Quick Question on Political vs. Moral Beliefs

[chain]

Government is involved in marriage because government is involved with the legal system and a purpose of Government is to protect the general welfare of the governed.

From the legal aspect - married individuals are often looked on as a single unit for verbal and written agreements. This is a convenience for both parties. It assist trade and commerce. As such marriage is defined for civil law to determine when parties can rely upon it for agreements. This can be accomplished other ways on a contract by contract basis - but it is much easier to rely on a common law.

Secondly to promote general welfare the Government sets up laws to protect people. This is the case where laws regulate who can be married to protect both the parties being married, and also others associated with the marriage (children). While some of these rules have been abused (such as laws prohibiting inter racial marriages) - many are still valid.

Finally, Government creates laws to promote a positive social environment. These laws are intentionally discriminatory - promoting one outcome over another.​

Homosexual marriage ignores the fact that most people do not rely on it for civil law matters, that the majority of people feel it puts individuals (especially children) at risk, and that the majority feel it is promoting a negative social agenda. It also ignores the fact that Government recognized marriages is not a right.

Any two people can marry if they so chose - that does not mean God, State, or other individuals have to recognize it. I applaud homosexuals entering into committed relationship - I just do not recognize them as a marriage (anymore than I recognize a business partnership as a marriage).

 

[Timbothefiveth]

It’s not enforcing a gay belief system to allow gay marriage. It is enforcing the idea of individual liberties and freedom. It IS enforcing a Christian belief system to NOT allow gay marriage. Why ought certain relationships be illegal?

You don’t understand the issue, this issue does not affect the legality of raltionships, that was already settled in a supreme court case, Lawrence vs Texas. This is about government changing the legal definition of a word, it is about enforcing the beliefs of gay activists.

You ask ‘what sort of country do you want to live in’? I want to live in a country that adheres to the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

I’d like you to kindly point out to me how this interferes with either of those amendments. The 9th amendment simply states that just because the constittution doesn’t mention something, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a right.

I want to live in a country that values individual liberty and personal responsibility. I want to live in a country that has a government structure that does not allow me to enforce my religious beliefs on others - or that allows others to enforce their religious beliefs on me

But it’s okay for the government to encourage secular beliefs or that of gay activists?

Also, whatever belief about that you may hold, it doesn’ justify going against church teaching.
usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexstmt.shtml

While we’re at enforcing religiosu beliefs, how can you justify outlawing theft, isn’t that enforcing your beliefs on others? Isn’t it even worse, since it doesn’t just refuse to change a legal definition, it actually outlaws a behavior?

You can say its not based on orientation all you want. That doesn’t change the fact that it is discriminatory against one sector of society. The fact remains that gays are not allowed to marry whom they want to marry. That is discriminatory.

What if I want to marry 2 people? Is it discriminatory to not allow that?

 

[Christopher68]

You don’t understand the issue, this issue does not affect the legality of raltionships, that was already settled in a supreme court case, Lawrence vs Texas. This is about government changing the legal definition of a word, it is about enforcing the beliefs of gay activists.

I’d like you to kindly point out to me how this interferes with either of those amendments. The 9th amendment simply states that just because the constittution doesn’t mention something, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a right.

But it’s okay for the government to encourage secular beliefs or that of gay activists?

Also, whatever belief about that you may hold, it doesn’ justify going against church teaching.
usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexstmt.shtml

While we’re at enforcing religiosu beliefs, how can you justify outlawing theft, isn’t that enforcing your beliefs on others? Isn’t it even worse, since it doesn’t just refuse to change a legal definition, it actually outlaws a behavior?

What if I want to marry 2 people? Is it discriminatory to not allow that?

Hello,

You responded to my post as well as other posts. I’m not an expert at using ‘quotes’ to reply to specific comments, so I’ll do my best to respond to your questions and comments.

The 9th Amendment states that if the federal government has not been granted authority for a particular issue - via the Constitution - then the federal government does not have authority for that issue, and that the authority resides with either state governments, local governments, or the people themselves. The 9th and 10th Amendments are not about empowering the federal government - they are about empowering the individual. So if you want to create a federal definition of marriage, the proper means is via Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, this is the exclusive domain of state governments.

I don’t go against church teachings, but I very likely have a different view about the role of government. Government is not a benevolent, high performance organization that achieves all (or even a small portion) of it’s objectives. In fact, whatever the government program is, there is likely ample evidence that the government program has made the issue worse, in addition to causing new and unintended problems. So the Church may state a desired goal - but my belief on how to achieve the desired goal may be vastly different. The Church has authority to interpret the teaching of Christ. However, that doesn’t mean that the Church has a proper understanding about the true nature of government.

 

[Bluegoat]

In a democratic system there is always a bit of give and take with moral and other issues. This is the case for the voter and for the candidate too. Representatives are generally meant to use their brains, research issues, and do what seems best. But sometimes they bow to the wishes of those they represent even if they think a better course could be taken. And in a party system, they often have to deal with the wishes of the party too. So in a very real way, no one is satisfied all of the time.

A good plan if one is unsure is often to vote for the person locally who you think will do best. Even if you have some strong areas of disagreement, that person will be contributing daily to the work of government, committees, etc. A person who is honestly trying to do the right thing for God and country may be better than someone dishonest that actually seems closer to your views. A passion for Truth is one of the most fundamental things we can look for in a person, because it is what leads to God. If someone makes himself a servant of untruth, it will likely lead in another direction. One of the things Christianity teaches is that the end does not justify the means - in politics this has to be balanced against a certain kind of pragmatism and long-term view to ends, but the passion for Truth is the differentiating feature I think.

As far as party politics go, they serve a purpose, though they often seem to me to cause more problems than they solve. But remember that as a member or supporter of a party, or just a party candidate, that you don’t always have to agree with everything the party says. Views of candidates are always subject in some way to the party line. However, the party line is largely defined by the views of members and candidates. So in opting out of party politics in a party system, you are opting out of an opportunity to influence what that party represents.

For example, many Catholics who would generally be more inclined toward the Democrat party are put off by it’s general views on abortion. But there are pro-life Democrats. And if there were more, then they might be able to influence Democrat policy more. Maybe not quite to the point they would like, but that is a limitation of democracy, not of the party itself. I think in looking at a party to support (as opposed to an individual), more than specific issues one has to ask what is the basic philosophy they are using to make decisions? Economic concerns? Human welfare? Might makes right? And which of those do you think most closely represents Truth? If their basic principle undermines or is opposed to Catholicism, then it will not be successful at upholding Catholic values in the long-term, even if many policies outwardly seem to support more Catholic causes. Its other actions will simply undermine whatever progress is made on those issues.

 

[elts1956]

Hello,

You responded to my post as well as other posts. I’m not an expert at using ‘quotes’ to reply to specific comments, so I’ll do my best to respond to your questions and comments.

The 9th Amendment states that if the federal government has not been granted authority for a particular issue - via the Constitution - then the federal government does not have authority for that issue, and that the authority resides with either state governments, local governments, or the people themselves. The 9th and 10th Amendments are not about empowering the federal government - they are about empowering the individual. So if you want to create a federal definition of marriage, the proper means is via Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, this is the exclusive domain of state governments.

I don’t go against church teachings, but I very likely have a different view about the role of government. Government is not a benevolent, high performance organization that achieves all (or even a small portion) of it’s objectives. In fact, whatever the government program is, there is likely ample evidence that the government program has made the issue worse, in addition to causing new and unintended problems. So the Church may state a desired goal - but my belief on how to achieve the desired goal may be vastly different. The Church has authority to interpret the teaching of Christ. However, that doesn’t mean that the Church has a proper understanding about the true nature of government.

With all the turmoil the US is going through now, shouldn’t the statement be, " The government doesn’t have a proper understanding about the true nature of the Church and Truth? I think you have it backwards my friend.

 

[gabriellenoelle]

I am Catholic and a democrat.
The way I see it, although I disagree with abortion and gay marriage, that doesn’t mean it should be my decision on how other people should feel about it (separation of church and state).
As a Catholic, I don’t believe it is right for those who are gay to get married. BUT not everyone in our country is Catholic! Not everyone believes in God or follows his commands from the Bible. It would be unfair of me to assume that because I think my religious beliefs are correct, others should too and be forced legally to agree with my Catholic beliefs/morals.
One of the greatest things about our country is the freedom of religion, and I would like to keep it that way.

 

[crazzeto]

It would be improper for you to not be pollitically opposed to that which you are morally opposed. I know the “noise of the day” is “don’t put your morals on me”. AKA, a bizzar idea of live and let live by being permissive of any kind of behaviour (something I realized in college, this realization was intramental in my coming back to the church).

If you do not oppose pollitically that which you find morally objectional, or more specifically that which so clearly and dangerously violates the natural law in particuarl then you become guilty of allowing the state to become immoral. More over, you are indirectly an accomplace to that which you oppse, gay marraige here. The first point however, is the most dangerous and that which no one ever considers. the dangers of allowing the state to become immoral and corrupt can not be under stated.

 

[camerong]

It is true that the separation of Church and state, no matter what anyone says, is of paramount importance–and history shows that it protects our ideals far more than it harms them. We should not hesitate to give up prayer in school and displays of the Ten Commandments if it means maintaining freedom of conscience in areas that actually matter, such as abortions in Catholic hospitals. So, the importance of a secular government cannot be understated.

That said, however, there are several compelling reasons why we cannot support laws which allow abortion or gay marriage. Most obviously, our religion commands us to do it, and I would challenge anyone who thinks he can pick and chose from the tenets of Catholicism and still wind up with an internally consistent religion.

A reason specific to abortion is that we view a zygote or fetus as a life from conception on; our Constitution, to which we all owe obedience under both law and our religion, protects (in a number of ways) the sanctity of life. To the Catholic who does not want to tell others not to have abortion, I say he or she does not actually believe that the unborn are still humans with precious lives.

A reason specific to gay marriage is that like it or not, most people, and most Catholics, adopt their perspectives from our society, not the Church. How much easier will it be for Catholics to begin accepting gay marriage if the rest of society does? Look at the acceptance of divorce, for example. Catholics get divorced, last I checked, at roughly the same rate as anyone else. This, I can only assume, results not from some misconception that the Church allows it, but a widespread feeling even among Catholics that divorce is pretty normal and the Church is just being archaic and judgmental. Try as we would like, we must admit that people in our own religion are very vulnerable to society’s norms. And we must do what we can to help keep those norms from devolving to hell, literally. If not for the protection of others and the greater society, for our own.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I am Catholic and a democrat.
The way I see it, although I disagree with abortion and gay marriage, that doesn’t mean it should be my decision on how other people should feel about it (separation of church and state).
As a Catholic, I don’t believe it is right for those who are gay to get married. BUT not everyone in our country is Catholic! Not everyone believes in God or follows his commands from the Bible. It would be unfair of me to assume that because I think my religious beliefs are correct, others should too and be forced legally to agree with my Catholic beliefs/morals.
One of the greatest things about our country is the freedom of religion, and I would like to keep it that way.

What if a country believes it’s a “god” given right to inslave their women and children? Who are you to impose your systems of beliefs on them?

 

[Ender]

I am Catholic and a democrat.
The way I see it, although I disagree with abortion and gay marriage, that doesn’t mean it should be my decision on how other people should feel about it (separation of church and state).

This interpretation of the separation of Church and State would disqualify everyone who believes in God from serving in government. How could you vote on any bill that agreed with your religious belief? Wouldn’t that impose your beliefs on others? How is it we are expected to believe that if a religious person supports a position it violates this imaginary separation standard? Are we to believe that if a person’s moral beliefs were formed by what he read at the barber shop last week it’s OK for him to vote his beliefs while it is immoral for us to vote ours?

It would be unfair of me to assume that because I think my religious beliefs are correct, others should too and be forced legally to agree with my Catholic beliefs/morals.

A religious belief is that we should attend Church on Sunday and no one is suggesting that such things be legislated; a moral belief is that abortion is wrong, and we have not just the right to oppose it but the moral duty to do so. We certainly have no obligation to sacrifice our moral standards to the standards of others.

Ender

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I am Catholic and a democrat.
The way I see it, although I disagree with abortion and gay marriage, that doesn’t mean it should be my decision on how other people should feel about it (separation of church and state).

Seperation of church and state means that the church isn’t the state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

This doesn’t even say “seperation of church and state”. Now, if by passing a law againt abortion I said “all laws and trials shall be made and carried out by the Catholic church” that might be an issue. If you couldn’ have any laws motivated by any religious group, you better repeal that pesky 14th amendment.

As a Catholic, I don’t believe it is right for those who are gay to get married. BUT not everyone in our country is Catholic! Not everyone believes in God or follows his commands from the Bible. It would be unfair of me to assume that because I think my religious beliefs are correct, others should too and be forced legally to agree with my Catholic beliefs/morals.

The alternative is assuming other’s beliefs are correct and making those law.

However, as a former liberal myself, I don’t think you really believe you can’t force your morals on people. If you did, you’d be calling for us to repeal the 14th and 15th amendments. So why shouldn’t we repeal the 14th and 15th amendments? The usual answer is because “those deal with issues that hurt somebody”. Abortion also hurts people though. “But not everyone believes fetuses are people” I doubt everyone believes minorities are people either. So don’t let self-contradictory political ideologies trump God!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You responded to my post as well as other posts. I’m not an expert at using ‘quotes’ to reply to specific comments, so I’ll do my best to respond to your questions and comments.

The 9th Amendment states that if the federal government has not been granted authority for a particular issue - via the Constitution - then the federal government does not have authority for that issue, and that the authority resides with either state governments, local governments, or the people themselves. The 9th and 10th Amendments are not about empowering the federal government - they are about empowering the individual. So if you want to create a federal definition of marriage, the proper means is via Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, this is the exclusive domain of state governments.

Then it’s a good thing we have the defense of marriage act, which keeps it a state issue. However, the 9th amendment doesn’t talk about state’s rights, that’s the 10th amendment. The 9th merely states that the constitution isn’t a complete list of rights, just a list of a few.

I very likely have a different view about the role of government. Government is not a benevolent, high performance organization that achieves all (or even a small portion) of it’s objectives. In fact, whatever the government program is, there is likely ample evidence that the government program has made the issue worse, in addition to causing new and unintended problems

I agree with you about the government here. However, some basic laws, such as protecting the right to life, can only be enforced by the government. That’s one of it’s purposes according to the delcaration of independance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted

We should not hesitate to give up prayer in school and displays of the Ten Commandments if it means maintaining freedom of conscience in areas that actually matter, such as abortions in Catholic hospitals.

The ten commandment idsplay was put there by a citizen, not a government agency. And giving up prayer in schools hasn’t worked very well so far.

 

[camerong]

The ten commandment idsplay was put there by a citizen, not a government agency. And giving up prayer in schools hasn’t worked very well so far.

I’m not sure why you responded to my post–clearly we agree at least on the bottom line, that Catholics must support Catholic goals in the voting booth. And I don’t know what ten commandment display you are referring to–the several which have caused cases to come in front of the Supreme Court were put there by states, not individuals.

Insofar as you argue that the separation of Church and State is unjustified by the 1st amendment, I ask you, what do you think the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause mean? The government cannot interfere with religion, nor establish religion. You really wish to tell me that having a state-run school direct prayer is not the state establishing religion? Every Supreme Court, including most conservative justices, which have considered the issue have easily concluded it is. But if you have a fresh insight as to what the Constitution means, one that Justice Scalia was unaware of, please let us know…

It is really remarkable how conservatives argue against the separation of Church and state, given that the greatest conservative legal minds today and throughout history are the very ones who helped to enforce and outline it.

 

[Nec5]

What many people fail to realize about religion versus separation of church and state debates is the the fact that every society is formed around subjective valuations/judgments. There have been societies that legalized murder(barbarian tribes), and they lasted for hundreds of years. Issues like marriage and abortion are similar subjective judgments that help define the society and its ideals and laws.

Therefore, religion most certainly has a pivotal role to play since a value judgment must be made to structure a coherent society. Removing it is just an attempt to removing opposing viewpoints. The founders never intended for religious views to be removed from the political arena. They were often suspicious and dubious about religion, but they nonetheless recognized its vital importance in underwriting the subjective cultural values that truly define a civilization. Their speeches and correspondence confirm this seemingly contradictory viewpoint.

For people like myself, religion informs morality and provides God’s teachings on these pivotal moral issues.

 

[Ender]

Insofar as you argue that the separation of Church and State is unjustified by the 1st amendment, I ask you, what do you think the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause mean? The government cannot interfere with religion, nor establish religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*"*

Given the history from which this amendment grew, not to mention the behavior of the government once it was ratified, it seems that what was meant was not that government needed to be neutral to religion in general but that it could not establish a state religion. That is not how it is being interpreted by SCOTUS, however. They also have an uncommonly broad understanding of what “make no law” means when they apply it to what may or may not be said by high school valedictorians at their graduation ceremonies. Given that the free exercise of religion, not to mention the freedom of speech, would argue that a commencement speaker should be free to pray if he so chose, the fact that this is now considered illegal under the “make no law” restriction is fairly convincing evidence that the original intention of the amendment has been turned upside down.

This seems unarguable if you consider that the very amendment created to protect the right to worship as one chooses (e.g. pray in school) is precisely the one that now is cited to prohibit this right. That is, there would be greater religious freedom if the amendment “guaranteeing” it did not exist.

Ender

 

[camerong]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*"*

Given the history from which this amendment grew, not to mention the behavior of the government once it was ratified, it seems that what was meant was not that government needed to be neutral to religion in general but that it could not establish a state religion. That is not how it is being interpreted by SCOTUS, however. They also have an uncommonly broad understanding of what “make no law” means when they apply it to what may or may not be said by high school valedictorians at their graduation ceremonies. Given that the free exercise of religion, not to mention the freedom of speech, would argue that a commencement speaker should be free to pray if he so chose, the fact that this is now considered illegal under the “make no law” restriction is fairly convincing evidence that the original intention of the amendment has been turned upside down.

This seems unarguable if you consider that the very amendment created to protect the right to worship as one chooses (e.g. pray in school) is precisely the one that now is cited to prohibit this right. That is, there would be greater religious freedom if the amendment “guaranteeing” it did not exist.

Ender

The behavior of government following the passage of a law is not a very good indicator of what a law means or should mean. There were many, many instances of clearly unconstitutional behavior following the ratification of the Bill of Rights (e.g., the alien and sedition acts, passed less than a decade after the Bill of Rights were ratified). So does that mean that the First Amendment is not meant to protect speech against the government, because with the First Amendment fresh in the minds of lawmakers, they passed a law against it?

I’m not sure why you bring up a valedictorian speech, I’m not familiar with a case involving that, and it might very well be that I disagree with someone saying that this was a violation of a the Establishment clause. I have never indicated the SCOTUS was correct on every interpretation of the First Amendment.

You have to admit, however, that it is ridiculous to limit the Establishment of Religion to the words of LAWS passed by Congress. Most rules which affect us are regulations passed by administrative bodies, which receive their power from laws passed by Congress. If such a regulation established a state religion, do you mean to tell me that this does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is not a LAW from Congress? The point is that Congress, nor any body which receives power from Congress, cannot make a law establishing religion.

Again, however, you miss the point. The only reason you support prayer in school is because Christians happen to remain the majority. If Muslims were the majority in a particular school district, and wished to take breaks 5 times a day and broadcast the call to prayer through school loudspeakers in Arabic, I suspect you would feel differently. Keeping the government out of religion protects us much more than it harms us. If someday the tide turns against us Catholics, as I very much believe it will eventually, we will value highly the protection of the First Amendment–both from government sponsored religion, and from interference with our free exercise.

 

[Ender]

The behavior of government following the passage of a law is not a very good indicator of what a law means or should mean.

That there are exceptions to the rule does not mean that, as a rule, one should not normally expect to understand what a law means by what happens after it is passed.

You have to admit, however, that it is ridiculous to limit the Establishment of Religion to the words of LAWS passed by Congress.

Nor did I make such a claim. What I said was that the interpretation of what that phrase meant has gone well beyond what was intended and indeed well beyond what even seems rational.

The point is that Congress, nor any body which receives power from Congress, cannot make a law establishing religion.

We clearly differ on what we understand “establishment” to mean when we have come to the point when allowing expressions of faith in a government buildings constitutes a violation of the law. The interpretation has changed significantly in that what was meant to enforce government rejection of a particular religion (and Christianity is not a religion) has become government rejection of religion in general.

Again, however, you miss the point. The only reason you support prayer in school is because Christians happen to remain the majority.

You have no idea whether I support prayer in school or not. I raised that subject because it seems to me to be a perfect example of the exaggerated lunacy to which the interpretation of the First Amendment has come.

If someday the tide turns against us Catholics, as I very much believe it will eventually, we will value highly the protection of the First Amendment–both from government sponsored religion, and from interference with our free exercise.

No, as I said before, given the way the Constitution is being interpreted, we might well be safer without the religion clause than with it.

Ender

 

[gabriellenoelle]

What if a country believes it’s a “god” given right to inslave their women and children? Who are you to impose your systems of beliefs on them?

Well, since that would be taking away others freedoms obviously that goes beyond the boundaries of religion. Since when did granting people the freedom to marry who they wish in any way similar to slavery?
Also, I’m not talking about “a country”, I’m talking about the USA. And luckily, our country does not believe that it is a “god given right to enslave women and children”.
I believe in giving people the right to their own decision about morals/beliefs. However, when their morals/beliefs cross the boundary of actually hurting or taking away the freedoms of someone else, that is a completely different situation and I’m sure a believer or an atheist would agree that it is wrong.

 

[gabriellenoelle]

This interpretation of the separation of Church and State would disqualify everyone who believes in God from serving in government. How could you vote on any bill that agreed with your religious belief? Wouldn’t that impose your beliefs on others? How is it we are expected to believe that if a religious person supports a position it violates this imaginary separation standard? Are we to believe that if a person’s moral beliefs were formed by what he read at the barber shop last week it’s OK for him to vote his beliefs while it is immoral for us to vote ours?

Well, that is certainly an exaggeration of my meaning. A bill may agree with my religious beliefs/morals and still not take away rights/freedoms of those who may not be Catholic, and then maybe I would vote for it. Laws of our government should be separate from laws of our faith. Obviously our country’s laws should still be ethical. The distinction between what is ethical and a more of a moral belief of the christian religion is a tough distinction, but that’s why I love this country and our democratic system of government!

 

[stringbeanduck]

Well, since that would be taking away others freedoms obviously that goes beyond the boundaries of religion. Since when did granting people the freedom to marry who they wish in any way similar to slavery?
Also, I’m not talking about “a country”, I’m talking about the USA. And luckily, our country does not believe that it is a “god given right to enslave women and children”.
I believe in giving people the right to their own decision about morals/beliefs. However, when their morals/beliefs cross the boundary of actually hurting or taking away the freedoms of someone else, that is a completely different situation and I’m sure a believer or an atheist would agree that it is wrong.

No that’s false. Only in your opinion does it goes beyond the boundaries of religion. For some people, they believe it is right to enslave their women and children. In the same way many people in the United States believe it is right to assume unborn babies aren’t people they think the same. You see, the definition of “right” is very dynamic for certain religions and cultures. There is one definition of right, deemed by the Catholic Church, and that is the right you must follow, if you believe.

As Christians and Catholics, we have job to help lead all souls to heaven. This can’t be done if we allow people the routes to sin. The point is, once you allow some evil, gay marriage, into this country it manifests into more and more evil. When you allow the seed of a sin to be planted in this country, in due time it will eventually grow into forests of sin. You might not think gay marriage and slavery are not connected, but I got news for you, both are sins!

Respecting peoples morals decisions is right, but when these moral decisions impact us Christian/Catholic community (remember the seed analogy) that’s where we draw the line.

 

[rusty20]

What if a country believes it’s a “god” given right to inslave their women and children? Who are you to impose your systems of beliefs on them?

There are certain things which can be recognized through the natural law, that are recognized across just about all cultures: murder, robbery, rape, slavery, etc. These things are recognized as wrong by most legitimate authorities in the world today. By saying that one does not want to impose one’s beliefs on others, it does not mean that we want to allow anything and everything.

There is a fundamental difference between saying “People shouldn’t kill each other” and “Homos shouldn’t be allowed to marry.” We are not a Catholic nation. We are not even a Christian nation, really. That does not mean moral norms do not exist, it simply means they should not be based solely on Christian beliefs, given the pluralistic society in America.