This is a good example of an acceptable forum for dissent against homosexuality. This isn't. Neither is this nor this.
I'm taking this opportunity to mention my feelings on the whole gay marriage issue. I think the forum for discussing the divine limits of marriage is the social hall - again, not the front steps of our state capitals, or even our nation's capital for that matter. Marriage is a religious sacrament no different from Communion or Baptism in the eyes of the Church; a vow of mutual devotion between two people made before the eyes of God - Priest and all. The idea of legislating marriage is no less laffable in my eyes than a state law prohibiting gays from receiving Communion. How about a constitutional amendment prohibiting Arabs from coming in contact with Holy Water. These are issues for the Church to confront - not the government. How have gay marriage laws found their way onto state ballots across the country? I can't even imagine.
First Amendment - US ConstitutionCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Marriage isn't an example of the exercise of religion? Wouldn't a legislative ban on gay marriage prohibit gays from practicing religion? I think we need to make a clean cut between marriage and the idea of civil union for legal purposes. When you get married in the eyes of God, you should also have to register the union in the eyes of the State in a separate motion. Leave gay marriage to the Church to ban - You can be certain most will, but for all civil purposes, why shouldn't two men, two women, or a man and a woman consent to share their legal rights free from persecution - what part of the Constitution distinguishes a man's vote from a woman's, again? Two people, two votes. Holy matrimony, civil unity.
