the law there is an authority.

And its not your personal opinion....which is all you've offered us. I don't agree that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. You do.

And? When your entire argument is nothing but your personal opinion, citing yourself......what is there to refute?

Four members of the SCOTUS happen to agree. But don't let that stop you.

5 members of the Supreme Court agreed on the legal opinion of the court.

The minority opinions of the court are interesting side notes but have no legal relevance.

Meanwhile- Americans in love are getting married in all 50 states- isn't it wonderful?

next you get to ruin religious freedom, and eventually freedom of thought. Is that great as well?

And considering I disagree with the method of getting SSM recognized and not the outcome, you can stop with the "but you hate teh gays" before you start it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Homosexual "marriage" ?

What a comical contrivance

Your right- as contrived as 'mixed race marriage'

There is only marriage- regardless of the race or gender of the couple getting married.

No "couples" necessary. Groups , animals, inanimate objects.....

As long as its "love". Lol

 

[Agit8r]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

 

[koshergrl]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

Wrong again, as usual.

Marriage as religious ritual and marriage as contract law evolved concurrently, where the Obergefell Court addressed solely marriage as contract law in the context of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, having no bearing whatsoever on marriage as religious ritual.

Your idiotic, unfounded notion that Obergefell will somehow ‘adversely effect’ religion is another one of your moronic lies.

 

[Agit8r]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

Except that marriage is a civil matter that religion has inserted itself into. Not vice versa.

That's not true..marriage was a religious matter that the state inserted itself into.

That is not remotely true. If you look at the Old Testament, there was no "traditional marriage." Men bought and sold women like chattels. There wasn't even a special word for husband or wife. Merely man and woman.
We don't see references to marriage in any modern sense in the Middle Eastern traditions until that region was subjected to the Roman state.

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Unless we are to believe that modern marriage is based on the Pagan beliefs, which seems unlikely given their inherent non-uniformity.