The issue is not whether or not you approve of gay marriage or whether it is a wise public policy. The issue is that the voters of one of our most liberal states voted to bar it. In other words, they voted to leave in place the same policies the state had had since it was admitted to the union. The reason a referendum was neccessary was to foreclose activist judges from overriding the democratic process and imposing their own views on an unwilling citizenry. Under prevailing constitutional principles, there are two tests for a violation of "equal protection." One is reserved for so-called suspect classifications, eg race, or fundamental rights, eg voting. Any disparate treatment in these areas bears a strong burden of proving justification, except of course for affirmative action, which clearly violates the Equal Protection clause but is allowed under the "Political Correctness", ie lack of judicial integrity, exception. The other test is applied to distinctions that are not applied to suspect classes or fundamental rights. The legislation under question in that case only has to pass the so-caled "rational basis" standard, meaning that that there has to be some rational basis for the disparate treatment. Because gays have not formally been declared a suspect classification, the courts apparently pretended to use this standard. Very few laws have ever been invalidated as lacking a rational basis. For one reason, the test is a very low hurdle. Any rational basis is sufficient. The other reason is that it is an egregious violation of separation of powers and democratic principles for a court to strike down a law just because they disagree with it. Make no mistake, this is one of the worst, most unprincipled decisions any federal court has ever rendered. It is raw judicial lawmaking at its most extreme. It is a blatant violation of federalism, separation of powers and democracy. I view it as little different from congressmen taking bribes or a president attempting to exercise dictatorial powers. If the congress has any backbone, they will inititate impeachment proceedings against the two judges in the majority. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If we don't stand up to the judiciary over this, where will we make a stand?
How interesting when people have their lives run by imaginary entities whom only "others" have seen and communicated with. Fascinating stuff. Like a page out of the Dark Ages. Anyone care for a chant?
I certainly won't question your belief system, you're welcome to it. I never make fun of, or ridicule anyone for their beliefs. I just don't think anyone's religious belief system should be forced on others in our democracy. I know that alone will spark some controversy, but sticking to the topic of marriage this time around. c
With little exception, if any, that has been the natural progression throughout history with religions that have gained any traction. Part and parcel. And so, while you'll be the better man for not ridiculing their belief systems, that will not prevent them from condemning yours.
And what I am saying is NOT forcing my or anyone else's belief system on others. It is merely defending the existing connotation and institution of marriage and not allowing others to demean that belief by hijacking the terms that have been used for generations to mean one thing. As I said before, go do your gay thing if you think that is alright with God and the world. But, don't try to force your way into my beliefs by using the same sacred terms generations of those who believe like me have used.
So two people of the same sex marrying one another will demean your belief? And you will not allow your belief to be "demeaned" in such a manner? How is that not essentially forcing your beliefs on others by imposing your own values and limits on the choices available to them?