In response to:

Marriage: A Supreme Test of Rights

ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:29 PM
And every time a state tries to pass civil union laws, conservative groups come out of the woodwork and spend millions of dollars opposing civil union laws.
du2 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 3:22 PM
B: do you think that Jehovah's Witnesses act in violation of their religious restrictions to accept blood transfusions, when OTHER people not in their religion accept blood transfusions?
Do you think anyone's religion that objects to birth control and non procreative sex, are violating their beliefs because OTHER people use bc or have non procreative sex? Gay people getting married, is similar to this factor. It's not VIOLATION of YOUR beliefs that gay people get married. Any more than the people who divorce are violating them.
Seriously, you need to donate your brain to science. I'd like to know why it thinks and says such things.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Mar 05, 2013 6:41 PM
As long as civil union laws COMPEL OTHERS not involved in the union to act in violation of their beliefs, you'd better believe that they're opposed.
Bill1895 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 9:26 PM
We sure do CA7: we follow the US Constituton: ever hear of it in the People's Republic of California?

From the very beginning, homosexual “marriage” activists have sought to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.

After decades of aggressive activism, the common sense understanding of marriage has become almost hopelessly mired in incomprehensible legal terminology. It becomes difficult for everyday observers to navigate the convoluted logic homosexual activists employ as they attempt to remake one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The argument that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is only “fair” rests on a specious interpretation of the equal protection...