CA Prop 8 & DOMA

[MAYO]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Really? You don't share the gospel with people, even on a comfortable and willing basis, and explain to them that they're sinners, that their regular lives are immoral, and that they need Christ and his redemptive power?

Whether you say it with a whisper or a fist, religion is at odds with secular life, and the entire purpose of "witnessing" or preaching is to lead people to god, most often by explaining that everything they're doing is wrong.

No, I tell people what I believe to be true in my life. That this is how I choose to live now because of my experience with God. You are unfairly applying a whole slew of stereotypes to me and my beliefs. You are undoubtedly intelligent and well spoken and it baffles me that you have yet to ask me what exactly I believe. Like I said before, not my job to convict others.

Even then, if you as an individual Christian aren't doing this, Christianity proper does it on a daily basis - and in the case of Prop 8 - this showed itself to be true as conservative Christians (be they Evangelical, Mormon, or Catholic) attempted (and will still attempt) to limit the civil rights of GLBT men and women because of their particular moral view, and did so with a hideous campaign of misinformation and fear mongering which was both dishonest and underhanded (i.e. exactly NOT what people who supposedly care about integrity should be doing).

I understand this^^^ and agree completely. Yet once again these people are not me, nor are they an accurate depiction of my faith.

And that somebody would be me. To be honest, I probably didn't need to say that, so I'm sorry if I needlessly offended you. The important point here though is that your supposed redemption is neither an excuse nor a license to act such a way. Its certainly true that you're not perfect, and it may even be true that you're somehow forgiven of this, but there's a certain attitude Christians should have that I don't see in what you, Stretch, or IronCore are suggesting...

In other words, there's the "Ya know, I say a lot of things I shouldn't, and I really struggle with that, and I wish I didn't, and I try hard not to, and I'm sorry for the stupid things I have said..." attitude, that's hopefully followed by an actual and sincere attempt to curb those behaviors.

And then there's the "Yeah this is me I'm not perfect Jesus loves me any way deal with it..." attitude, which sounds a lot more like somebody who's comfortable hiding behind Christian ideas without actually trying to be Christian at all.

Hopefully you get my point/the difference. Its clear as day to me.

I did not mean to come across as the latter. If you want to be realistic, lets look at 2 parallel scenarios.

I am a new Christian. I am a moral mess, selfish and hateful. I can throw around words and harsh suggestions all I want, but they will just be met with shaking heads. I have no real world Christian experience and very little groud to speak. I can best substantiate my beliefs by walking out my convictions and allowing my life to show the fruit of my faith. That fruit is what will bear witness to God, not condemnation on my part. People that know me will look and wonder, "What gives? MAYO has really changed."

You are a new athlete. You are a physical mess, obese and weak. You can throw diet, training and supplementation advice all you want, but it will just be met with shaking heads. You have no real world athletic experience and very little ground to speak. You can best substantiate your beliefs by walking out your excercise theory and allowing your body to demonstrate the fruits of you effort and knowledge. Your body is what will bear witness to your exercise, diet and supp knowledge, not repeated posts of secondhand information. People that see your progress will look and wonder,"What gives? LE has really changed his body."

Faith without works is dead.......in any situation.

 

[cfreetenor]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

No, I tell people what I believe to be true in my life. That this is how I choose to live now because of my experience with God. ... Like I said before, not my job to convict others.

This, sans the 'with god' part of course, is verbatim the mantra of every tolerant person. I'd prefer to share the world with Christians like you than people who militantly thought exactly as I do.

 

[IronCore]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Thanks LE for all of your wonderful insight...

I have been told throughout the years that Satan himself knows every verse in the Bible and at some point will use them all against you... Well... here you go...[)]


Thanks again for making me want to be a better Christian!

 

[LifeEditing]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

No, I tell people what I believe to be true in my life. That this is how I choose to live now because of my experience with God.

Fair enough, MAYO. If you're willing, I'd be happy to hear what you believe

I did not mean to come across as the latter. If you want to be realistic, lets look at 2 parallel scenarios.

I didn't quote your scenarios because it winds up taking a ton of space, but rest assured I read them and agree. Hopefully I don't come across like I know everything, I do try my best to be humble and make suggestions based on what's working for me, not necessarily from a place of authority or exceptional experience. But your point is well taken.

As for the application of stereotypes that I may have unfairly applied to you, what needs to be said about that is that unfortunately I don't think that you can separate "sincere religion" from "horrible religion", if you get my meaning. On an individual basis you can (and I apologize if I've branded you incorrectly), but on a more general basis, and especially at this point in time and history, I don't think anybody can really say things like... "Well, yes, religion has been the basis for countless wars, atrocities, murders, rapings, tortures, and the stunting of social progress... BUT there are some good believers out there, so it's not all bad...". In my mind, that's a lot like saying... that it's a wonderful thing if somebody wants to pack a bunch of food into their car and drive down to the local shelter to donate it, even though they hit-and-run 30,000 people along the way. Clearly it would be better if that person just stayed at home

And so, again, in the spirit of being realistic, I think that anybody who endeavors to be religious in this day and age, should expect and be somewhat comfortable with those associations, because they've chosen to be part of something that continues to inspire some pretty awful things.

 

[MAYO]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

No hard feelings. Still, I will never be comfortable with being associated with hate and discrimination. It's a hurtful thing to see something that you care about, believe in, and know to be pure and virtuous drug thru the dirt by the actions of a few. No one is spiritually above anyone else, and no one has the right to spiritually condemn another. in short: God didn't tell me to get my life in order and then come to Him, He said, "Come to Me and we'll figure out the rest together." I wasn't condemned, nor can I condemn. Call me naive, but I believe that the Godly love and truth emanated from a Christian walk is how people are converted, not the issuance of a "holy to-do list" from one imperfect being to another.

 

[Jeton]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Fair enough, MAYO. If you're willing, I'd be happy to hear what you believe



I didn't quote your scenarios because it winds up taking a ton of space, but rest assured I read them and agree. Hopefully I don't come across like I know everything, I do try my best to be humble and make suggestions based on what's working for me, not necessarily from a place of authority or exceptional experience. But your point is well taken.

As for the application of stereotypes that I may have unfairly applied to you, what needs to be said about that is that unfortunately I don't think that you can separate "sincere religion" from "horrible religion", if you get my meaning. On an individual basis you can (and I apologize if I've branded you incorrectly), but on a more general basis, and especially at this point in time and history, I don't think anybody can really say things like... "Well, yes, religion has been the basis for countless wars, atrocities, murders, rapings, tortures, and the stunting of social progress... BUT there are some good believers out there, so it's not all bad...". In my mind, that's a lot like saying... that it's a wonderful thing if somebody wants to pack a bunch of food into their car and drive down to the local shelter to donate it, even though they hit-and-run 30,000 people along the way. Clearly it would be better if that person just stayed at home

And so, again, in the spirit of being realistic, I think that anybody who endeavors to be religious in this day and age, should expect and be somewhat comfortable with those associations, because they've chosen to be part of something that continues to inspire some pretty awful things.

well now, i think u've crossed the line into reductive bigotry, which of course is something all humans beings r disposed to...simple guilt by association. however, it remains grossly reductive to lay wars, atrocities, murders, rape and torture at the door of religion, even if such activities r expressly committed in the name of religion. these horrors r a part of HUMANITY, as is religion.

many atheists r dismissive of comparisons to Stalinism or Nazi-ism, but such dismissiveness can only be A) sophist or B) hypocritical...u have to split hairs rather finely to escape the comparison.

it's perfectly human to cast aspersions at religious people for the horrors done in the name of religion, but such attack is politics masquerading as philosophy, and the question becomes "what is ur political goal with such attack?"

as a politically active HIV+ gay man with a lifelong interest in politics, cosmology and philosophy, i remain wary of easy and reductive answers. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens r no particular help to me or my concerns.

 

[Jeton]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

the judge lifted his stay!

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/12/news/news-us-gaymarriage-california.html?ref=reuters

Judge Lifts California Gay Marriage on August 18

By REUTERS
Published: August 12, 2010

Filed at 3:53 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday ruled that legal marriages of same-sex couples may resume next week in California, pending the appeal of his earlier decision that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay matrimony.

The ruling allowing gay marriage will take effect at 5 p.m. PDT on August 18. Supporters of the ban, known as Proposition 8, will move forward with a request that an appeals court leave the ban intact while it considers their case.

In a ruling that has implications for nearly 40 U.S. states with similar laws on their books, District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week that Prop 8 violates due-process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

(Reporting by Dan Levine, writing by Peter Henderson, editing by Jackie Frank)

 

[LifeEditing]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

well now, i think u've crossed the line into reductive bigotry, which of course is something all humans beings r disposed to...simple guilt by association. however, it remains grossly reductive to lay wars, atrocities, murders, rape and torture at the door of religion, even if such activities r expressly committed in the name of religion. these horrors r a part of HUMANITY, as is religion.

I'm not suggesting that these things only happen because of religion. I'm simply pointing out that they often do happen in the name of religion and religious dogma, and that in looking at religion as a cultural force, you really can't separate that from other parts that might be more pleasant to consider.

many atheists r dismissive of comparisons to Stalinism or Nazi-ism, but such dismissiveness can only be A) sophist or B) hypocritical...u have to split hairs rather finely to escape the comparison.

Not sure what you mean here. And frankly, even if you are suggesting a link between Stalin or Hitler and atheism, such an idea is kind of impossible. Atheism has no dogma. Just because both the Terminator and myself have no belief in any god, doesn't make whatever beliefs we do have even remotely similar or connected. That's a problem that can't really exist with atheism. Once you do create a system of ideas that become shared, its no longer atheism. Whereas, various religions are following a rule book, thereby linking them.

it's perfectly human to cast aspersions at religious people for the horrors done in the name of religion, but such attack is politics masquerading as philosophy, and the question becomes "what is ur political goal with such attack?"

I'm not sure I agree with that 100%, but to make my issues plain... My primary interest in religion is in removing its influence from secular life and government. For example, I have no problem with Christians being who they are, practicing their religion, preaching to others, etc. As a matter of fact, some of my closest and dearest friends are devout Reformed Baptists and I love these people so much I'd die for them. But I do have a problem with Christians attempting to legislate morality and subject others to their views. Prop 8 is a perfect example, and in that context I think pointing to the dirty nature of religion is fair and acurate.

Just my humble opinion

 

[LifeEditing]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

the judge lifted his stay!

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/12/news/news-us-gaymarriage-california.html?ref=reuters

Judge Lifts California Gay Marriage on August 18

By REUTERS
Published: August 12, 2010

Filed at 3:53 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday ruled that legal marriages of same-sex couples may resume next week in California, pending the appeal of his earlier decision that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay matrimony.

The ruling allowing gay marriage will take effect at 5 p.m. PDT on August 18. Supporters of the ban, known as Proposition 8, will move forward with a request that an appeals court leave the ban intact while it considers their case.

In a ruling that has implications for nearly 40 U.S. states with similar laws on their books, District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week that Prop 8 violates due-process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

(Reporting by Dan Levine, writing by Peter Henderson, editing by Jackie Frank)

Awesome

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Very Dry
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/very_dry.php?ref=fpblg

Josh Marshall
August 13, 2010

Is this judicial snark?

One of our commentators pointed out this passage in Judge Walker's ruling today in the Prop 8 case ...

"Proponents also point to harm resulting from "a cloud of uncertainty" surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

ROTFLMFAOPIMP

[This is so typical of individuals who lack any sense of support for their argument. It is often displayed here! ]

Stay Order Attached . . .

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed
Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed

SAN FRANCISCO — The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed an request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.

They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or be put off while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

In refusing to suspend his ruling for more than a few days, Walker agreed with the lawyers who sued to strike down the ban that it's unclear if Proposition 8's sponsors have legal standing to appeal.

Although he allowed the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the measure to defend the lawsuit during the 13-day trial over which he presided, the judge said appellate courts have different rules for deciding when a party is eligible to challenge a lower court.

Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.

Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof.

San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who during the trial helped argue that Proposition 8 should be overturned, said that while it will not be up to Walker to decide the eligibility issue, "it's very realistic" that the 9th Circuit could reach the same conclusion.

"We allocate the decision-making authority over how to enforce and defend and prosecute the laws to the executive branch," Stewart said. "Do you want every Tom, Dick and Harry second-guessing what the attorney general does and challenging every ruling the attorney general chooses not to?"

The ban's backers addressed the potential for such a roadblock in their emergency stay request, saying California's strong citizen initiative law permits ballot measures proponents to defend their interests when state officials refuse to.

"We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal," said Jim Campbell, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8.

Other legal analysts think the appeals court will allow the group that raised $40 million to pass Proposition 8 to formally challenge Walker's ruling.

"What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

Walker's order clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California for the first time since 52 percent of the state's voters approved Proposition 8 nonetheless raised hopes among gay couples who flocked to government offices to await word that they soon will be able to exchange vows.

"We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state.

Teresa Rowe, 31, and her partner, Kristin Orbin, 31, said they were still happy with the decision even though the ceremony didn't happen. The couple went to San Francisco City Hall early Thursday morning to fill out a marriage license application.

"It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," Rowe said.

 

[Jeton]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

that's hysterical, Mike...but liek Prof. Carpenter, im going to assume that the backers of prop 8 will attain stanhding to appeal...i'm very hopeful that they do. my money is on SCOTUS upholding the decision.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

UPDATE: Within a few hours after the judge refused their plea to postpone his ruling for more than a few days, the sponsors of Proposition 8 filed an emergency motion for a stay (attached) with the Ninth Circuit. In a filing that in text runs to 75 pages, the proponents argued that the judge’s decision against the ban “will almost certainly be reversed.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

The Ninth Circuit Court has created a special website for the appeals in both of the Proposition 8 cases. It can be found at this link. (08/12/10) Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (Prop. 8)

There is also a listserv to which one can subscribe for notices of activity in those cases.

 

[Jeton]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

thanks Mike, i'm subbed now...

 

[LifeEditing]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

that's hysterical, Mike...but liek Prof. Carpenter, im going to assume that the backers of prop 8 will attain stanhding to appeal...i'm very hopeful that they do. my money is on SCOTUS upholding the decision.

Would be the best outcome Why not have a Supreme Court decision that sets a nationwide legal precedent? Its gonna blow up in their face.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

California gay marriage case hangs on technicality
California gay marriage case hangs on technicality | Reuters

(Reuters) - The next stage of California's gay marriage court battle rests on a procedural issue that could halt the case, leaving same-sex unions legal in California without a Supreme Court ruling to guide the nation.

A San Francisco federal judge struck down the California same-sex marriage ban known as Proposition 8 earlier this month, and the case was immediately appealed to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, those appellate judges set a hearing for December and put gay marriages on hold pending appeal. They made only one comment relating to legal issues, asking the pro Prop 8 team to say why the case should not be dismissed due to lack of standing -- a term for the right to appeal.

Strictly speaking, the California state government would be the proper body to represent the pro-Prop 8 case, but neither the governor nor the attorney general is willing to pursue it. The defense of the ban was so far made by an independent group that must prove its right to appeal.

The appeals court will make its decision on standing as the first step in its ruling on the case after the December hearing. If it decides that the Prop 8 proponents don't have standing, the judges won't even look at the main argument, following standard judicial policy of making rulings as narrow as possible.

Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, unleashing a nationwide furor as liberals wondered how the trend-setting state could fall in line with the roughly 40 others that ban same-sex unions and social conservatives boasted their cause truly had national backing.

That sparked the federal court case, with a very unusual twist -- the state defendants, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did not defend the ban and will not appeal the pro-gay-marriage decision.

Federal District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has questioned whether the group which defended the ban can appeal on its own.

"As it appears at least doubtful that (Prop 8) proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," he wrote.

University of California, Berkeley, law professor Jesse Choper said the appeals court seemed to see standing as a "genuine issue." Legal analysts are uncertain how the court might rule.

Prop 8 supporters say they have the right to appeal since California's leaders will not, and that the institution of marriage will be harmed by allowing same-sex unions.

NEVER ABANDON WINNING ARGUMENT

Same sex marriage advocates, who entered the case saying they wanted to take the issue to the Supreme Court to set national policy, now appear ready to limit the immediate fight to California.

They want to set a national precedent, but "we would never cast aside a winning argument," said Ted Boutrous Jr, one of the chief lawyers taking on the California ban. If his team won the appeal by virtue of the court deciding that gay marriage opponents do not have standing, "gay men and lesbians would be able to exercise their right to marry in California."

The pro-gay-marriage opinion by District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker would influence other courts, he said.

"It would be a powerful weapon in the battle for marriage equality across this country," he said.

That message is good news for gay rights advocates who long avoided a federal court battle for fear the Supreme Court would rule against them. Some fearing social backlash also want to avoid changing too fast.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said a permanent lifting of California's matrimony ban would have a "catalytic effect" on the national debate on gay marriage.

Kendell favors pursuing a ruling limited to California, to enjoy victory rather than risk taking the fight to the Supreme Court.

Therese Stewart, the San Francisco deputy city attorney who helped fight the federal court case on behalf of gay couples said her team is "certainly discussing" whether to emphasize the standing issue, which ultimately is in the courts' hands.

"I think the pro of having it stop here is that you've got a ruling that allows marriage now in California, and sort of ends the battle in California," Stewart said.

"And there's less risk in the Supreme Court. The pro of going all the way is a ruling that could be positive nationwide. Different people have different views," she said.

 

[Stretch]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

It's gonna happen just get the shit over with for cryin out loud...quit delayin it...quit crying about it....they're gonna be gettin married in every state in the union in 20 yrs or less.

It's all over but the cryin

Look how far we've slid...OR progressed depending on your position.....in the last 20 years....gay marriage is gonna happen people....EVERYWHERE.

 

[MAYO]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

It's gonna happen just get the shit over with for cryin out loud...quit delayin it...quit crying about it....they're gonna be gettin married in every state in the union in 20 yrs or less.

It's all over but the cryin

Look how far we've slid...OR progressed depending on your position.....in the last 20 years....gay marriage is gonna happen people....EVERYWHERE.

Priceless [)]

 

[Jeton]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

1) I'm not suggesting that these things only happen because of religion. I'm simply pointing out that they often do happen in the name of religion and religious dogma, and that in looking at religion as a cultural force, you really can't separate that from other parts that might be more pleasant to consider.

2) Not sure what you mean here. And frankly, even if you are suggesting a link between Stalin or Hitler and atheism, such an idea is kind of impossible. Atheism has no dogma. Just because both the Terminator and myself have no belief in any god, doesn't make whatever beliefs we do have even remotely similar or connected. That's a problem that can't really exist with atheism. Once you do create a system of ideas that become shared, its no longer atheism. Whereas, various religions are following a rule book, thereby linking them.

3) I'm not sure I agree with that 100%, but to make my issues plain... My primary interest in religion is in removing its influence from secular life and government. For example, I have no problem with Christians being who they are, practicing their religion, preaching to others, etc. As a matter of fact, some of my closest and dearest friends are devout Reformed Baptists and I love these people so much I'd die for them. But I do have a problem with Christians attempting to legislate morality and subject others to their views. Prop 8 is a perfect example, and in that context I think pointing to the dirty nature of religion is fair and acurate.

Just my humble opinion

1) sometimes u can, but just don't want to. ur analsyis here buttresses my response to u in #3 tho..

2) i think ur confusing atheism in general with some personal anarchic interpretation of ur own..."atheism" is simply a belief that "there is no god", and has sub-meanings depending on subculture. modern postWWW atheistic subculture self-defines essentially as materialistic rationalism and comprehensive skepticism, but in the broader American and world populations that word usage is only partially correct...most people still put the fiercely atheistic cults of Stalinism and Naziism in ur camp...with some justification....leading to point #3 again...

3) ur goal is impossible. the cosmogonal imperative is built into humanity, apparently as a survival benefit...most of those seeking to limit Mormon and Evangelical influence in American politics, especially when it comes to Gay Rights and Reproductive Rights, like myself, have our own cosmogonal views and paradigms...this includes the self-avowed atheist subset..."i have no worldview, i don't believe in worldviews" is in fact an actual, bonafide WORLDVIEW.

very few people r fooled by claims to the contrary.

It's gonna happen just get the shit over with for cryin out loud...quit delayin it...quit crying about it....they're gonna be gettin married in every state in the union in 20 yrs or less.

It's all over but the cryin

Look how far we've slid...OR progressed depending on your position.....in the last 20 years....gay marriage is gonna happen people....EVERYWHERE.

well SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet, but my beloved Kennedy is reliably pro-Gay Rights...however, many of "yoooor kaaahnd" r gonna get stuck explaining themselves in 20 years. what is the big disaster ur all expecting but can never provide ANY evidence for?

if anything, seeing some or all of their gay friends getting married will convince more heteros to do the same. as for the vaunted "50% divorce rate", that figure is highly distorted by a small subset of heteros who have multiple marriages, as well as by young gays forced to marry opposite sex partners until they finally wake up n say "fuck this!!".

i honestly expect marriage as an institution will be strengthened by allowing gay people the same right...Andrew Sullivan elaborated on this 20 years ago in a (ahem) seminal New Republic article. "The CONSERVATIVE Case For Gay Marriage".