" It is wrong for one group of people to deny basic civil rights to another group because they do not share your religious beliefs. And that is exactly what this boils down to: legislating religion."

Thou shalt not kill.
We shouldnt be legislating our religion.
Thou shalt not steal.
legislating our religion?

"Two gay people marrying does not diminish the marriage of two straight people. If that were possible, the two straight people have much bigger problems than the marriage of their gay neighbors down the street."

Murder doesnt effect me either. I've never had anyone I know murdered. Never had someone murdered on my block. It doesnt affect me anymore than does gay marraige.

"This is just one more thing. Get over it, and move on to something that is truly worthy of your time and money, like feeding the poor, building homes for the homeless, and caring for the ill and dying."

Why should we do this? Just because its in the bible?
Isnt it wrong for you to be telling others what is worthy of their time and money? The only place that says that stuff is a good thing is a religion.

"Please, please, do not use the laws of our country to deny basic human rights. The constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness."

So the Son of Sam has a basic human right to persue what makes him happy too? The constitution guarantees certain rights. You cannot ignorantly use the right to pursuit of happiness as a constitutional proof text to trump all enumerated rights.

The problem with the legislating religion arguement is that they only want it to apply to one thing. They want us TOO pay attention to some things in our religion but to shut up on other things in our religion. No religion on the planet is ala carte.

Very well put. What we often forget is that there is a vast difference between holding certain private, religiously based, views and that of imposing those views upon those who disagree in the form of legislation. This country long time ago protected itself against that kind of abuse by enacting a Constitution.

Democracy without a constitution is essentially majority dictatorship. For African-Americans, that's how this country functioned into the 1960s, since the Constitution only applied to white people. Today the Constitution still does not apply fully to gays, only to straight people.

The purpose of a constitution is to establish certain rights as being beyond questions of majorities or minorities or religious allegiance.

The argumment that murder or stealing does not bother someone because he has not been affected is spurious. Those crimes have a victim and perpetrator. Where are the victims in same-sex marriage with willing participants? Does someone give permission to be robbed? Are there those who choose to be lied to or murdered?
Human rights are given to everyone, not just a certain group, as Aage explains so well.

The rights of individuals in the U.S. are to live peacably in their own homes, with the same privacy extended to all. To deny any group or subset of peoples (as with blacks and women in the past) is to abridge them and a denial of the Constitution that guarantees ALL (not some) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No one has yet shown than denying either same sex or interracial marriage inflicts the slightest harm to other marriages. That has long been the contention: heterosexual marriage needs "protection" from homosexual marriages; and that allowing same-sex marriages somehow harms all traditional marriages. If that is true, please come forward or else forever hold your tongue.

Elaine,
The arguement they made wasnt about victims and perpetrators was it?
Theirs was, it doesnt affect you so butt out.
Theirs was, everyone was intitled to their own persuit of happiness whatever that might be and that right trumping all other enumerated rights.
A poor arguement.

"Thou shalt not kill.
We shouldnt be legislating our religion.
Thou shalt not steal.
legislating our religion?"

Morality (thou shalt not kill or steal) is legislating morals that require a victim and perpetrator. That was the point I was attempting to make, however poorly. Private morality legislation such as same sex marriage does not have the victim/perpetrator requirement.

Also, I think it has been very well estabished that prohibitions against killing and stealing existed before the Jewish religion and in non-jewish societies around the world. Our legal system is based on English common law, not the 10 commandments.

How is defining marriage as being between two hetero-sexual persons infringing upon a homosexuals right to "live peaceably in their own homes," Elaine? No one is implying any such thing, or trying to mandate what a person does in the privacy of his/her own home (as it relates to this subject). That is a straw-man argument.

At the same time, I have no problem with a secular government declaring civil unions, which, essentially declares that two people are living together. If they want to extend certain rights to whomever they would like to, then that is their prerogative.

I have a problem, however, with a secular government calling anything "marriage," whether hetero or homosexual - a right that only God has. God defines what is and what is not marriage, and no secular government can make a declaration on such a spiritual union. Thus, you can call homosexual unions whatever you want, but it is not marriage from God's perspective.

Shawn, as you know the actual word marriage wasn't around in the beginning. It was a God-blessed union. It might be helpful in seeing the doctrinal underpinnings of the Prop. 8 crowd when, as you note, marriage itself is a state-defined term these days.

I lean toward your position that pastors shouldn't be agents of the state in a wedding ceremony, but as it is currently defined marriage is both a church and state hybrid. It's not same-sex unions vs. same-sex marriages, but instead: church-blessed marriages vs. state-recognized marriages.

A Shinto marriage is still a marriage in any state even though most Christian churches wouldn't recognize the ceremony. Just a generation ago, interracial couples could have their marriage recognized by the state while their local church called it unBiblical.

The "unions vs. marriages" binary segregates fellow citizens by theological definitions, and as long as the state recognizes marriage for some, it should recognize it for all.

"God defines what is and what is not marriage, and no secular government can make a declaration on such a spiritual union."

If that is your argument, Shawn, it clearly is using religion as a basis and as such, religion has no ruling rights in civil laws. Marriage is a CIVIL law, regulated by the states. Religious reasons to define marriage is limited to the religious arena and has no part in defining civil laws. It becomes religion meddling in civil affairs that has been denounced by opponents of Prop. 8. Fortunately, California has the reputation, perhaps well deserved, as being ahead of the U.S. in many matters, but the New England States of Massachusetts and Connecticut also have legalized same-sex marriage and one might as well get used to the idea because it may well spread to other states.

I, for one, do not want or give permission for civil laws to be based on religious definitions. Experience has shown that there are multiple religious ideas here in the U.S. so which one should decide on such issues? Protestants? Shintos? Buddhists? Only in voting does the majority rule; the Constitution is structured to protect minorities.

No one is forcing a pastor to perform any marriage: IOW, they don't have a dog in this hunt.

If marriage is a "spiritual union" how does that apply to the celebrities Las Vegas styled marriages that last a few days? Are those "God ordained spiritual unions"?

I can hardly wait to see the evidence put forth about all the same sex marriage people and how they are charged with criminal activity. Have not seen any yet even though marriage licenses were given out in Portland and San Francisco in violation of state laws several years ago. Yet no criminal charges filed over those marriages.

I guess the rhetoric is more important then the facts. Funny how that works from someone who is supposedly fact checking other groups statements.

By the way Elaine, where does anything in the government laws says that marriage is a spiritual union? Or that God is needed for a marriage to be legally acknowledged?

I can understand how you might be confused rc, but everyone who had been married lost their legal status, now regained it, and if Prop 8 passes same-sex marriage will again be declared illegal.

Here's the Juris Vodcast explaining how same-sex marriages are criminalized between states.

My point in using the term "criminalize" was to point out that it does actually happen as this attorney discusses.

Did you want to substantively discuss any of the holes revealed in the Church State Council's use of cases, or were you just using the logically suspect tactic of casting aspersions between bodies of evidence?

Marriage is not an issue in the Bible. Nowhere, to my knowledge, is there mention of priests or clerics or religious ceremonies in connection with marriage. Marriage was a practical, hence secular, arrangement whereby a man publicly declared that a certain woman was spoken for, that she was now his property (as the 10th commandment implies)and companion.

I suspect that the reason marriage became a church sacrament, was the influence of gnosticism, which turned the body, and hence sex, into something filthy and suspect which needed to be cleansed by divine sanction.

But for those of you (non-Catholics) who think that a marriage is not a marriage without divine sanction in a church ceremony, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

rc, your question:

"By the way Elaine, where does anything in the government laws says that marriage is a spiritual union? Or that God is needed for a marriage to be legally acknowledged?"

I was quoting pastor Shawn Brace who made that statement, so you should ask him about it.

Well Alex I have no idea what your attorney says. I don't see any link to the video just blank space. But I do know what the definition of criminalize is:

American Heritage Dictionary
1. To impose a criminal penalty on or for; outlaw.
2. To treat as a criminal.

In this case CA has no law stating gay marriage is allowed so you cannot argue that it is being outlawed as if at one time it was the law. They had no legal status, there was no law giving them legal status as marriage (they could still provide themselves with legal status through contract law however just as anyone else can). Judges do not make laws, they interpret laws. But that is another problem with some of the current tactics which this represents, where law is attempted to be made by a court decision. The court in fact can only say that the law the voters passed does not meet constitutional muster and therefore it is not a supportable law.

Ok I see Elaine you were twisting his words for your own purposes whatever they may have been.

The common usage here is to place in quotation marks what another poster has written before replying to that so the other viewers can relate them. I was not twisting his words which were clearly placed in quotation marks.

My remarks were separated which was plainly shown.

Unless a Constitutional amendment is approved this November, same-sex marriages are legal in California. Whether the voters wish a Constitutional amendment is yet to be seen. The constitution has interpreted the law; congress must make changes if and when the voters request it.