The point of the First Amendment is that we cannot force one religion's dogma onto the entire population. It is not to exclude religion from public life. It is to prevent one brand from being forced on everyone else.
I agree, but it was written so that the government would not establish a religion thus imposing that religion on everyone and outlawing the rest.
The problem with gay marriage is not that we have two people of the same gender who want to marry. The problem is that we have demanded our government become deeply involved in the institution of marriage. We demand all sorts of special privileges to be given to married people. We want exceptions, credits, subsidies, and privileges to be bestowed upon those whom the State deems as "married".
Actually no, marriage was controlled by the state so one person would not marry their cousin. It also limited the number of women a man could marry in a time when women were scares. Used to be a blood test was required to be married. Marriage also was designed to protect the woman. There is also financial consideration in marriage, gay marriage is no different.
In short, we surrendered the definition of "marriage" to the State. What some dunderheads can't get through their heads is this is about the STATE's definition of marriage and not their brand of religion's definition. The outcome of the State's definition affects only secular, earthly things. It has no effect on Jesus or Budda or Allah whatsoever.
Agreed again. But who gets to decide the legal definition? In all I have heard the marriage between two people of the same sex has been rejected when the people have had the option to choose. So what happens is the issue is no longer brought to the people it is done back door, so to speak. So what if the reason for the majority to reject the redefinition of marriage over moral grounds?
Our Constitution forbids the State from irrationally discriminating against a group of people. There has to be a rational reason for them to be excluded from the protections of the law.
No one is irrationally discriminating against any group. That would be the same as the government has no right to investigate a militant militia group. (not comparing the two) Rational to one person is not necessarily rational to another. There are moral, civil and monetary consideration in changing the definition of marriage.
No one has ever been able provide a rational explanation why gays should be excluded from the laws which allow for a married tax return or for Social Security survivor benefits or for lower inheritance taxes for spouses.
Assuming it would be possible to supply a rational explanation here are some:
It Is Not Marriage as has been defined by law an in the court.
It Violates Natural Law. the natural law is not just reserved for the religious. It is a fact that man is government first by the natural law. How else does a child know it is wrong to steal?
A family has traditionally been a man and a woman in gay marriage the child is denied either a father or a mother
Gay marriage, and I believe this to be the true goal, validates and promotes homosexual lifestyle.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It turns a moral decision into a right and where does that stop? Hate to use the canard, but in so doing puts us on a very slippery slope. It will be argued that there is no slippery slope. That just because gay marriage is made lawful doesn't mean other forms of sexual behavior will not. I never thought that gay marriage would ever be an issue an look were we are today. So never say never. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, to compare it to the issue of interracial, heterosexual marriage is not only misleading it is demeaning.
Naturally no off spring can come from a gay union which can be argued is not good for society.
There are benefits that the state has given to promote marriage. There are reason for promoting these benefits, to society.
Acceptance is imposed on all of society with the redefinition of marriage. This can easily be demonstrated by the FORCING of a cake maker to go against his religiously held beliefs. Which would seem like a first amendment issue.
Spouses as defined by the STATE, not by your brand of religion.
And what has been the traditional and the definition upheld by the citizens of the state when they were allowed to decide? NO, what we are seeing is the minority imposing their will on society. The will of the people, as has been amply shown, is not being upheld.
On the other hand, a Church should be able to exclude from employment anyone who violates their dogma and wishes to be employed within the bounds of their Church.
Does that mean a RC does not have to make a cake for a gay wedding?
A religous employer is not automatically within the bounds of a Church, and it is often quite sticky finding where that line is.
