An Atheist in an ocean of Theists

why yes, it is always a good thing that a FEW people decide that what the MAJORITY wants is no good and must have something they DON'T want shoved down their throats!!!!!

akiame. why is it that when someone stands against same-sex marriage, they are called "honophobes"? why is it that these people that continue to fight to force same-sex amrriage on the 80% of the population that doesn't want it are never called "heterophobes"? this ruling impacts the entire nation, not just california. a marriage that is lega and legally performed in one state must, according to federal laws, be accepted and honored in EVERY state. that is why a couple that gets married in new hamspshire does NOT have to get married again when they move to colorado. if it's alright for two people of the same sex to get married, how about siblings? why shouldn't they have the right to get married? brother and sister, two brothers, two sisters........ hhhhmmmm, wonder what will be next???

It is not surprising that an Oegonian favors same-sex "marriage". This is, after all, typical Oregonian "liberalism". Legal, hard-workig outsiders are welcome here, but, thankfully, cannot force their liberal dogmas on Christians.

We do not even recognise same-sex "marriages" in Utah. May it always continue to be so, and may the majority rule!

The first amendment is silent about homosexuals. This practice is not "speech" to be protected, or religion to be safeguarded, nor does it have anything to do with the right to keep and bear arms. There is no law establishing a state religion by the Federal government involved.

I happen to know what an establishment of religion is. It is a State Church, not the Christian religion but a particular form of Christianity being the State Church.

For example The Church of England in England, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both the Lutheran and the Catholic Church in Germany etc.

The First Amendment means that the USA will never fund one branch of Christianity or other religion, or favor one religion over another. It does not mean that the Government is forced to accept sexual perversion and change the meaning of marriage.

It is rooted in the background of the USA in British and European history.

lifeliberty: Hooray!! Finally an educated person! who understands English! and can apply such to the US Constitution!!! Again I say Hooray!!!.

From Merriam Webster’s online “establish church” word search I get “a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority.”

Since that is not what the CA legal tyrants are doing, the 1st Amendment does not apply.

Draco73. You may want to read my comments to your post on the “news blog” regarding this subject. You may be enlightened, but somehow I doubt it.

An establishment of religion is the phrase used by the framers of the U.S. Constitution to refer to any religion or religious organization. Judaism, the Catholic Church, and the Church of England are all establishments of religion. Unfortunately, "establishment" is frequently misused as "establishing," but its use here is closer to a "dry cleaning establishment" than establishing anything. When the Constitution prohibits "respecting an establishment of religion," it is saying that one religious establishment cannot be given preference over another — there cannot be a state religion or a state church. And naturally from this it follows that the state cannot establish its own religion.[1]

Although nowadays associated primarily with Islamic states (such as Twelver Shia Islam in Iran), established religions have also been a hallmark of European countries. During the Protestant Reformation, the issue of which church was to be the established one was highly contentious, as Protestant and Catholic states fought, not only each other, but also dissident factions within their borders on the basis of official religion. The importance of official religions in Europe gradually dwindled after the Reformation.

In some nations that still have an established church, the official status of the church is largely a technicality and freedom of religion is guaranteed. The Church of England is an example. It is, however, also possible to have a national church which is not established, like the Church of Scotland, which has no constitutional links with the state. Some countries, such as Ger

What I find funny is that so many people like Einstein here, try the apologist approach when confronted with cold hard facts. Whether it's DNA or other scientific evidence that directly disproves their "faith" or written word that proves them wrong. They desperately grasp at straws to make excuses for their intolerance and will stop at nothing to force feed their dogma to everyone on the planet. From Missionaries to unconstitutional legislation, these fools are like a cancer. I say we outlaw religion from public all together. Practice it freely at your church!!!

Ok, I guess I got to break it down for the intellectually challenged here. "BANNED FROM PUBLIC" is what I said. In other words, Mr. Wizard, Out of the influence of government or people as a whole. See definition of "public" below (noun 1).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/public

Keep your nonsense at your church and freely exercise it all you wish. Just do not try to unconstitutionally legislate your dogma.

So, if you can take the time from your idiotic 12 year old name calling fest long enough to actually read what I wrote, you'll find that you just strengthened my argument again with your last line.

Let me address that argument simply. I will use the same logic/proof that proves Santa Clause and the toothfairy do not exist. If they do, where are they? So, if you want to use that stance, then it's acceptable to say if your god says "no gay marriage", have him come here in person and tell us himself. Prove he does exist. All of your arguments are lame copouts. TRY AGAIN. NEXT!

It's a fact, gays will never understand straights, or visa versa. The bottom line is we are all people, citizens of a wonderful country, despite all its challenges and problems. All citizens in this country deserve the same rights, from the transient on the street to the President. No one can tell another what to do. We all have our different process. The beauty of the constitution is its ability to adapt. Minorities have become equals, as they always were but veiled, women vote (though it took them 70 years of struggle to get there), and gays and lesbians (who have been around since the world began) now can live in relative safety and peace, and become outstanding citizens (or not) and focus on what we all do, working, putting food on the table, raising kids, fighting, helping, loving, living. What a wonderful life!

Breakdown,

Polygamy between consenting adults should be allowed. Why shouldn't it? As far as brother and sister getting married, that is entirely possible, but I don't think many cases would exist. However, who am I to judge.

I think the case against incestuous marriages would be that it would be a 1 in 4 chance of causing the baby a genetic abnormality. Medically this is a great risk of harm to a 3rd party. So, without bring "GAWD" into, you could safely outlaw it to protect offspring. This is not the case with gay couples. However, I must add that in the past, incest was common in royal families to keep the bloodline pure.

So again, I am for choice. If a person is in love with, let's say... their sibling, who am I to judge??? How would it affect you, if your neighbor was married to his sister?