In either case, government/state should detach itself from religion and come up with its own plan to handle union between couples. Meanwhile, any religion should be free to decide whether they agree or disagree to allow SSM. Nevertheless, in the eyes of the state, everyone would be equal and enjoy the constitutional rights while those who seek the approval of traditional marriage defined by their religion also manage to adhere to their faith.

Churches, synagogues, what have you that support gay marriage and wish to perform them should continue to do so whatever the consequences if they really support it

The only difference is there isn’t a license from the State at the end of the ceremony.

Are you telling me that you are unaware that even before June 17th, many religious institutions performed SSM? The State never came in before to stop them, they won’t now. The only thing they won’t do is give out the State license along with what blessing or certificate the Clergy give.

It’s amazing to me that for the Left only if there is government approval is there any validity to their actions.

Greg, wouldn’t you agree that this is a right that should be discouraged?

You should read up on Baker v. Nelson. Short version: the same Court that handed down Loving, ruled that there’s no right to SSM. Are they bigots too?

You have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. You chose not to. That is also your right.

If you wish to marry a member of the same sex, you need to convince a majority of the voters in your state that they should recognize such unions as marriages. AS GPW said, the burden’s on you. Why? Because SSM is not the fundamental underpinning of any society, and OSM is.

Since courts haven’t struck down bans on polygamous, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages by claiming that marriage is a “civil right”, one should read Loving in the context of the fact that there are three constitutional amendments making it clear that our laws should be as race-blind as possible.

I think gay activist leaders are shooting themselves in the foot by claiming their struggle is a “civil rights” issue because the African American community, as well as most of the rest of us, know that this is not true.

…I think there is probab…

I said we have the freedom to marry. The issue is state recognition. It’s right there in the title.

Don’t attempt to put words into my mouth. Remember, bans on interracial marriage are a statutory creation. Sexual difference has been a defining aspect of marriage.

Slippery slope? What slippery slope? The issue is changing the definition of marriage, not incarcerating same-sex couples.

Rusty, I don’t think those who voted for 8 were coerced, but did so because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. The opponents of the initiative didn’t do a good job of making the case why we should change the definition.

through some very ugly information

I hold no ill will towards those who voted for 8, for many folk it would have been in conflict with many beliefs, but beliefs can be changed.

It is through the heart, the interpersonal relationships, that will move this change. Not threats, not fear tactics, . . .

Let’s, instead, look to the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia. This case dealt with interracial marriages. SCOTUS specifically came out and called marriage a fundamental right.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

If we’re going to discuss whether same sex marriage is a fundamental right, why not do so in view of Loving. That would at least provide a relevant basis for our arguments.

I guess what you’re also saying is that there is no fundamental right for interracial couples to be married. Or for any select group of people. Are you willing to go that far? Your argument simply provides a slippery slope having scary potential outcomes.