David S., what I have been arguing now for about twenty posts is that opponents of gay marriage are *not* restricting gays. They are free to do whatever they want to do, but I ought to be free not to grant approval, particularly if the majority feels the way I do.

Yes, you keep arguing this, but your premise is false on its face. You can object to gay marriage, but you can’t make it illegal based solely on your personal objections. That’s not how our government works.

“You mean, if the state changes the definition of marriage, the terms of that definition must be universally imposed on all.”

No, I mean that if the state wishes to grant marriage licenses, it must grant them in accordance with the strictures of the Constitution.

“To call it bigotry is simply to dismiss my religious objections. Sorry: I did not write the Bible, I’m just trying to interpret it.”

Honestly, I don’t care who wrote it. Any religious text you like is yours to worship, but your religion does not write the laws of our nation. Interpretations vary. It’s not about name-calling – it’s about understanding the nature of our government. You can be bigoted against others, but unless they impose their will on you, you have no claim on them. You may think that worshipping Satan is wrong, but you have no right to interfere with a person who does so.

“If the state sanctions the relationship, I will forced to approve, yes.”

Not true. You can still personally decry homosexual marriage all you like. Your approval is not required for the state to issue a license for marriage.

Go ahead and keep your bible, but keep it to yourself.

Peace.

DS

You’re welcome to continue this discussion at my blog.

what is your test of romans 1. your understanding is that there is inner shame and lust(niv) in being homosexual. is this your 1john1 witness (“that which we have heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched”) in fellowship? that every person you have fellowshipped with who is gay, you witnessed inner lust and shame? i witness all the time. i see none. instead i see the fruit of the spirit gal5.

the definition of an institution does not determine individual rights. it is individual rights that determine the definition of an institution. rules about miscegnation, once defined marriage, but because they infringed on the rights of persons of different ethnics, the definition of marriage was changed from only those of the same ethnic, to anybody. now that anybody is going to be changed from only heterosexuals to any 2 consenting adults. and as to any future changes they will either stand or fall on their own merit.

Words have no meaning to me? This, from the fellow who reads “perversion” and “shameful” as celebratory?

And if you’re going to cite the Constitution, why not quote it?

> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Somehow, you forgot to include the “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” clause. I’m not asking the government to enforce my religion rules against homosexuals; I’m asking it to respect my religious beliefs and not to be forced into doing something my religious rules prohibit.

> the rule of law is to create a level playing field so that all have the same rights. if one is entitled to marry all are entitled to marry.

The rules are already the same for everyone. Everyone is free to marry. Just not someone from the same sex, for that would be changing the definition of marriage.

> because homosexuality has been deemeed legal they are entitled to every single right held by heterosexuals without recrimination. that they are entitled to live their lives free from the prejudices that comes from religious beliefs

What other behaviors are protected by civil rights law, in your opinion?

> the upsetting thing is that source of the prejudice comes from believers

You are not the authority for what right and wrong is, in the Christian church, john r. Neither am I. In my church, the Bible is the authority. You are simply upset that some folks take that authority seriously.

One of the unasked questions, in all this, by the way, is: did marriage develop arbitrarily? That is, when earlier man and earlier civilizations grappled with how to organize society, how did marriage come to be defined as man with woman, and not man with man or woman with woman? Was it completely arbitrary? Was it just circumstance that led to the man-woman thing? Could it have easily been the other way?

If so, your argument might make more sense. It was just an arbitrary arrangement, after all, so why not add a little more arbitrariness into the mix?

> ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

> john r: “in this case it is shame based lust.(niv) the bonding of homosexuals is not based on shamebased lust but instead mutual love, devotion, affection,trust and respect, for a shared committed life together the same as with heterosexuals.”

That must be why Paul used words that translate as “perversion” and “shameful”.

the rule of law is to create a level playing field so that all have the same rights. if one is entitled to marry all are entitled to marry.

because homosexuality has been deemeed legal they are entitled to every single right held by heterosexuals without recrimination. that they are entitled to live their lives free from the prejudices that comes from religious beliefs………in the work place, in medical institutions, in their neighborhoods in their schools, public retail environments,etc.

this referendum is merely a delay tactic. eventually it will become public knowledge that homosexuals are not lacking in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. and that they love no differently, they commit no differently. their desire to have children and to be devoted to them is not different,etc. the fact procreation may have to be handled differently does not change that fact. in truth devotion is the most important thing.

the upsetting thing is that source of the prejudice comes from believers, because of the cultural prejudice that has lived in their churches for so long. its evidenced by the fact that beliefs supporting this understanding are beyond discussing words in scripture, beyond rational thinking, beyond objective reason. as i said before belief is about personal identity.

when it becomes apparent that there is no difference, then the courts will be forced to deal with the issue of there being evidence that shows why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry as a rights issue.

right now the court are chosing not to challenge the referendum. that is only temporary.

David S., what I have been arguing now for about twenty posts is that opponents of gay marriage are *not* restricting gays. They are free to do whatever they want to do, but I ought to be free not to grant approval, particularly if the majority feels the way I do.

> Gays have just as much right as you do to practice religion as they please – but neither party has a right to restrict the practices of the other.

But you seem to be saying gays ought to be able to restrict my objections to their practices.

> If marriage is sanctioned by the state, it must be freely available to all on equal terms.

You mean, if the state changes the definition of marriage, the terms of that definition must be universally imposed on all.

> When you object to homosexuals enjoying the rights of marriage, whatever reasoning you employ can be turned back on heterosexual marriage. Your “reasons” are nothing but warmed-over bigotry against homosexuals.

It always comes down to name-calling, doesn’t it? To call it bigotry is simply to dismiss my religious objections. Sorry: I did not write the Bible, I’m just trying to interpret it. By your standards, I’m also bigoted against adulterers, fornicators, murderers, thieves, liars, hypocrites, drunks, gluttons, and a whole bunch of other things condemned in the Bible. So is it bigotry, or is is simply that there are certain actions I am bound by my beliefs to oppose? And then there is the whole thing about whether you’re helping someone by tolerating the things they do, or trying to point out that what they’re doing may be wrong. It seems to me that the supreme act of hatred would be indifference, and the “tolerance” that flows from that. It’s easy to be tolerant when you don’t care.

> Your own morality does not define the rights of your countrymen, despite your evangelical impulses.

I never said it did.

> Nobody is forcing you to approve of homosexuals marriages, any more than you are forced to approve of heterosexual marriages.

If the state sanctions the relationship, I will forced to approve, yes.

> Quite frankly, it is not your business to tell any consenting adults they can’t marry.

Quite frankly, it is my business to stick up for my right to withhold approval, and it is not your business to change a definition that has existed for thousands of years.

> I do like your point on reading the bible. We all currently support the reading of the bible by granting tax exempt status to religious groups.

We also grant tax exemptions to non-profit institutions, including some that are genuinely hostile to the Bible. E.g., the ACLU.

> The wisdom of our Constitution requires that we also support the reading of the koran, the satanic bible and any other religious text equally.

I don’t call that “support”, I call that tolerance.

> I would be quite happy to see the state get out of the business of promoting religion in this way,

Should they also get out of the business of promoting hostility to religion, too? (See: ACLU)

> but I’m not going to try to take away your bible just because my morality is different from yours.

I’m very grateful.

> David S.: “Really?”

Yes, really.

Hypothetical: Let’s say that you were to get a job with a company whose owner/CEO famously supports a cause (social, religious, political — doesn’t matter, pick one) that you agree very strongly with. Let’s also say you are “strongly encouraged” to attend a rally for this cause, on your own time. But you don’t mind, since you’re all for it, and there’s free food and beer. Have your constitutional rights been violated? Depends on how you look at it.

Now: let’s change the hypothetical situation. Everything is the same, *except* the company supports a cause that you very strongly *disagree* with. *Now* have your constitutional rights been violated? Were you so intimidated that you attended the rally anyway? Or did you quietly refuse to attend, and the following week start receiving snarky remarks from your supervisor? Or did you speak out about your right not to attend, and the next thing you know, why, your evaluation comes in, tsk tsk, not a very good one?

Now: do you have a grievance? Were you being pressured into supporting a cause you don’t believe in? Does the First Amendment protect you from that, on the grounds that freedom of speech means also means freedom to *not* support something you disagree with?

All that, to say this: is your justification for filing a lawsuit because your First Amendment rights have been violated? Or because you disagree with the company’s stance on the issue that offends you?

I submit that it’s linguistically tricky, but the way I would phrase the situation is this: 1) Your *justification*, or grounds, for the lawsuit is legal, and your objection is based on the First Amendment; 2) the *reason* it became an issue in the first place is because you disagreed with the company’s stance on the offending issue, however you arrived at that position (e.g., personal philosophy, religious convictions, etc.).

Now, all we do is transpose my position into yours: 1) The *justification* for my objection would be that the Constitution does not require anyone to recognize gay marriage, and that therefore the requirement to grant approval of it would violate my First Amendment rights; 2) the *reason* it’s an issue with me is because I disagree with the policy, and I arrived at my position because of my religious beliefs.

And if I arrive at my positions based on religious beliefs, it’s just as valid as you arriving at yours through other beliefs. Neither of us ought to expect the law or the Constitution to adhere to our personal beliefs like a well-tailored suit, but there is nothing wrong with seeking protection under the Constitution in those cases where it seems congruent with the intent of the Framers and to the extent that the meaning of the Constitution permits.

In actuality, I realize there’s more to it that that. There is that all-but-forgotten Tenth Amendment (“rights falling to the states and the people”). And then there’s the courts. So far, whenever the people have been given a chance to voice their opinion, it has been to object to gay marriage — but liberals aren’t too proud to use the courts to impose what they want based on a spurious reading of the Constitution. Do I think my First Amendment rights are absolute on this matter? Maybe not strong enough to overturn an individual state’s decision on the matter by plebiscite, but I would think strong enough to prevent a spurious reading of the U. S. Constitution by a head-up-the-butt judge.

Now, that was a lot of work. I hope I cleared it up, though. If I didn’t, I give up.

IM GONG TO HAV TO DO BETER JOB OF DITTING, MY APOLOGIES