In response to:

Defending the First Freedom

JacobsTrouble Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 6:54 PM
Marriage is more than a covenant between one man and one woman. It has other precepts like one cannot marry someone who is already married to someone else. or that one cannot marry one's own sibling... Once one precept is allowed to fall, the other precepts will succumb too. I do not think the gay agenda is to add societal endorsement of marriage to gay relationships (How does that benefit the continuation of the society? There is nothing for the society in that). The real agenda is to make marriage meaningless for everyone.
Born in the USA! Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 10:48 PM
"Marriage is more than a covenant between one man and one woman."
And still will be - in your church. As far as the government is concerned, sorry but you cannot impose your religion on others. And no, no one is imposing anything on you. Your marriage won't be affected or any future ones with the opposite sex won't be impeded.
Jerry555 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 6:58 PM
Some say it is a Conspiracy with the muslims and the Communists to undermine the fabric of this countrr, remove the Constitution, and put in Sharia Law.

What the muzzies don't know, is that the Communists have no intention of divvying up the prize.

Jerry555 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 6:58 PM
Born in the USA! Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 10:44 PM
Some say you are a nutcase.

In my earlier post this morning, I somehow failed to mention the most important inconsistency of all in the position of conservatives who support a judicial redefinition of marriage: How, exactly, do they intend to protect the conscience rights of those who -- for religious reasons -- do not believe in a new definition of marriage?  Or do their First Amendment rights simply dissolve by judicial fiat?  After all, if gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right, how can the conscience rights of true religious objectors be accommodated?

Eric Erickson lays out the argument elegantly here