Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What a disingenuous piece of crap. "We aren't banning the sale of automobiles. Only automobiles with engines."
You ever actually read any of the so-called gay marriage bans?
Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
But hey, don't let that stop your strawman arguements...
Which of course banned Same-sex Civil Marriage in California with it's passage.
>>>>
You ever actually read any of the so-called gay marriage bans?
But hey, don't let that stop your strawman arguements...
Which of course banned Same-sex Civil Marriage in California with it's passage.
>>>>
It doesn't ban anything you moron. All it says is the state won't recognize. Anyone can still get married by whatever church is willing to do gay marriages. It doesn't criminalize or ban anything.
Of course anyone can have any opinion that they want and thank you for a respectful and well articulated OP.
1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.
Whether Traditional Marriage was the cause or a by-product of a desire to discriminate against LGBT citizens of the United States is pretty irrelevant to an examination of current discriminatory laws and a decision as to whether there is a compelling government interest in continuing said discrimination.
I agree, legislation cannot correct discrimination in the past. However it can prevent the continuance of discrimination.
2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Again I agree. The ONLY purpose for legalizing Same-sex Civil Marriage is to place into effect an end to government discrimination without a compelling government interest. If the government is going to award Civil Marriage licenses, then there should be a compelling government interest in denying like situated groups.
If you were to do some research, you can find that groups opposing the legalization of Same-sex Civil Marriage have been airing ads which use scare tactics with the idea that voting to approve Same-sex Civil Marriage would lead to average citizen businesses having the right to discriminate (as in choose to service a customer or not) removed. Actually that has nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage. For example the School Counselor in the ad, the VT Bed & Breakfast, The Photographer, etc... Pssst - those cases have nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage as the complaints were filed under existing Public Accommodation Laws, not Marriage laws.
I support the removal of Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses as I think they (IMHO) are contrary to the United States Constitutions 1st Amendment and the right of assembly. Part of the right of assembly is not only choosing who you wish to assemble with, but also choosing who you choose not to assemble with. It probably wouldn't be pretty for awhile, but hey, freedom and liberty are messy sometimes.
3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.
There are very few (and the only reason I don't say "any" is because there may be some obscure law somewhere) that are uniquely designed with the gender of the spouse in terms of functionality under the law. Take Social Security for example, it doesn't matter the gender of the higher wage earner, in the event of the death of the higher wage earner the surviving spouse can draw retirement at the higher wage earners rate once they reach retirement age. Same with estate taxes, home sale, etc... Gender is irrelevant in ability to be eligible for benefits.
One thing I'm not understanding is what the social and biological conditions in today's world provide that Civil Marriage between a man and a woman must be recognized while Civil Marriage must be rejected between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.
**********************************************
Many do make the argument that rejection of Same-sex Civil Marriage should be based on an inability to reproduce within the relationship. And on this board I've seen a poster state emphatically that for a family to exist that there must be a biological mother and a biological father in the home. Two spouses are not a family. A couple that adopts because they can't have children is not a family. A divorced mother and her child are not a family. Ya, seems kind of weird to me also.
Yet the census shows that about 25% of same-sex couples are raising children. If there are governmental advantages to being the legal parents of a child and Civil Marriage is then there to support the raising of children - why deny Civil Marriage to couples raising children. That line of reasoning made no sense to me.
Same-Sex Couples Census Data Trickles Out: One-Quarter Are Raising Children - ABC News
**********************************************
To date, no one has been able to explain a compelling government interest for treating two like situated groups differently based on gender as it pertains to the government. Those groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in same-sex couple.
>>>>
Those are counter-arguments against common arguments for same-sex marriage.
They're not arguments against SSM.
1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.
Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.
The error here is theres no such thing as same-sex marriage.
There is only marriage, and the laws governing the contract that is marriage, entered into by two equal partners, gender irrelevant. Same-sex couples seek only access to those same laws, unchanged, unaltered, as applied to opposite-sex couples.
All citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law, including marriage law.
A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws Romer v. Evans (1996).
Its a civil rights issue to the extent that a class of persons is being denied its 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law absent a compelling governmental interest, absent evidence in support of the restriction of the right, and where the state is motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples.
The issue has nothing to do with tolerance, social justice, or marriage equality; it has only to do with the fact that one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, ones civil liberties are not subject to popular vote - we are subject only to the rule of law, not men.
For well over half a century in most states, perhaps longer in others, the doctrine of coverture was abandoned and written out of marriage law; marriage became a state-sanctioned legal union between two partners in accordance with the state, functioning also as a partner. With marriage a gender-neutral institution, the sex of the partners becomes irrelevant. See: Perry v. Brown, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2011).
Marriage shouldn't be used to promote social tolerance because it isn't the cause of intolerance for gays and lesbians, nor is it based on intolerance.
Marriage isnt being used to do anything; marriage is contract law, as written by the states. The 14th Amendment requires all citizens have access to those laws.
The attempt to portray marriage as some sort of helpless victim of the radical gay agenda only distorts and misrepresents the issue. Indeed, same-sex couples have no desire to change marriage one iota.
Same-sex couples only take as an affront their civil liberties being capriciously denied. And no one is requesting a particular type of marriage be accommodated, as all marriage is the same, one unchanged law, available to all citizens.So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.
To date, no one has been able to explain a compelling government interest for treating two like situated groups differently based on gender as it pertains to the government. Those groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in same-sex couple.
Well, I would point out that the question itself is a bit erroneous. Marriage is an individual right to have a husband or wife. While in some states you can have either/or, in most states you can have one if you're the other. You don't have a collective right to call your relationship a marriage because it's similar to how that state has chosen to define marriage. I may have a loving relationship with a woman, but if that woman is already married, the fact that we are "similar" to any other married couple wouldn't matter because if I married her I'd be committing bigamy. That's just an example, but the point is, it's not unconstitutional to not treat all groups the same. Individuals? Yes. Groups? No.
(And understand by "groups" I mean those defined by some type of habit, lifestyle, or just what they call themselves; I'm not alluding to protected groups like race or religion)
To date, no one has been able to explain a compelling government interest for treating two like situated groups differently based on gender as it pertains to the government. Those groups would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in different-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in same-sex couple.
Well, I would point out that the question itself is a bit erroneous. Marriage is an individual right to have a husband or wife. While in some states you can have either/or, in most states you can have one if you're the other. You don't have a collective right to call your relationship a marriage because it's similar to how that state has chosen to define marriage. I may have a loving relationship with a woman, but if that woman is already married, the fact that we are "similar" to any other married couple wouldn't matter because if I married her I'd be committing bigamy. That's just an example, but the point is, it's not unconstitutional to not treat all groups the same. Individuals? Yes. Groups? No.
(And understand by "groups" I mean those defined by some type of habit, lifestyle, or just what they call themselves; I'm not alluding to protected groups like race or religion)
I don't have a lot of time right now and I apologize for that, but with all due respect the question isn't erroneous.
The basis of your counter suggestion is that marriage (specifically Civil Marriage to differentiate it from Religious Marriage) is an individual right to have a husband or a wife.
First of all that is incorrect, it's not about the right to have a husband or a wife, the right in question is equal treatment under the law as it pertains to Civil Marriage with no compelling government interest in treating like groups differently.
Secondly your "individual" argument has already been presented to the SCOTUS and found lacking. It is the treatment of the couple that mattered, not access to Civil Marriage by the individual. The Commonwealth of Virginia made an argument in 1967 using the exact same structure suggesting that there was equal treatment under the law because both whites and coloreds each had access to Civil Marriage, just not with each other. The court firmly rejected the idea that in the evaluation of the laws in question that since each "could" marry they were not being subjected to unconstitutional discrimination. The court affirmed that the measurement was the treatment of the couple.
>>>>
If anyone here even knows me, they know I've spent a lot of time debating SSM. I figured, given the fact that there are four states voting on the issue this election, it would be nice to make a thread outlining three secular, somewhat legal arguments against same-sex marriage. I do not expect anyone to be persuaded in one direction or another -- I'm aware that whenever people complain about religious based arguments to SSM, they're doing so to paint their opponents as crazy, but they're not actually interested in entertaining non-religious arguments -- but at least many of you wont be able to say you've never seen someone argue without using religion.
1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.
Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.
2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Supporters compare their fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement. I've always emphatically disagreed with them, given the nature and severity of the civil rights movement when compared to the push for "marriage equality". Marriage serves many functions, but to my knowledge it was only recently that it had anything to do with "equality" between two types of people.
I don't think it's really anything like the civil rights movement outside of the rhetoric; I think it's more similar to a lot of radical feminist thought I've read. In the 1960s-70s there was a particular school of thought among radical feminists that marriage is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress and subjugate women. Because of this, many women refused to marry or made sure to keep their maiden name. There are a lot of feminists in their golden years who have long-term live-in spouses because they rejected what marriage meant, symbolically.
I'm not saying gays are trying to destroy marriage, but I am saying I think the push for SSM as a whole is due to a misguided notion that the only way we can have true LGBT tolerance is to knock down any institution that seems to uphold hetero-normativity, and given how "open-minded" we are these days about gender roles and whatnot, marriage exists as a heterosexual union. Of course, as I've somewhat explained, it's more than that, but for many people who support gay marriage, all they see is gay and straight.
3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.
If you accept the #1, it stands to reason that most of the benefits and privileges tied to marriage exist because of the relationship between men and women, and before you go thinking this is the part where I wax on about the beauty of procreation, indulge me here for one moment. Whenever someone mentions that two people of the same sex don't produce children, many supporters quickly point out that procreation isn't a requirement for marriage and that barren straight couples aren't denied their right to marry. Well, both are true, but they're also missing the point.
It isn't just that heterosexual couples have children and same-sex couples don't within their relationship; it's that many of these benefits exist given the social and biological differences between men and women. Though it's getting better now, women still tend to earn less and work less than men. It used to be that many women and their children relied mostly on the husband's salary and benefits from his employment. But what happened if the husband left, died, or got fired? That's why "marital status" is considered in many entitlement programs. Not because of the beauty and sacrament of marriage, but because of the inequality between men and women.
Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant and taking a few months off work to have a child. Most of them don't come out of the workplace indefinitely to raise children. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen, it just tends not to. The government doesn't have the same impetus to provide a social safety net for fundamentally barren couples.
So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.
I think that argument sort of encapsulates why a lot of people, even now, still don't support it. Not because they're so Bible-whipped they can't accept gay people wanting to marry, but because they reject the idea that the "old way" is unacceptable.
I think that argument sort of encapsulates why a lot of people, even now, still don't support it. Not because they're so Bible-whipped they can't accept gay people wanting to marry, but because they reject the idea that the "old way" is unacceptable.
How does being in favor of SSM make the old way unacceptable? Why can't the two exist side by side?
For a "secular" argument against same-sex marriage,
I thought you would bring up that marriage as a spiritual/religious sacrament
should be independent of state authority.
So there should be a distinction made between
civil unions/marriage which means the contract
regarding shared property or custody, etc.
vs. the personal aspect of marriage that is not the state's business.
So that part should be left to the people to go through
the church or institution of their choice. The state's authority
is over contracts affecting property or legal responsibility for custody, estates, etc.
If anyone here even knows me, they know I've spent a lot of time debating SSM. I figured, given the fact that there are four states voting on the issue this election, it would be nice to make a thread outlining three secular, somewhat legal arguments against same-sex marriage. I do not expect anyone to be persuaded in one direction or another -- I'm aware that whenever people complain about religious based arguments to SSM, they're doing so to paint their opponents as crazy, but they're not actually interested in entertaining non-religious arguments -- but at least many of you wont be able to say you've never seen someone argue without using religion.
1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.
Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.
2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Supporters compare their fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement. I've always emphatically disagreed with them, given the nature and severity of the civil rights movement when compared to the push for "marriage equality". Marriage serves many functions, but to my knowledge it was only recently that it had anything to do with "equality" between two types of people.
I don't think it's really anything like the civil rights movement outside of the rhetoric; I think it's more similar to a lot of radical feminist thought I've read. In the 1960s-70s there was a particular school of thought among radical feminists that marriage is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress and subjugate women. Because of this, many women refused to marry or made sure to keep their maiden name. There are a lot of feminists in their golden years who have long-term live-in spouses because they rejected what marriage meant, symbolically.
I'm not saying gays are trying to destroy marriage, but I am saying I think the push for SSM as a whole is due to a misguided notion that the only way we can have true LGBT tolerance is to knock down any institution that seems to uphold hetero-normativity, and given how "open-minded" we are these days about gender roles and whatnot, marriage exists as a heterosexual union. Of course, as I've somewhat explained, it's more than that, but for many people who support gay marriage, all they see is gay and straight.
3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.
If you accept the #1, it stands to reason that most of the benefits and privileges tied to marriage exist because of the relationship between men and women, and before you go thinking this is the part where I wax on about the beauty of procreation, indulge me here for one moment. Whenever someone mentions that two people of the same sex don't produce children, many supporters quickly point out that procreation isn't a requirement for marriage and that barren straight couples aren't denied their right to marry. Well, both are true, but they're also missing the point.
It isn't just that heterosexual couples have children and same-sex couples don't within their relationship; it's that many of these benefits exist given the social and biological differences between men and women. Though it's getting better now, women still tend to earn less and work less than men. It used to be that many women and their children relied mostly on the husband's salary and benefits from his employment. But what happened if the husband left, died, or got fired? That's why "marital status" is considered in many entitlement programs. Not because of the beauty and sacrament of marriage, but because of the inequality between men and women.
Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant and taking a few months off work to have a child. Most of them don't come out of the workplace indefinitely to raise children. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen, it just tends not to. The government doesn't have the same impetus to provide a social safety net for fundamentally barren couples.
So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.
If anyone here even knows me, they know I've spent a lot of time debating SSM. I figured, given the fact that there are four states voting on the issue this election, it would be nice to make a thread outlining three secular, somewhat legal arguments against same-sex marriage. I do not expect anyone to be persuaded in one direction or another -- I'm aware that whenever people complain about religious based arguments to SSM, they're doing so to paint their opponents as crazy, but they're not actually interested in entertaining non-religious arguments -- but at least many of you wont be able to say you've never seen someone argue without using religion.
1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.
Any reasonable person would acknowledge the LGBT community has faced discrimination. I think most people would, broadly speaking, support LGBT tolerance as a basic matter of peer-acceptance. Churches shouldn't shun their LGBT members, families shouldn't cast their relatives aside because they live their lives differently, etc. But we do not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a by-product of intolerance and hatred of the LGBT community. The history and tradition of marriage is broader and more complex than that. For a lot of people, it's not that the tradition of marriage can't change, it's that it can't be "corrected" through legalization of same-sex marriage.
2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Supporters compare their fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement. I've always emphatically disagreed with them, given the nature and severity of the civil rights movement when compared to the push for "marriage equality". Marriage serves many functions, but to my knowledge it was only recently that it had anything to do with "equality" between two types of people.
I don't think it's really anything like the civil rights movement outside of the rhetoric; I think it's more similar to a lot of radical feminist thought I've read. In the 1960s-70s there was a particular school of thought among radical feminists that marriage is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress and subjugate women. Because of this, many women refused to marry or made sure to keep their maiden name. There are a lot of feminists in their golden years who have long-term live-in spouses because they rejected what marriage meant, symbolically.
I'm not saying gays are trying to destroy marriage, but I am saying I think the push for SSM as a whole is due to a misguided notion that the only way we can have true LGBT tolerance is to knock down any institution that seems to uphold hetero-normativity, and given how "open-minded" we are these days about gender roles and whatnot, marriage exists as a heterosexual union. Of course, as I've somewhat explained, it's more than that, but for many people who support gay marriage, all they see is gay and straight.
3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.
If you accept the #1, it stands to reason that most of the benefits and privileges tied to marriage exist because of the relationship between men and women, and before you go thinking this is the part where I wax on about the beauty of procreation, indulge me here for one moment. Whenever someone mentions that two people of the same sex don't produce children, many supporters quickly point out that procreation isn't a requirement for marriage and that barren straight couples aren't denied their right to marry. Well, both are true, but they're also missing the point.
It isn't just that heterosexual couples have children and same-sex couples don't within their relationship; it's that many of these benefits exist given the social and biological differences between men and women. Though it's getting better now, women still tend to earn less and work less than men. It used to be that many women and their children relied mostly on the husband's salary and benefits from his employment. But what happened if the husband left, died, or got fired? That's why "marital status" is considered in many entitlement programs. Not because of the beauty and sacrament of marriage, but because of the inequality between men and women.
Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant and taking a few months off work to have a child. Most of them don't come out of the workplace indefinitely to raise children. Not to say it can't or doesn't happen, it just tends not to. The government doesn't have the same impetus to provide a social safety net for fundamentally barren couples.
So, same-sex couples take it as an affront to their relationship because people disagree with them being kissed into a legal and social framework that's set up to accommodate a particular type of marriage. If we acknowledge gender is irrelevant to the purposes of legal marriage, that doesn't make a strong argument for the continuance of many of the instances of marriage.
None of those are arguements against homosexual marriage. Although I have no doubt they seemed like it in your fevered mind.
1. Traditional marriage is neither the cause nor the by-product of LGBT bigotry.
Yes, and? Has nothing to do with substatiating a credible claim against allowing homosexual marriage. NEXT!
2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
No it shouldn't. It should be used to create lving families with nurturing enviroments. Again, not an arguement against homosexual marriage.
3. Much of the legal institution of marriage exists due to the unique relationship between men and women.
Relationship between men and women isn't unique. Two men and two women coming readily to mind doing everything short of making babies, and that's changing even now. The legal institution of marriage is due to our being a nation of laws and equal treatment for ALL under them. Because married people are family the law needed to write in to itself allowances and priviledges for marrieds to visit one another in hospital and not be denied like someone walking in off the street. And with over 1400 legal, tax, economic, and other adjustments, denying these because 'I dun like homos' isn't lawful.
Why shouldn't marriage be used?2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Even assuming someone agrees with your statement, is that all that same sex marriage is, a tool to promote social tolerance? That seems to ignore the idea that it is a matter of equal rights or access to benefits.
Why shouldn't marriage be used?2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Even assuming someone agrees with your statement, is that all that same sex marriage is, a tool to promote social tolerance? That seems to ignore the idea that it is a matter of equal rights or access to benefits.
Yes and no.
I agree with the post that "civil contracts" should be equal opportunity and inclusion for all people, regardless of orientation, gender, etc.
But no, the GOVT should not be using a SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS Sacrament of Marriage
to promote or establish any kind of belief about homosexuality or same sex couples.
The RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage should be KEPT OUT of public law
and keep that private.
That is where this process failed.
Had the advocates remained NEUTRAL and were Consistent about pushing for "separation of church and state/keeping religion out of govt and govt out of religion" then that would be constitutionally sound.
But going too far, and instead of just defending religious freedom of choice, they PUSHED a bias into govt and public policy,
that is where they shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own arguments.
it is ONE thing to DEFEND beliefs against discrimination, which I agree with in terms of striking down bans on gay
marriage which should remain the religious freedom of practitioners to decide,
and another to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH your beliefs as law through govt which unfortunately has occurred.
Any good intentions and lawful defense going on here for equal rights
were derailed by committing the same bullying, coercion and exclusion
tactics to dominate over other people's beliefs instead of including them equally in shaping policies and reforms.
You cannot fight for equal rights while violating the same of others,
a hard lesson for both sides to learn who keep fighting this way at the exclusion of other beliefs.
Why shouldn't marriage be used?2. Marriage should not be used as a tool to promote social tolerance.
Even assuming someone agrees with your statement, is that all that same sex marriage is, a tool to promote social tolerance? That seems to ignore the idea that it is a matter of equal rights or access to benefits.
Yes and no.
I agree with the post that "civil contracts" should be equal opportunity and inclusion for all people, regardless of orientation, gender, etc.
But no, the GOVT should not be using a SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS Sacrament of Marriage
to promote or establish any kind of belief about homosexuality or same sex couples.
The RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage should be KEPT OUT of public law
and keep that private.
That is where this process failed.
Had the advocates remained NEUTRAL and were Consistent about pushing for "separation of church and state/keeping religion out of govt and govt out of religion" then that would be constitutionally sound.
But going too far, and instead of just defending religious freedom of choice, they PUSHED a bias into govt and public policy,
that is where they shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own arguments.
it is ONE thing to DEFEND beliefs against discrimination, which I agree with in terms of striking down bans on gay
marriage which should remain the religious freedom of practitioners to decide,
and another to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH your beliefs as law through govt which unfortunately has occurred.
Any good intentions and lawful defense going on here for equal rights
were derailed by committing the same bullying, coercion and exclusion
tactics to dominate over other people's beliefs instead of including them equally in shaping policies and reforms.
You cannot fight for equal rights while violating the same of others,
a hard lesson for both sides to learn who keep fighting this way at the exclusion of other beliefs.
The religious aspect IS kept out of the law, so far as I know. A person can be married in a religious context without being married legally, and vice versa.
While I would happily agree to all current marriages being changed to civil unions under the law and let the term marriage refer to religious unions, I know that is completely unrealistic. So, in my mind, the best realistic solution is to allow same sex marriage.