Please explain what this post has to do with same sex marriage. Additionally, please explain why you think that you or others should decide what is appropriate bedroom behavior between consenting adults.

You say that allowing same sex couples to marry will prevent freedom of religious expression. Again you are stretching the legalization of same sex marriage to an absurd conclusion. Religious expression is protected in the First Amendment. No one doubts that it is a fundamental right within this country. The legalization of gay marriage does not challenge the freedom of individuals to practice their religion. You mention lawsuits that arise between "gays vs people who want to maintain their religious tenets." Have courts ruled that individuals are not allowed to practice their religion in these cases?

First, eliminating a restraint does not mean that you have to eliminate all laws regarding marriage. I'm not sure how you reached how reached that conclusion. Secondly, you said "Proponents of same sex 'marriage' have acknowledged that they would be in favor of same sex incestuous 'marriage' based on their reasoning for allowing same sex 'marriage'." I am pretty sure that is inaccurate. However, if you can present any evidence, I would be welcome to consider it.

There are a few issues with the conclusion that you are suggesting. The most obvious issue is that allowing gays to marry is a completely different topic than the effects of raising children in same-sex marriage household. Secondly, many families do not have a mother or a father. I think most people would agree that having two parents is better than having one. Thirdly, I'm not sure that banning gay marriage because one woman misses having a mother is the correct decision/conclusion.

Why does every article on this site against same-sex marriage have to suggest that there is some sinister plot behind same sex marriage? Isn't it possible that gay people simply want to enjoy some of the same privileges that straight couples do? Why does each article have to suggest there is some secret plot to destroy marriage or, in the case of this article, destroy sexual identity as we known it? Isn't this a rather immature way approach this topic? In Prager's analysis, he uses the "slippery slope" method to reach absurd conclusions. This is intellectually dishonest, and I think most people are able to see this.

The whole premise of this article is rather silly and even dishonest. Medved, just because you say that your opinions are "truth," does not make them so.

You said "[David Boies is] saying that people of faith have no constitutionally legitimate ability to vote on legislation unless that vote is a sanitized and secular expression of public policy." This is not what David Boies said. You're article is based on taking Boies's quote (which is a legitimate legal argument) and extending its conclusion to an absurd conclusion. As a lawyer you should recognize the weakness of your argument.