See which of your representatives is attacking marriage

[Charlemagne_II]

Taoist
**
Charlemagne II, it’s clear you’re just trolling. You’ve not made one legitimate legal argument (the Declaration of Independence is not part of the US Constitution)**

There would not have been a U.S. Constitution without a Declaration of Independence.

Instead of raging ad hominems, why don’t you just answer the points made?

Was Jefferson assuming objective law or wasn’t he?

Did the people who signed the “Declaration” agree with its contents? Why would they have signed it if they didn’t.

Then the founders of our legal system certainly founded human natural rights upon an objectively rational basis. Even the Creator is invoked.

It’s for you to prove that there is no such thing as natural law and that rights are **not **based on nature and nature’s God.

 

[John21652]

If you want to marry your dog then bring the case to court. Good luck with that as I’m sure even Australian law doesn’t recognize marriage outside our species.

Well, as luck/chance/illusion/moral relativity would have it, there are minority groups pushing for animals to have personhood. Why should they not be heard equally and as validly as the gay brigade? Why, the head ethics honcho at your famous Princeton University argues that animals are persons, and says sex between people and animals is ok, so I expect anyone who wants to marry their dog mightn’t have long to wait. It’s all relative, you see.

The rest of your screed amounts to “I hate gays,” which isn’t much of a legal argument. You’ll have to do better than that if you wish to be taken seriously.

Mate, you need to take the blinkers off. If you read “I hate gays” into my post then you have a serious perception problem. As for your own legal argument, you have deliberately kept the parametres so narrow, and fudged on definitions, that the court would tell you to go back to school.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Gay marriage is legal in certain states specifically because the 14th Amendment makes it so. How the 14th Amendment is being applied is that the state must allow marriage for everyone, and defining the kind of sex acts to be conducted within that marriage is found to be irrelevant to the marriage contract, but this is exactly where you have a hang-up. Defining a marriage as a sexual contract valid only between opposite sex couples is failing in the courts.

Marriage is more than just sex to a man and a woman. It is the only union towards progeny (from natural pairing, not the contrived kind as afforded by technology), towards the basic family unit that is the foundation of society.

On the other hand, same sex pairs who share a bed, engaging in a sort of simulation of sex between a man and a woman, insist on marriage rights. Yes they have the right to express such kind of disordered lust in the privacy of their bedroom, but this is not a basis for awarding same-sex couplings with marriage rights.

That is so, no matter if same-sex ‘marriage’ has been legalized as a judicial error or misinterpretation of the 14th amendment by a handful of state courts.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Homosexuality is not a choice, one is born that way. Homosexuals detest and have the same revulsion to straight sex as much as you detest gay sex.

The last time I checked there is NO study that definitively establishes that homosexuality is an inborn trait, just plenty suggesting same, usually with spin by gay advocacy or pro-gay research sites. Can you provide anything new and independent?

Really, homosexuals detest straight sex? No wonder homosexuality is considered disordered. Your body, if you’re male, even without scientific studies, tell you by design that the natural sexual pairing for you would be a woman!
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
One of the reasons gay marriage is an issue is due to the Supreme Court overturning sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas.

Suddenly the state is prohibited from making laws against sex acts done privately between consenting adults. Rehashing arguments that don’t work in court is not working. Please come up with new, convincing arguments, and stop throwing up whatever comes to your mind and hoping it sticks. …

Lawrence v Texas in striking down the sodomy law, protecting private sexual behavior in someone’s bedroom, is being grabbed as justification by the gay lobby for same-sex ‘marriage,’ even as marriage is not a private affair but a public one.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hold it. For the last time, sodomy is practiced by straight and gay people, therefore it is unfair and inaccurate to use it to describe homosexuals. If you wish to continue to equivocate the term in a deliberately derogatory way towards homosexuals then you will open the door to using personal insults and cause the discussion to stray off topic. If you refuse to use the proper terms your arguments, no matter how well constructed, will be ignored. This is your final warning.

Oh, get over yourself. The smugness in your statements is overflowing. If anybody is getting personal with insults, read back your own posts.

Like it or not, sodomy in the context it is usually used, which is anal sex, may be practiced by straight people, but it is not that prevalent nor acceptable as you suggest in the straight population. According to a study of sexually active adult heterosexuals in California describing the prevalence of anal sex which also investigated the relationship of anal sex to other risk behaviors associated with AIDS and STDs, 8% of males, and 6% of females reported having anal sex at least once a month. Guess what the favored sex act has been and continues to be in the gay population? Never mind the frequency data.

Now, your argument relies only upon denying “natural rights” to people (which is undefined nor mentioned in the US Constitution) based on a sex act of which you disapprove. As I noted above, the US Supreme Court nullified all laws relating to sex between to consenting adults in privacy, therefore what you consider unnatural is irrelevant to the discussion. It is also why anti-gay marriage cases lose when this argument is used in court. Give it up. The law doesn’t care about your opinion on this particular sex act.

Such a sweetheart, are you not. Basing on how you argue, the only relevant opinion would be yours.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of classifications based on sexuality, only the freedom to engage in sex, whether it is with the opposite or same sex as in the Loving case. Because sexuality is not a classification for which the Supreme Court has demanded such heightened scrutiny, the decision to let opposite-sex couples marry and to deny the same opportunity to same-sex couples falls under the traditional powers of government to enact economic and social regulation—the so-called “police powers.” These powers go beyond economic and social regulation. States are traditionally understood to have the authority to make laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their communities. This means that states can justify their actions by stating that they decline to endorse or provide encouragement to forms of behavior—in this case homosexual intimacy—which the community considers immoral.

As long as rational basis scrutiny is being applied, states can justify their actions perfectly well by stating that they decline to endorse and provide encouragement to forms of behavior—in this case, homosexual intimacy—which the community considers immoral.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, as luck/chance/illusion/moral relativity would have it, there are minority groups pushing for animals to have personhood. Why should they not be heard equally and as validly as the gay brigade? Why, the head ethics honcho at your famous Princeton University argues that animals are persons, and says sex between people and animals is ok, so I expect anyone who wants to marry their dog mightn’t have long to wait. It’s all relative, you see.

Mate, you need to take the blinkers off. If you read “I hate gays” into my post then you have a serious perception problem. As for your own legal argument, you have deliberately kept the parametres so narrow, and fudged on definitions, that the court would tell you to go back to school.

Excellent reply, John.

With regard to Paragraph One, may I remind any readers here that there’s at least one city in the country (San Francisco) which has stated that it’s an offense to call oneself an owner of one’s pet animal. (Just remember that, John: You do not own your dog. Yes, I know: your dog owns you, as does my cat own me.) Rather, in a move to raise the species of both dogs and cats closer to Homo Sapiens, the City suggests we may call ourselves “guardians” of our pets (just as one can be a guardian of a human being – say, elderly or minor relative of species Homo Sapiens).

In any case, stable societies are built on stable social institutions that do not swing wildly with passing fancies and arbitrary reshaping by the latest creative manipulation of the English language, and by private recourse to unpublished dictionaries. The elimination of boundaries tends to repeat and expand itself, until a category loses all meaning whatsoever. That, of course, is the ultimate goal and result of moral relativism and of continually reinvented social institutions.

And in the Be-Careful-What-You-Wish-For department:
Other groups (such as cohabitating heterosexual couples, and then later single individuals) will have no reason not to join the crowd demanding special advantages in the IRS Tax Code. Because these other groups can very well, will very well, cry ‘discrimination.’ If non-traditionally-married couples can petition for special rights, so should others, their lawyers will argue. And they will argue for that successfully. Thus, soon everyone will “qualify” for Tax Code advantages. At which point the Tax Code will dramatically change, and zero privileges, for any status, will result. Because if you think the US Government has any intention of watching its revenue depleted by a series of class action suits, then you haven’t lived long enough.

Finally, anyone who seriously believes that the struggle for “equal (financial) benefits” for same-sex-unioned couples will end there, is fooling himself. Much more will be demanded in the supposed cause for “Equality.” New “rights” will be invented, beyond those that have already been railroaded through. Soon there will be specific quotas of the various classifications of “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “transgendered” individuals in each category of society.

And why do I know this? Gays have said it openly, that’s why.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is your final warning.

I hope you are seriously shaking in your boots, Charlemagne.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**I hope you are seriously shaking in your boots, Charlemagne. **

:bigyikes:

 

[John21652]

Actually, everybody should be shaking in their boots.

In Post #5 Taoist stated in response to Charlemage II -

You make sodomy sound like a bad thing. By the way, the definition of sodomy is not restricted to homosexuals, but I seriously doubt the church would go after straight, married sodomites, so your double standards are showing.

I’m not sure how the Church would “go after” married couples who practice sodomy, but there is no doubt that the Church absolutely frowns on sodomy as being disordered. As a matter of fact, I, for one, have never heard anyone admit to this abhorrent behaviour. There is no way anyone could pick who is into sodomy, unless maybe the sodomites squint a bit more maybe! There is also no doubt that sodomy practiced by heterosexuals who are against homosexual sodomy is an exercise in double standards. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. To implement a second wrong because we think maybe an intial wrong is being perpetrated is just an exercise for stepping out onto the slippery slope of moral relativism.

There is ample literature that demonstrates the inherent dangers of anal and oral sex. This article on Anal Sex health risks is enough to want sensible people to have the practice banned on health grounds alone. Particularly when one studies national health statistics. This national study, Prevalence of HPV Infection Among Females in the United States is an eye opener. Overall, 26.8% of all females in the U.S. have the HPV virus. In the age range from 20-24 years, the infection rate is a whopping 44.8%. Considering the dangers outlined in the first article I linked to, sodomy puts women at high risk of infertility, amongst other things. Considering the very high prevalence of HPV and other diseases amongst homosexual and bi-sexual men the incidence of sodomy should be of great public concern. And we haven’t even begun to include in this debate the effects of Giardiasis, or HIV, drug resistance, or the heavy increase in internal parisitic infections associated with anal sex.

The question the title of the thread poses is why would any government representatives wish to widen the practice of disordered sex practices even more, by not supporting traitional marriage, when the public interest is so poorly served by the pandering to minority rights? The celebrated case of Lawrence v Texas, overturned other case law which enshrined moral principles within the law. This move away from maorality in the law has had and will continue to have repercussions with far wider implications than merely individual rights. Societies are at stake. One of the bulwarks society has always had against destabilising events has been a common morality, as shared by nations and empires throughout history. Once that common morality is shattered, the effects can be internally destabilising. The wider health and ethical considerations which public representatives should take into consideration are obviously being ignored by those Reps who are acquiescing with a new and relaxed morality that is based on little more than the satisfaction of hedonistic desires.

 

[JFarrish]

Forgive me for jumping over so much righting about sodomy, but did anyone else notice that the original link does not accurately represent Catholic teaching?

When Rome discusses this issue in a Doctrinal Note on participation in political life, it describes it thus:

“Analogously [to abortion], the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.”

The word “family” is highlighted in the original text, which makes it a pretty broad statement (ex. we object to deportation as an instrinsic evil because it attacks the human family). But even if we ignore that, it is still broader than gay marriage. It would be incoherent to vote to ‘defend marriage’ (in the Catholic sense) for a politician who is, say, divorced or openly cohabitating, which a fair number of the ‘support’ indivdiuals who I pulled up are.

When then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the Church’s position on same sex unions he conceded that it is, in fact, discrimination. But that such discrimination is licit provided that it is in accordance to justice. That means we must uniformly uphold and defend the teaching, lest we actually undermine and invalidate it. In other words, we cannot pat ourselves on the back for attempting to address the activities of a small segment of the pupulation while ignoring the attack on the Sacrament of Marriage from a heterosexual community with a 50% divorce rate.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…did anyone else notice that the original link does not accurately represent Catholic teaching?
…
It would be incoherent to vote to ‘defend marriage’ (in the Catholic sense) for a politician who is, say, divorced or openly cohabitating, which a fair number of the ‘support’ indivdiuals who I pulled up are.

When then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the Church’s position on same sex unions he conceded that it is, in fact, discrimination. But that such discrimination is licit provided that it is in accordance to justice. That means we must uniformly uphold and defend the teaching, lest we actually undermine and invalidate it. In other words, we cannot pat ourselves on the back for attempting to address the activities of a small segment of the pupulation while ignoring the attack on the Sacrament of Marriage from a heterosexual community with a 50% divorce rate.

Is defense of marriage simply for the benefit of Catholics in our society? Marriage has been an institution that preceded all governments and even the Church. Defense of marriage benefits all, across people of all faiths or no faith in society. In fact, here is then Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface in his CDF Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual PersonsThe present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

I re-read the document again but failed to see your claim as underlined in your post.

What I gathered from a related document is that
The Vatican document rejected arguments that failing to give gay unions legal recognition would be unjust discrimination. It underscored the unique social role of marriage between a man and a woman in continuing the human race and raising children. “The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it,” it said. “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”
If your point is that representatives who are Catholic who might be divorced-and-remarried, living not in accord with Church teaching, should not be positing against same-sex unions unless they are also addressing to correct their own personal / family issues, I agree with you. But I do not agree that these politicians should just roll over to the gay lobby. For representatives who are in this category, working on their own personal situations to be right by the Church and voting against same-sex ‘marriage’ are not mutually exclusive concerns.

Clearly, with regard to the matter, the position of the Cardinal, now Pope, is:

*IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favor of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.*Further, it is a measure of comfort to concerned and practicing Catholics that the Church is not just passively watching how the political forces are playing out. The Church along with interfaith leaders representing tens of millions of adherents joined to approach the U.S. House of Representatives to fight for DOMA in federal court.

Peace.

 

[Taoist]

Is defense of marriage simply for the benefit of Catholics in our society? Marriage has been an institution that preceded all governments and even the Church. Defense of marriage benefits all, across people of all faiths or no faith in society.

That’s a very good argument, InSearchofGrace, unfortunately because it is too broad in its scope of defining harm it also is another reason gay marriage is winning in the courts. Specifically, in writing for the majority in a recent Supreme Court ruling , justice Kennedy explains why:

Kennedy makes clear that any legal standing for taxpayers on church-state issues should be based on specific injury, not theoretical causation.

In presenting a case against gay marriage one must show how gay marriage will harm YOU, personally. In your mention above of the pope’s admission that denying gay marriage is discriminatory for broad social reasons without going into specifics how it will harm individuals, then, in the minds of the Supreme Court justices, that argument is not good enough to justify specifically discriminating against a gay individual. The US Constitution is based mostly on individual rights, and that is how the anti-gay marriage side needs to argue their side in court.

The atheist, Michael Newdow, brought a case against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it mentions “God” and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court because he didn’t have proper standing, meaning he was not the one who had to say the pledge and therefore was not being harmed by it. The justices are quite consistent in making sure the litigants have standing.

Now, what is an argument that gay marriage will directly and adversely affect you, personally? How is granting gay couples the right to marry encroaching on a right of yours, and which right is that?

 

[JFarrish]

For representatives who are in this category, working on their own personal situations to be right by the Church and voting against same-sex ‘marriage’ are not mutually exclusive concerns.

They can’t be mutually exclusive, that’s the point. You either support chastity and the promotion and protection of the human family, or you don’t.

If you isolate gay marriage from the broader teaching (and I’m picturing an elderly parishioner I stopped to give a bottle of water to as she sat by the street holding a McCain poster with a “Yes on 8” bumper sticker on it, God bless her), then our good intentions potentially undermine the very teachings and faith we seek to support. From Rome:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.” - CDF 2002

The US Bishops quoted this in their document on voting in 2007 and pointed this out as one of the two most common moral mistakes made by Catholics in voting.

My point is not that Catholics should support same sex marriages. We have been expressly instructed not to (see my quote in my previous post). My point is that, to truly be acting as a matter of faith, we need to support the whole teaching, not just the part that resonates with us.

 

[JFarrish]

Now, what is an argument that gay marriage will directly and adversely affect you, personally? How is granting gay couples the right to marry encroaching on a right of yours, and which right is that?

Answering for myself, I don’t feel threatened at all. In fact, I have empathy for people wanting love, stability, and family. It has been the best part of my life for 40 years, how could I not see how others would want it?

Further, I think that there are legitimate civil rights issues involved, particularly in a pluralistic society where contitutional rights are the mechanism we use for protecting the inalienable rights of the human person against the will of the majority.

But, I do accept the Church’s broad teaching on the importance of the family. And that is why it is so important to me that we promote this teaching with moral consistancy. If you fight gay marriage but support, say, tearing apart families with deportation, or are comfortable with heterosexual divorce, then you are not promoting a Church teaching, but simply using it as an excuse to single out a segment of the population who, frankly, are already born with a significant cross to carry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In presenting a case against gay marriage one must show how gay marriage will harm YOU, personally.

The Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights. The 1st of these amendment protected religion and freedom of the press. These Amendments were passed to protect ALL citizens, and the reason for adding them to the Constitution was for the general welfare, not for the welfare of an individual. An Amendment may at some future time have to be proposed and passed by the vast majority of Congress and the State legislatures to protect the institution of marriage defined as between a man and a woman. That may in the end be what this will come down to if the Courts persist in their idiotic ways.

I really think this is the best way to go. Bring it to the people, and let the majority of the people force their will upon the Constitution. Some of the Courts are ruled by atheistic Justices who are determined to corrupt the American system. Let them suffer complete frustration by not being able to overturn an Amendment to the Constitution.

As Voltaire said:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay “On Atheism”).

The Amendment process for the U.S. Constitution is described here:

archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

On the other hand, if the Constitutional Amendment fails, it will signal to all that what Voltaire said of the Roman senate has become true of our own as well. In which case it will be evident to all that our civilization is in moral free-fall and headed for oblivion.

I choose not to believe this is possible. The common sense of the American people, while corrupted, is not corrupted beyond repair.

Let the contest begin! :slapfight:

 

[Taoist]

Further, I think that there are legitimate civil rights issues involved, particularly in a pluralistic society where contitutional rights are the mechanism we use for protecting the inalienable rights of the human person against the will of the majority.

But, I do accept the Church’s broad teaching on the importance of the family. And that is why it is so important to me that we promote this teaching with moral consistancy.

And that is the crux of the issue - individual versus collective rights. The US Constitution supports individual rights while the Catholic church promotes rights for the collective good of society, and the two are difficult to reconcile. However, since religion is optional in this country then individual rights take precedence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Taoist

**And that is the crux of the issue - individual versus collective rights. The US Constitution supports individual rights while the Catholic church promotes rights for the collective good of society, and the two are difficult to reconcile. However, since religion is optional in this country then individual rights take precedence. **

Let me get this straight. Are you saying the Catholic Church does not protect individual rights? And by the way, isn’t the protection of collective lawful rights equal to the protection of every individual’s lawful rights? How would they differ? Please give an example of protecting lawful collective rights that might impinge on lawful individual rights?

Thank you.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Answering for myself, I don’t feel threatened at all. In fact, I have empathy for people wanting love, stability, and family. It has been the best part of my life for 40 years, how could I not see how others would want it?

This is not Church teaching. Please familiarize yourself with what your Church says on the issue, including what your U.S. Bishops say on the matter, as to what harm it does cause society, and as to how practicing Catholics are obliged to oppose the adoption of gay “marriage” in society. It is one of your Church’s Five Non-Negotiables.

Further, I think that there are legitimate civil rights issues involved, particularly in a pluralistic society where contitutional rights are the mechanism we use for protecting the inalienable rights of the human person against the will of the majority.

Again, you have a lot of reading to do

But, I do accept the Church’s broad teaching on the importance of the family. And that is why it is so important to me that we promote this teaching with moral consistancy. If you fight gay marriage but support, say, tearing apart families with deportation,

There’s another thread with the title of Deportation. You have posted there. Please stay on-topic. Deportation of illegal immigrants is not related to traditional marriage. Post on the other thread your thoughts on deportation.

or are comfortable with heterosexual divorce, then you are not promoting a Church teaching, but simply using it as an excuse to single out a segment of the population who, frankly, are already born with a significant cross to carry.

Please stop promoting the mythology that neither the scientific community as a whole accepts, nor the Catholic Church teaches. No one is “born” gay. This has been covered on numerous threads on CAF that you should probably acquaint yourself with. Sexuality is fluid at birth, not determined. It is complex, not determined. It is multi-layered, not single-layered. No “gay gene” has been credibly discovered and accepted in scientific circles. Nor does the Catholic Church, of which you are a member, teach that there is a “gay gene.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Farrish

**Further, I think that there are legitimate civil rights issues involved, particularly in a pluralistic society where contitutional rights are the mechanism we use for protecting the inalienable rights of the human person against the will of the majority. **

Ah yes, we must by all means overthrow the will of the majority!

“It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely, and the individual who differs from it ought to distrust and examine well his own opinions.” Thomas Jefferson

“If the majority should not rule, who would be the judge? Where is such a judge to be found? We should all be bound by the majority of the American people; if not, then the minority must control. Would that be right? Would it be generous? Assuredly not! I reiterate that the majority must rule.” Abraham Lincoln

That is why I believe that ultimately a Constitutional Amendment clearly reflecting the will of the majority about gay marriage should finally decide this question so that atheist judges can be frustrated in their attempts to corrupt society.