dstormhawk Wrote:
Nov 15, 2012 11:40 PM
What we have here is a failure to communicate. We have two separate things here, one a sacrament or rite of in a religion that is the union of two souls in the eyes of the Divine, the other, an inter-state enforceable contract that the State must define. Most who oppose "gay marriage" do so not because of any intrinsic hatred of a homosexual, but rather more that the government is forcing them to accept the government's definition of what their religious sacraments should be. We should just call it two separate names, as they are two separate things, keep the separation of church and state, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God, that which is God's.