Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8

How can a free society reconcile the often competing values of democracy, religious liberty and the separation of church and state? This challenge was vividly illustrated by the recent controversy over California's Proposition 8, which forbade same-sex marriage.

In a democracy, the majority of citizens ordinarily may enact whatever laws they want. Some laws, however, are prohibited by the Constitution. For example, the majority of citizens may want a law denying African-Americans the right to vote or prohibiting Muslims from attending public schools, but such laws violate the Constitution.

Does Proposition 8 violate the Constitution? There are several arguments one might make for this position. One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me.

Laws that violate the separation of church and state usually take one of two forms. Either they discriminate against certain religions ("Jews may not serve as jurors"), or they endorse particular religions ("school children must recite the Lord's Prayer"). Proposition 8 does not violate the principle of separation of church and state in either of these ways. It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression.

What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. Indeed, despite invocations of tradition, morality and family values, it seems clear that the only honest explanation for Proposition 8 is religion. This is obvious not only from the extraordinary efforts undertaken by some religious groups to promote Proposition 8, but also from the very striking voting patterns revealed in the exit polls.

Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52% to 48%. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81% to 19%, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84% to 16%. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85% to 15% and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83% to 17%.

What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.

The Framers of the American Constitution knew that throughout human history religious self-righteousness has caused intolerance, discrimination and injustice. They understood that religious self-righteousness is dangerous, divisive and destructive, and that it has led to untold ignorance and misery. It was for that reason that they embedded in our Constitution a fundamental commitment to the separation of church and state.

The Framers were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help to nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But religion was to be fundamentally private. It was for the individual. It was not to intrude unduly into the political sphere.

But here's the rub: From a strictly legal perspective, it is next to impossible for courts to enforce the separation of church and state in the context of laws like Proposition 8. When a law does not directly restrict religious activity or expressly endorse religious expression, it is exceedingly difficult for courts to sort out the "real" motivations behind the law. As a consequence, courts are loath to invalidate laws on the ground that they enact a particular religious faith.

This does not end the inquiry, however. Courts also have difficulty in dealing with laws that do not expressly discriminate on the basis of race or religion or gender, but that were motivated by racial, religious or gender prejudice. But we know - as an essential part of our national character - that we as citizens should not support laws because they advance our discriminatory biases about race, religion, and gender. We know that it is un-American for us to enact laws because they implement our prejudices. We know that it is our responsibility to be tolerant, self-critical and introspective about our own values and beliefs and to strive to achieve our highest national aspirations.

The separation of church and state is one of those aspirations. Indeed, regardless of whether courts can intervene in this context, it is as un-American to violate the separation of church and state by using the power of the state to impose our religious beliefs on others as it is to use the power of the state to impose our discriminatory views of race, religion or gender on others.

This is the fundamental point that the religious advocates of Proposition 8 fail to comprehend. Like other citizens, they are free in our society to support laws because they believe those laws serve legitimate ends, including such values as tradition, general conceptions of morality, and family stability. But they are not free - not if they are to act as faithful American citizens - to impose their religious views on others. That is, quite simply, un-American.

This is not to say that individuals cannot attempt to persuade others freely to embrace and to act in accord with their religious beliefs. The First Amendment gives us virtually absolute protection to preach, proselytize and evangelize. But the fundamental point about religious liberty in the United States is that it is private. Christian Evangelicals have every right to try to persuade others to accept and abide by their beliefs. But they have no right - indeed, they violate the very spirit of the American Constitution - when they attempt to conscript the authority of the state to compel those who do not share their religious beliefs to act as if they do.

Comments

[bbc3341]

This post has a logical fallacy in it:

"they (religious people) are free in our society to support laws because they believe those laws serve legitimate ends, including such values as tradition, general conceptions of morality, and family stability. But they are not free - not if they are to act as faithful American citizens - to impose their religious views on others."

This doesn't make sense. This is what this means: Religious people can support or oppose laws but not if they are religious people.

The main point that I have with this post is that it is a crushing blow to religious freedom. It is censorship to insist that it is illegal for churches to speak out on political issues. It is wrong to say that religious people, acting on the teachings of their church, are not allowed to join together to influence legislation. This is preposterous. Now, if there is evidence that religions illegally used money or violated their tax exempt status, that's different, but that isn't the argument of this post.

This posts says that the supporters of Prop 8 shouldn't be allowed to support it because religion has influenced their point of view. Just think about that...

[jpage78]

It's ok to let your religion "influence" your decision making when it comes to something like Prop 8. It's not ok to make everyone else live under your religious framework. No reason was given for this proposition to exist other than on religious grounds. The "sanctity" of marriage only exists inside religion.

[bbc3341]

Look, I did not support Prop 8 - but this is not a winning argument.

Think about it, this would mean that any law that can be traced to "religious grounds" would need to be invalidated. And there are a lot of them. It doesn't work.

[only1Demvoter]

bbc : They do everyday. They don't pay taxes

Think about that..


-ralph

[bbc3341]

Not sure I follow this, but no charities pay taxes, but members of churches do...

I didn't support prop 8, but I don't think this line of attack on religion is the way to go... I am a Mormon, so obviously I have a dog in the fight in terms of religious freedom, but I know many, many people in my church who feel the way I do. A rational discussion about the reasons to extend marriage rights to homosexuals will go a lot further than an attack on religion and their rights.

[goodgravy]

good point except that if it weren't for the church this would have been a non issue. it was their (tax free) money and preaching from the pulpit, which is clearly prohibited bur conveniently ignored, that got is to where we are today.

[bbc3341]

The money donated by church members to Prop 8 was not tax free. Again, if there is evidence of illegal activity I am all for uncovering it - but that is not the argument this post is making. I am simply arguing against the ideas expressed in this article.

And, frankly, even if it was the teachings of religion that influenced Prop 8 that's still OK and legal. If there was any illegal behavior, let's root it out. Beyond that, religions should be free to express their teachings.

btw I did not support Prop 8... but not because I thought religions had no right to be involved in the discussion, I just have a different take, and I am LDS...

[BruceHNV]

Reservation of marriage to heterosexuals only is the imposition of a religious standard on a secular legal contract.

[Smith808]

Hello bbc,
I see your point, and the question did come up for me, as well. People have every right to vote their beliefs, whether they are secular or religious in nature.
However, this doesn't preclude me from pointing out that the decision was fundamentally unjust and fundamentally fueled by religion. Unlike voting for the death penalty or abortion, the issue at hand was about denying and repealing equal access to the same rights and privileges enjoyed by all citizens and state residents. For the past twenty years, I have never seen the Mormon Church so involved in "outreach" as they have been in defeating gay and lesbian rights. It is as if the Church has found a new scapegoat to deflect its own "legitimacy" issues. The vote, although not illegal (at least not yet), is as egregious as priests threatening ex-communication for those who voted for Obama. A "rational" argument for gay marriage will follow.

[bbc3341]

All of these arguments are legitimate and I have no problem with them. Thought I think that the priest threatening ex-communication for a vote goes further than what the Mormon church did...

[jpage78]

Although it was such a wonderful day on Nov. 4th it also made me cry....tears of sadness. I am gay and when I saw all these propositions pass my heart sank and hope started to drift away from me. With the passage of time I've come to think more clearly. My hope arrives in a history lesson...

I live in Colorado, and we enacted something called Amendment 2 in 1992...a horrific amendment that practically made gays second class citizens. An injunctions was successful and it was eventually deemed unconstitutional in 1996...while Prop 8 is not the same thing...my hope remains that people will see how history rose to the occasion in the 90's and can do it again.

[carsntrucks]

Geoffrey, you were doing good until you said it endorses a particular religion's belief about marriage. No, it doesn't. Every major religion prohibits marriage, and unless you're discussing one that someone made up ten years ago, that goes a long way. It's also true that the law wasn't passed solely on the basis of religious rapaciousness. You're claiming the most liberal state in the country voted for something overwhelmingly because of their religious beliefs. Church members donated to a political campaign. They're ALLOWED to do that.

Why is it that every time religious people try and eat from the public trough, people get all pissed

[BruceHNV]

It's not the eating that pisses people off. It's the withholding of food from others.

[Plumridge]

Great analogy, BruceHNV!

[overcat]

"Every major religion prohibits marriage" - legal marriage in the US is a matter of civil law, religion has no right to prohibit or allow matters of civil law. Whether religious groups accept or recognize a particular marriage of any sort is not and should not be an issue legally.

"You're claiming the most liberal state in the country voted for something overwhelmingly because of their religious beliefs" - wrong on a couple of counts. California simply is not the most liberal state in the country - even a cursory statistical analysis will show that. California simply has a few significant liberal enclaves. Your follow up logic that this "most liberal" state therefor wasn't expressing religious conservatism falls apart as well. Prop 8 was largely funded by conservative religious groups who organized massive efforts through church organizations to pass the measure.

[CD-Host]

"legal marriage in the US is a matter of civil law, "

No it is not. The state licenses and registers marriages but it does not claim that marriage is simply arbitrary state contract subject to the state's whims. The US government nor the states have ever made that claim.

[Ron1951]

I like Melissa Etheridge's challenge about not paying taxes due to taxation without representation. I hope she pursues this. it is an interesting concept and i would like to see where it goes.

I was ambivalently for the rights of gay people to marry until I heard how the churches--catholic and mormon predominantly--pushed money and clerical sermons to defeat this. Now I am solidly for this right for gay people.

[beenn15]

The term "Taxation without representation" only applies for representation in Congress.

[BruceHNV]

Who are you to say what it applies to? It's a way of expressing what the colonists (before there was a congress) underwent when Great Britain collected taxes but did not affor the colonists representation in the formatio of the British law they lived under.

Hence, if anyone contributes taxes to a government before which their voices go unhears, they can talk about "taxation without representation" if they want to. It's not like it's a legal term of art. It's just an expression.

[JohnBisceglia]

How about "NO TAXATION WITHOUT EQUALITY"?

[Herders4Me]

Bless you, Ron.

I can assure you that Prop 8 was a horrble, terrible kick in the gut to gay people. To be told *their* love and commitment to a partner and a family has no value in society. Nor even the right to *exist*.

[JohnBisceglia]

I hope Melissa keeps her word. I will. I am organizing the National Equality Tax Prote$t, to be held on Wednesday, April 15 ~ 2009.

PLEASE CONSIDER:

Americans who DO NOT wish to engage in civil disobedience may protest outside of their local post office. The message is "WE CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICA; WE DESERVE THE SAME".

Those who DO wish to engage in civil disobedience may stand there withholding their tax forms. The message is "WE USED TO CONTRIBUTE, BUT NOW WE DEMAND YOU TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY!"

Organizations alone will NOT earn our civil rights; if they could we would be equal by now; organizations by nature have baggage, bureaucracy, personalities (egos) and many limitations.

INDIVIDUALS also need to push this forward (as they have in the past).

[northstar11]

enforcement is not the issue .

prop 8 should never make it to the ballot.(based on discrimination)

you cannot have the majority voting on the civil rights of a minority.

by definition the minority never has the votes to win.

[Zanti]

I agree completely. I don't think anyone's civil rights--whether they're in the minority or majority--should be up for a vote.

[Herders4Me]

You cut to the very core of the issue.

But will the courts agree??

[BruceHNV]

It would appear the only "courts" left to hear this is the United States Supreme Court. Once Prop 8 is enshrined in the CA state constitution, the courts of that state are required only to interpret it, as far as I can tell. A constitutional court cannot declare the constitution under which it operates unconstitutional.

[SensibleJoe]

The hypocrisy on the part of religious activists in this case is their ignoring their own distinction between civil and religious marriage. Most churches do not recognize civil marriages and will deny communion to couples joined in a civil marriage ceremony, no matter how legal it is. They'll only commune the couple if it undergoes a religious marriage in church. So if they already see a distinction between civil and religious marriage, what's the big deal here? Maybe it's time to make all couples -- heterosexual or homosexual -- undergo civil marriage performed by a government agency, after which they can undergo a religious marriage, if their religious communities sanction such for them. No harm, no foul under that arrangement. Everybody wins.

[mylegsareswollen]

Obama is aganst gay marriage for just the reason the author states.

The ballot is the only way to resolve this issue permanently. This will require gay continue their out reach into the religious communities.

It's a hell of alot harder than a court simply waving their hands and granting marriage, but it i the only long term solution.

[Herders4Me]

Actually, Obama said he was for Civil Unions having ALL the legal benefits of marriage.

He objects to the use of the word 'marriage' ONLY for religious reasons.

[CD-Host]

"Most churches do not recognize civil marriages and will deny communion to couples joined in a civil marriage ceremony, no matter how legal it is."

Really most? Can you list a few?

[HeevenSteven]

Ditto for the pro-like crowd.

[Zanti]

Pro-like? (-:

Such as, the neo-atheists who propose that everyone else think like them?

[cdnnewsjunky]

So your fine with religious laws? Hope you feel that way when some other religion dominates your culture and you then have to follow their rules.

[HeevenSteven]

Oops, pro-life. I'm qwerty challenged.

No Zanti, that's a straw man. The pro-lifers shouldn't legislate their metaphysics--require by law that everyone follow THEIR thinking.

[Odysseus ca]

This whole "marraige" thing can be easily solved. Take the State out of the marraige business entirely. Require all marital unions to be civil unions with the full rights, privileges and obligations therein. If people wish their civil union to be recognized by their respective religious institution, then get "married" within that religious institution's own rules & belief constructs. No Church should be forced to perform marraiges that violate Church Law & Canon. A marraige is between the happy couple & GOD. A civil union is a legal contract of a binding nature between just that couple. The State has an interest only in the clear protection of both parties within a civil union in terms of property & medical guardianship, but marraige is the blessing of that civil union by GOD, which only the various Churches mediate. Leave the State the responsibility of the Temporal World and leave the Church to care for the Spiritual World. Seems right to me...

[DanielDD]

I agree with most of what you say, but not the central recommendation. Religions do not - and should not - own the copyright to the word "marriage." The word is supremely significant and powerful in describing the union of two people (traditionally man and woman). "Traditional" marriage has evolved over time - most significantly becoming voluntary based on love, rather than arranged based on economic and political considerations - so there is no rational basis to surrender this word to organized religion. The State has always been in the "marriage business," because the state has a strong stake in the creation, nurture, and education of its citizens. For this reason, the State has always strived to support the family as one of the central institutions (along with schools and, yes, even churches) in providing these services. So why not let "marriage" describe, as it always has, the civil union/contract created by the State, and let "religious union" describe the religious rite uniting the couple in the eyes of any church?

[RepugsOut08]

I agree with your point about the word marriage. Since when did the evangelicals copywrite that term?
Every society in the world has some form of marriage. Christians didn't invent it.
As I've read all of the various arguments against gay marriage on various posts about this subject, it's clear to me that some people just don't like gays.
As a straight white male, I've heard the hatred expressed against gays all my life. The haters just looked until they found some obscure Biblical passage they believed would support their hate.
It's always convenient if you can blame God for your negative actions.

[toypiano]

Bravo. Well stated. Religions don't own the word "marriage," so why should we let them dictate the terms of the discussion? Optional religious-type ceremonies could use the term "spiritual union" to encompass a wide range of belief practices, and "marriage" then maintains its central, established role in conferring the legal status of spousal relationships.

[Odysseus ca]

DanielDD, I'm sure you know it means not a fig to me personally the precise word used to say "married". Were this issue to disappear by some trick of semantics I would call the proclamation of love two humans make to each other, by willfully obligating themselves to each other, heart & soul. To live their lives together, as a team, in the pursuit of this happiness, which is our right, so critically made explicit in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. That being said,...I agree with you, that the concept of marraige preceeds all history of the writings of man. It is 'built' into us by the fact that we are a species that has two sexes, and that stable pair bonding creates a 'family unit' that is most conducive to raising young. But procreation, while a powerful factor in Human continued survival, is not at issue here. What is at issue is that Prop 8 has through the tyranny of the majority via the ballot inititive attempted to circumvent the Constitution & Bill of Rights. It should never have been allowed in the first place.

[VeritasJB]

You absolutely nailed it.

If you ban gay marriage then you impose religious beliefs on the whole of society.

If you don't ban gay marriage then you force religious sects to recognize something they don't.

The real prop 8 should have been to restructure the entire legal concept of marriage which is really a violation of church and state separation to begin with. There is a logistical and legal rationale to offering the rights inherent to a civil union (i.e. "property and medical guardianship" as mentioned above) but each individual should be able to allocate these rights to whoever they see fit. Obviously most would choose there partner as there legal benefactor, but it would not have to be. Religious institutions would still be able to protect whatever concept of marriage they believe is pure, while gays would be able to enjoy the legal benefits offered to any other couple.

[LeftLeftLeft]

"The real prop 8 should have been to restructure the entire legal concept of marriage which is really a violation of church and state separation to begin with."

I am afraid that Prop 8 was an attempt to make sure the LGBT population would not have ANY means left to validate their living family relationships as long as the evangelical christian church still has a breath left in its pews. Should gays get the right to legally secure their relationships, I expect that the church will seek new ways to continue the discrimination and demonization of gays with respect to the "other" ills of society. Prop 8 was never meant to be anything but another blockade to the recognition that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else . . . albeit thinly disguised as a "protecting traditional marriage."

And isn't it possible that denying gays the same rights of relationships as others in the name of "protecting traditional marriage and family" which, according the all statistics, are in a state of decline, is just a lame attempt to "bail out" marriage at the expense of a segment of the population who have absolutely no impact on current marriage and divorce statistics?

[BruceHNV]

"If you don't ban gay marriage then you force religious sects to recognize something they don't.

No you don't. That was part of the fallacy of the "Yes on 8" argument.

[garlicpesto]

Thanks, Odysseus_ca, for that breath of fresh air. We can argue all day about the use of the term "marriage" and whether it's owned by religion, but the bottom line is that the state has no authority to perform anything but civil unions. It was a bad idea to call them by the same name as the religious unions because people have become confused.

It seems that the work of separating church and state is never finished...

[HaloGuy]

I saw a great sign at one of the rallies yesterday:

"I didn't ask my husband to 'civil union' me."

[carsntrucks]

Please tell this to the gay marriage supporters who quickly cite the line from Loving v. Virginia about marriage being a basic civil right fundamental to our survival.

[LeftRight]

It is still a basic civil right. However, I would agree with the govt removing "marriage" licenses and only sanctioning civil unions for everyone. Then it would be "civil unions" being a basic civil right!

[Mistereks]

Don't forget in terms of polygamy that the LDS church has not repudiated the practice -- they have only decided not to practice it in THIS world. Polygamy is, however, an "eternal" concept to them and they believe it will be practiced in the afterlife.

[andee26]

correct. My mom is convinced that since she married a man who had been widowed in his thirties, she will be the sister wife to his first wife in the Celestial Kingdom.

It creeps me out, but it's her world and she's good with it.

[DeeLight]

What I don't get is why religious groups get to define and/or outlaw everything for everybody else.

If someone opposes something, just don't engage in that. Like allowing liquor to be sold or lotteries or other forms of gambling.

Those examples are small annoyances and while ridiculous in themselves, the idea that individuals or group can band together and deny basic human and civil rights to another group is absolutely obscene.

[Steamboater]

These are the same people who don't know how to turn to another channel on the TV set when they don't like what they see. They'd rather lord it over everyone and deny them the right to watch what they want. The religious intolerants want books banned and everything banned they doesn't agree with their twisted view of the world.

[Nutri1Max]

I believe the precedent has already been set with the Supreme Court that, if a law serves no secular purpose, it is in violation of the separation of church and state. This is likely to be the way all bans on gay marriage will be shot down nation-wide.

There can be no possible defense of the definition of marriage being only between a man and a woman as the only possible definition that does not involve some reference to 'tradition,' biblical law, or morality, all of which can be shot down as serving no secular purpose. Tradition might be able to be said is secular, but slavery was a tradition and so was keeping women out of the voting booth. When things are wrong, even if they are traditional, they will get cast down as unconstitutional.

[derik]

Obviously; if we remove religious beliefs from the mix, people being able to marry each other extends to everyone. Ultimately, marriage is a contract. If two people, whoever they are, are prohibited from entering into a contract, then we have unequal rights for the people. I believe such unequal rights are what the constitution does NOT sanction. If indeed the religious people seek to promote such unequal rights, I believe we should extend the unequality to all people. Basically, as strange as it seems, we could define that marriage is not a contract. Then, two people can agree to be married as a private matter that no jurisdiction of the courts and other organizations extends to. In many ways, all those religious people cheat would never have their day in divorce court. In fact their children would not be able to inherit their parents obligation to raise them. In such a world, society crumbles and if indeed that is what the religious people want, the rest of us will unite to not let that happen. As for myself, my marriage contract merely ensures that we both share our wealth and raise the kids. It does seem profound that in the old days the people in power did not "allow" the slaves to marry. Even more profound was that the children of female slaves were classified as slaves thereby they were not "allowed" to marry. And finally, even more profound than profound, the slaves were not "allowed" to practice religion.

[SLeeD]

Applescruff says that it's basically wrong for a "certain religious group to claim the right to define marriage". The problem with that statement is that marriage is already defined. It has been defined for thousands of years as an institution between a man and a woman. There is no religious group trying to define it, mankind has already defined it and lived it for thousands of years in every culture and tribe of humanity. Even pagan cultures described marriage as between a man and a woman
The people now attempting to "re-define" it is the gay community. Marriage is not a right and never has been. Marriage is solely a biological institution between a man and woman to procreate and raise children with a mother and a father who are both needed for the upbringing of healthy children.

[jesselee26]

you're right that marriage has existed as a social contract, outside of religion, throughout history. the problem with your theory, however, is that marriage has evolved to be a contract between a man and a woman for our society. there have been times in history, and there are places even now, in which marriage is a contract between a man and a woman's male family members. the definition of marriage, in a secular sense, not a religious one, has been ever evolving...i.e. legal divorce, pre-nup contracts, heck even romantic love (just a few examples)... those were never part of the original perameters of even secular marriage contracts. BUT AS A SOCIETY, WE'VE CHOSEN TO LET THE INSTITUTION EVOLVE. its a working definition, in the secular sense. and since marriage, secularly and not in a religious way, effects matters such as insuance policies, inheritance issues and even taxes, i would say it is more than just a biological institution.

i would recommend that anyone who cannot see that marriage has been an institution in flux for ever, read some literature by Tolstoy, Lawrence, Hardy or Ibsen.

[LeftRight]

ALL of human society is constantly evolving!! Marriage as one portion of society has evolved at the same time!

[VicF]

I understand marriage as an institution of reproduction. And the basic civil right, to be to be to reproduce. Those tax breaks for married couples are to help them pay the bills from having kids. Love is quite different and more than marriage. Love is like truth. Marriage is like on paper. Anyone can marry. Not anyone can love.

I also think their is a legitamacy to people's lack of identification with, and inability to relate to, the minority in question here. People understand how skin color may make a person different, and how different skin color comes about. But it is hard to understand how the difference of this minority comes about. I think we are to question the status quo and what not makes sense.

This debate also must be seen in context of the unnatural and false nature of western society. The regulation of school. An economy undiscussed by locals in free assembly. The lack of community dialogue about what the community wants in general. Far from leaving the state of nature to a logical and natural society, we've left the state of nature for a society in near eternal need of tribal consciousness.

[LeftRight]

You could be right, except for the minor fact that the SCOTUS, in the Loving v. Virginia case determined that:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

which means that in America it's an inalienable right. The gay people in CA and elsewhere are simply trying to GAIN their inalienable rights owed them under the Constitution!

[muscleboundH]

SLEED says: "Marriage is solely a biological institution between a man and woman to procreate and raise children with a mother and a father who are both needed for the upbringing of healthy children."

If that were truly the case fanatical religious adherents should be moved to ban marriage for women who are barren and seedless men...and of course older women who can no longer conceive.

DIVORCE will need to be banned, since children, apparently, can only be raised by a mother and father.

AND OF COURSE birth control will have to be banned because (sex) marriage is PRO-CREATION ONLY. Right?

SLEED, your logic is completely illogical. Do orphans, single parents and pregnant rape victims become 2nd class citizens because they have somehow, in some way, missed being a part of a "biological institution?"

With SLEED'S logic we would have to return to The-Earth-Is-Flat days. WE KNOW children can be raised to great success by single parents, same sex parents and opposite sex parents. The "biological institution" argument COMPLETELY FAILS.

AND FYI there are HUNDREDS of ancient texts describing same-sex marriages. Additionally, there are many "tribes" and cultures whose concept of marriage is DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CONCEPT. Case-in-point?: The Mormons and Polygamy, Muslims and Polygamy etc.

[dm10003]

there is no logic. it is thoughtless parroting.

[Ganapati]

You are profoundly wrong
Do your research (try using more than one book...)

[dm10003]

so is SLeeD saying you NEED a contract to have children? or you DON'T NEED a contract to be married? or what???

[applescruff]

The Mormon church has a lot of nerve claiming they are experts on what defines marriage . They would do well to remember that it was not long ago in thier own history that they belleived a viable family unit was comprised of multiple wives.Some still do.

[applescruff]

I must have missed the part in the U.S.Constitution that says "all men are created equal except..."

Why is it that these anti gay marriage groups don't put this kind of outrage into condemning adultry and divorce and the things we do know devalue marriage and ruin the American family unit.? This is all about forcing ones Religious beliefs and laws on others. The rest is ignorance. Curious how often the two go hand in hand..

[beenn15]

You guys are wasting your time... You're missing the point completely. To religiously inclined people, the visual of two men on a bed is repulsive. Say what you want but this is what you need to work on. How do you convince someone who thinks that it is an abomination according to their "holy book", and totally against nature as "God" created it (so they think), that it is totally okay and wonderful to have two men doing what they do in their bedroom.... Okay, okay... I know.. No one should care about what you do in private... the whole first amendment thing. But, say what you want, this is what it's all about. So, my friends, keep up the good fight because if California, the most liberal state in the country, isn't as open-minded as I thought, you've got a long way to go convincing the whole country to accept that visual every time they hear "gay marriage"...

[BruceHNV]

You don'w have to be religious to get goose-flesh at the very idea of male-on-male relations.

But our visceral reactions have no more place in law than do religious beliefs.

[Steamboater]

applescruff: First you have think of Gays as human beings before the Consitution is applied to them. That's the real problem. Just as Jews were thought by Nazis to be unhuman and therefore denied human decency, the same applies to Gays in this country.