Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
There is freedom of religion but only if that religion conforms to existing laws. I could bring up the worship of Baal again, but I think I would have a hard time convincing the courts to allow me to sacrifice children. This would explain their desire to have a constitutional amendment. It not only changes the law but takes it out of the hands of the courts. I personally don't really give a crap about gay marriage, but a large majority of Americans are opposed to the concept, even in areas which are considered liberal. You could also argue why would those who support gay marriage wish to impose their will against the will of the people.
Democracy can be oppressive too.
|
Humanity is oppresive.
I know you know the difference between child sacrifice and gay marriage. Rights guaranteed by the constitution seem to be limited when it is in the best interest of society, i.e. child sacrifice and polygamy(a questionable assertion), yelling fire in a theater. The question that continues to go unanswered is first, what is this greivous injury that gay marriage will supposedly inflict upon our society and second, why is it necessary to violate one of the foundations of our national identity in order to prevent it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
As far as I know, gay marriage is not a cornerstone of any religious order. Polygamy is acceptable under certain religious doctrine yet is not abided by law.
As with just about every aspect of the Constitution there is wiggle room for different beliefs. Certainly the courts don't abide by that wiggle room but people absolutely do.
|
I hear you. For the record i think polygamy should be legal for the same reason that gay marriage should be legal. Here's the thing. If we interpret the constitution as protecting the religious freedoms of the minority and this issue somehow goes to court based on this idea and gay marriage becomes legitimized how do you think the most vocal critics of gay marriage would react? Already we have judges interpreting the constitution just like they're supposed to being denounced as "activists". I would predict a 99% chance of irony in the form of massive, religiously motivated public outcry.
I guess what i'm getting at is those who would have the supposed greatest interest in seeing that religious rights be protected are actually anti-religious freedom when it comes to freedoms that don't conform to their own dogma. "No shit", you say. This seems like a fundamently unsound way of going about things. How is it possible for some people to be anti gay marriage and pro-"ten commandments in the courthouse"?