Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.

Christians generally think homosexual acts are sin, but they also think unmarried hetersexual sex is a sin. Yet the focus here is on homosexuals not because Christians "single" them out, but because it is the politically popular subject matter of the day.

I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.

Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event, while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT. What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.

Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.

I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?

It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU.

[Enoch]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.

Christians generally think homosexual acts are sin, but they also think unmarried hetersexual sex is a sin. Yet the focus here is on homosexuals not because Christians "single" them out, but because it is the politically popular subject matter of the day.

I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.

Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event, while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT. What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.

Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.

I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?

It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU. Who is asking you to suspend your beliefs? Who is asking you to trash your traditions?

Nowhere is there a push to force churches to marry people against their will. Religions already choose who they will and who they will not marry, and whose marriages they will recognize. No one is asking that this change. No one is trying to force Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or any other religious faith to accept their marriage.

The Catholic church doesn't recognize me and my husband as married? Oh, well, I don't care. Wait, the government doesn't recognize me and my husband as married? Now, THAT I do care about.

In addition, no one is denying that marriage is a deeply religious event for many, if not most, people. However, just because THEY view it as a religious event does not mean that everyone else should.

Yes, it is a stupid semantics issue if people are so adament that gay people have "civil unions" instead of "marriages." Regardless of what the government called it, it would still be referred to as a marriage everywhere else; thus destroying any headway the "it's not a marriage" crowd thinks they are getting.

[Gilbert1908]

Enoch wrote: Who is asking you to suspend your beliefs? Who is asking you to trash your traditions?

I may be mistaken by marriage has been "traditionally" between and man and a woman for about as long as marriage has been around. In the last 20 years is the FIRST TIME in history that there has been a push to change that "tradition", otherwise why would there be a controversy?

Enoch wrote: Nowhere is there a push to force churches to marry people against their will. Religions already choose who they will and who they will not marry, and whose marriages they will recognize. No one is asking that this change. No one is trying to force Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or any other religious faith to accept their marriage.

The Catholic church doesn't recognize me and my husband as married? Oh, well, I don't care. Wait, the government doesn't recognize me and my husband as married? Now, THAT I do care about.

The issue, as far as I can tell, is about best to get legal equality for people who want to share life, property and assets and there I have no objection to a secular contract called a civil union since that way most poeple get what they prefer.

Enoch wrote: In addition, no one is denying that marriage is a deeply religious event for many, if not most, people. However, just because THEY view it as a religious event does not mean that everyone else should.

Yes, it is a stupid semantics issue if people are so adament that gay people have "civil unions" instead of "marriages." Regardless of what the government called it, it would still be referred to as a marriage everywhere else; thus destroying any headway the "it's not a marriage" crowd thinks they are getting.

IF you see it as "stupid" semantics, then humor those who DO NOT and simply approach it from a purely secular point of view and I have little doubt you will recieve the legal protection you DESERVE as both a citizen and a human being worthy of respect.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.

Christians generally think homosexual acts are sin, but they also think unmarried hetersexual sex is a sin. Yet the focus here is on homosexuals not because Christians "single" them out, but because it is the politically popular subject matter of the day.

I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.

Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event, while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT. What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.

Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.

I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?

It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU.

THe problem here Gilbert is some religious people DO feel that gays can get married. As we have seen time and time again, the religious continue to fight over basic definitions, interpretations and nuance.

Even if all the Secular people in the world disappeared, we would still have war and strife - and! a debate over gay marriage.

Who has final say over religious matters? The Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists? It's nice to claim that the US is a Christian nation, so Christian views should be the most prominant, but the US is a Secular nation populated by a majority of Christians.

So, if a Universalist church wants gay marriage, they should be restricted by a Muslim church in doing that.

I'd be interested on your take.

I have no problem if one churh wants to deny gay marriage, but that one church cannot be the final word. THat's tyranny by a theocracy.

THat's the whole reason we fought for our freedom.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.

Christians generally think homosexual acts are sin, but they also think unmarried hetersexual sex is a sin. Yet the focus here is on homosexuals not because Christians "single" them out, but because it is the politically popular subject matter of the day.

I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.

Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event, while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT. What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.

Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.

I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?

It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU.

That comment was in general, not directed to you - again, it seems like someone has a guilty conscious. It isn't all about you G'Bert..... :roll:

And I will say it one more time, as it doesn't appear to be sinking in: Your 'civil union' idea is moot, as many state politicians have already eliminated that option on the 'glorious road to protect marriage'.
Quote: What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives. Actually, many gay people are religious - why deny them their ability to freely worship God in their own way? Because it is different than yours? That is the arrogant (perhaps even bigotry) part: "my idea is correct while everyone else who doesn't agree with me isn't."

Again, did you look over the link I provided as you seemed so anxious to do? Did you do any looking to see the actual history of marriage throughout history? If so, you will see that gay marriages have been, in one form or another, granted and even celebrated well before and in the absence of christianity.

Listen carefully: No one is (nor has ever, that I have seen) asked you to forgo your personal views on what a marriage is. We are only asking for equal treatment under the law.
Get over the idea that christianity 'owns' the term marriage - it isn't copyrighted (yet).
To deny happiness under the law for something that doesn't directly effect you is not very christian. It is, spiteful and full of hate, rather you want to admit it or not.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.

Christians generally think homosexual acts are sin, but they also think unmarried hetersexual sex is a sin. Yet the focus here is on homosexuals not because Christians "single" them out, but because it is the politically popular subject matter of the day.

I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.

Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event, while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT. What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.

Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.

I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?

It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU.

THe problem here Gilbert is some religious people DO feel that gays can get married. As we have seen time and time again, the religious continue to fight over basic definitions, interpretations and nuance.

Even if all the Secular people in the world disappeared, we would still have war and strife - and! a debate over gay marriage.

Who has final say over religious matters? The Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists? It's nice to claim that the US is a Christian nation, so Christian views should be the most prominant, but the US is a Secular nation populated by a majority of Christians.

So, if a Universalist church wants gay marriage, they should be restricted by a Muslim church in doing that.

I'd be interested on your take.

I have no problem if one churh wants to deny gay marriage, but that one church cannot be the final word. THat's tyranny by a theocracy.

THat's the whole reason we fought for our freedom.

This is a point I have tried to address a few times: there are christians and christian churches who do marry gay couples. Their interpretation of the term marriage seems to differ from others'.
Fact is, as Enoch (I believe) pointed out - many don't care if the church recognizes it or not. A gay couple could find a church that would eventually. The cause is about getting equal protection under the law. Even if people all agreed to call it something other than marriage, it would still be possible to discriminate under this union, but not marriage.
Let's face it, there is still hateful people in the world that would stop at nothing to making the life of every gay person as miserable as possible. If gay people are protected legally under the same law that protects straight married couples, the chances of discrimination falls significantly. It is sad, but that is something many gay people have to consider: "We need to protect ourselves from some people as much as possible."

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: F'losrix wrote: Being a Christian doesn't inherently make one a bigot, but I take the content of this thread as evidence that it certainly can help pave the way for a person with a certain mindset to becoming one.

Not only bigotry, but arrogance, hate and selfishness.

I was always taught, by Christ's example, people were to willing follow Him. I don't recall him forcing people to His beliefs with legalities that govern the masses.

It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.

Christians generally think homosexual acts are sin, but they also think unmarried hetersexual sex is a sin. Yet the focus here is on homosexuals not because Christians "single" them out, but because it is the politically popular subject matter of the day.

I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.

Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event, while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT. What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.

Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.

I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?

It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU.

THe problem here Gilbert is some religious people DO feel that gays can get married. As we have seen time and time again, the religious continue to fight over basic definitions, interpretations and nuance.

Even if all the Secular people in the world disappeared, we would still have war and strife - and! a debate over gay marriage.

Who has final say over religious matters? The Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists? It's nice to claim that the US is a Christian nation, so Christian views should be the most prominant, but the US is a Secular nation populated by a majority of Christians.

So, if a Universalist church wants gay marriage, they should be restricted by a Muslim church in doing that.

I'd be interested on your take.

I have no problem if one churh wants to deny gay marriage, but that one church cannot be the final word. THat's tyranny by a theocracy.

THat's the whole reason we fought for our freedom.

The issue is NOT about Churches, they will do what they do and are uneffected by secular law.

The issue is about how best to PROTECT the rights of all citizens and my point is that there is a majority of Americans who DO support civil unions but a larger majority that object to, or will not support gay marriage and this is not simply out of a semantic interpretation but because marriage has a much deeper meaning to that swing group who ARE FAIR and do not want people to be denied legal protection.

[Enoch]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Enoch wrote: Who is asking you to suspend your beliefs? Who is asking you to trash your traditions?

I may be mistaken by marriage has been "traditionally" between and man and a woman for about as long as marriage has been around. In the last 20 years is the FIRST TIME in history that there has been a push to change that "tradition", otherwise why would there be a controversy?

Enoch wrote: Nowhere is there a push to force churches to marry people against their will. Religions already choose who they will and who they will not marry, and whose marriages they will recognize. No one is asking that this change. No one is trying to force Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or any other religious faith to accept their marriage.

The Catholic church doesn't recognize me and my husband as married? Oh, well, I don't care. Wait, the government doesn't recognize me and my husband as married? Now, THAT I do care about.

The issue, as far as I can tell, is about best to get legal equality for people who want to share life, property and assets and there I have no objection to a secular contract called a civil union since that way most poeple get what they prefer.

Enoch wrote: In addition, no one is denying that marriage is a deeply religious event for many, if not most, people. However, just because THEY view it as a religious event does not mean that everyone else should.

Yes, it is a stupid semantics issue if people are so adament that gay people have "civil unions" instead of "marriages." Regardless of what the government called it, it would still be referred to as a marriage everywhere else; thus destroying any headway the "it's not a marriage" crowd thinks they are getting.

IF you see it as "stupid" semantics, then humor those who DO NOT and simply approach it from a purely secular point of view and I have little doubt you will recieve the legal protection you DESERVE as both a citizen and a human being worthy of respect. You are still mistaken. No one is asking you to abandon YOUR traditions or YOUR religious beliefs. Don't want to be in a same-sex marriage? Then don't enter one. Your religious tradition dictates that marriage is one man and one woman? Fine, no one is challenging that.

And, I'm sorry, but even though it is a stupid semantics debate, I for one refuse to accept people labeling our legal relationship as a "civil union" while keeping "marriage" for themselves. History has shown that seperate is rarely, if ever, equal.

[F'losrix]

Gilbert1908 wrote: It is fascnating to me that because someone has a differing point of view, they are considered a bigot, even if they support legal equality.
It is 'fascinating' to me that someone would believe that supporting civil unions should operate to shield them from being considered a bigot, when they cling tenaciously to their personal faith-based opinion and ignore or dismiss the arguments of others without offering a cogent rebuttal.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I will say it one more time since it does not seem to be sinking in, if gay activists ONLY wanted LEGAL equality, they would create a campaign not around the religious institution of marriage, but a secular contract called civil unions. If civil unions was the political tact then the 65% of the American public that does NOT support gay marriage would divide and become the marjority of Americans that DO support civil unions.
And I will say it as many times as you need to hear it, since it doesn't seem to be sinking in:

If people who reject the concept of same-sex marriage on religious grounds would stick to letting their faith govern their own lives and stop using the government to persecute those who don't share their religious views on marriage - INCLUDING OTHER FAITH CONGREGATIONS - a whole lot of this argument would go away.

We're willing to let you keep your church's ban on same-sex weddings, but YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH AS THEY SEE FIT when you insist that the government refuse them marriage recognition on the basis that it will upset you by not complying with your beliefs.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Marriage to the VAST majority of Americans IS NOT a secular but RELIGIOUS event
Government recognition of marriage is NOT a religious event, regardless of how 'the vast majority of Americans' view marriage as an institution in broader terms.

Gilbert1908 wrote: while running off to the city hall for a civil union license or contract or what ever the heck it will be is NOT.
Doesn't get much plainer than that. You want to deny the minority of Americans who view same-sex marriage as a religious event the ability to have their marriages recognized as such. You insist that we call it something else so that you won't be faced with having to recognize that 1) the civil component of marriage is separate from any group's religious beliefs about it and 2) that some people have marriages of a religious nature that don't comply with your beliefs about marriage as a one man/one woman institution.

I see no good reason for the government to be held hostage to the religious beliefs of the anti-gay religious, at the expense the religious beliefs and practices of gay people & gay-friendly congregations.

Gilbert1908 wrote: What you view as meaningless semantics religious people see one of the most important RELIGIOUS events in their lives.
On the contrary, it is because marriage can have significant religious meaning to people on both sides of the issue, and the fact that those on your side have the arrogance to demand that those on the opposing side must use a different word and that the government create a separate civil institution for same-sex couples, that we're playing the semantics game.

The arrogance of which I speak is very evident in the implied assertion you make - that marriage can't also be one of the most important religious events in the lives of a same-sex couple.

We always come back to this same question: Why should the religious beliefs of the current majority be allowed to trample on the beliefs of the current minority? Just because one side forms a majority? That's mob rule and it's a poor system for governing - especially with regard to an issue of such importance as marriage. The people are better served when the government takes a position of neutrality and doesn't allow the religious beliefs of one religion or a group of religions to override those of others. I would hope you don't go around insisting that Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu marriages must comply with your Christian beliefs about marriage. Marriage recognition in this day & age in the U.S. is not predicated on the principle that one couple must have identical religious beliefs to the next. Heck, the partners don't even have to be of the same faith!

Gilbert1908 wrote: Who is the bigot the person who says ALL people should be treated the same under the law or the person who says "trash" 2000 years of tradition, suspend your religious beliefs, relax your principals so that NOT ONLY can we gain DESERVED equal legal treatment, but ALSO equate that status to YOUR view of HOLY MATRIMONY.
You aren't saying that we should be treated the same under the law. You're insisting that we create a separate body of law just because you don't like our use of the term marriage for marital unions that don't comply with YOUR religious views.

Government recognition of same-sex marriages will have NO effect on your traditions. People create traditions for themselves, and pass them down to the next generation. Government doesn't tell you what your traditions must include or exclude. It does not require you to suspend your personally held religious beliefs or relax your principles. We are not equating our marriages with your view of holy matrimony, but with our own.

The utterly selfish, self-centered, egotistical, arrogant, (and I'm fresh out of adjectives to decribe it) nature of your opinion that any government recognition of a marriage equates such status with your view of holy matrimony is astounding. Are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. all in the same boat - do their weddings and marriages equate to your view of holy matrimony just because the government recognizes them? I think not. This is completely about anti-gay bigotry. It isn't about marriage at all.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I simply don't see why working with the majority of people who would support civil unions (ME INCLUDED) is not MORE important than insisting on alienating those who see marriage as a sacrament?
I frankly don't see why it's so important to you to alienate same-sex couples that view their own marriages as a sacrament.

Gilbert1908 wrote: It is NOT a semantic issue to people like me yet it is TO YOU.
It isn't a semantics issue to us, either. YOU lot are the one turning it into a question of semantics by insisting we use a different word and create a separate institution. We see right through you, as do our opponents who recognize that a civil union is the civil recognition of a marital union, and therefore no different from marriage at all. The difference between you and the latter group is that they're a heck of a lot more honest about the reasons they oppose gay marriage.

[mODULAR mAN]

F'losrix, well said. Well said. A very passionate and reasonable response. I have not read a better analysis of the issue, and hope that other people see how bigotry is at the heart of the anti-gay marriage position.

If someone still has a problem with gay-marriage being legal, I hope they read your post again and again until they see the light.

Just because a segment of a religion wants to define marriage their way, doesn't mean they own the copyright. It also doesn't cheapen their own promise in front of their god.

After all, these same people are the ones who are told not to judge. Can't they trust that their god will know what to do?