Then why want a law banning the union of two consenting adults.

Believing whether homosexuality is morally wrong or not is not the issue. Murder is not a crime because it is immoral, per se. It is a crime because it denies a person of the Constitutionally defined fundamental right to life. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman harms no one and denies no rights to anyone.

I am an athiest and my morals derive from my parents (as yours do) and my life experiences through high school, moving out of the house, and 3 years in college. Your parents' morals are Christian and that's all you know. "Because the Bible says it's wrong" is not a valid reason for making something legistically wrong.

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
The Court reverses the Virginia execution sentence of a mentally retarded man because the punishment was deemed "unusual" by the Court, not because they deemed it to be immoral.

County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998)
"History and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry."

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
"Liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." The Court contradicts the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick ruling reversing the Texas law on sodomy as a violation of one's 5th Amendment right to privacy and 14th Amendment right to life and equal protection under the law because it prohibits two consenting men to have sexual intercourse.

Marriage has only been defined as a fundamental right because of one's fundamental right to procreate, but the times have changed and just as our Protestant founding fathers never intended for Blacks or even Irish Catholics to be protected under our Constitution, the framers of the 14th Amendment never directly intended for two people of the same sex to pursue their lives together in a union recognized by the state.

The times change and the people have a fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two individuals' joint pursuit is fully lawful as long as it does not infringe on the fundamental rights of others.

Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights. Only prohibitting it does.

__________________

You never know. It took 58 years for the court to reverse the Plessy v. Ferguson (1894) ruling through Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) and Brown v. Board of Ed II (1955).

It only took 17 years for the Court to reverse the Bowers v Hardwick (1986) with the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) ruling. Justice Scalia, Thomas, and C.J. Rehnquist dissenting opinion was not anti or pro gay rights. It was because the Bowers ruling was too young and it was still up to the people.

I see the shit hitting the fan when a Massachusetts gay couple, purposely, relocates to a state where gay marriage is now illegal to test the Court, just as Plessy was a test case. A Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one between a man and a woman would be in itself fundamentally unconstitutional because it is a form of discrimination. (i.e. Amendment XIX states that the right to vote cannot be denied on the account of sex, not that no woman can be denied the right to vote).

Discrimination is only accepted by the Court, and is usually argued heavily even in these cases (i.e. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Affirmative Action case) when it is benign and though the amendment proposal is "fair on its face," it inadvertently singles out a group or class and denies them the right to perform an action granted to others.

The people will not decide this, but Scalia and Thomas (Rehnquist will be dead in the near future) will be on the Court that deems these state laws as unconstiutional because they are performances of the benign discrimination that they voted against in Grutter as well as Romer v. Evans (1996).

__________________

What about the fact that when you look at other countires who have weakened marriage, it has wreaked havok on thier society? Divorce rate jumps, out of wedlock births skyrocket, etc.

Also, if you're not going to define marriage as one man and one woman (which is what these do, not specificially ban gay marriage), how do you define it? What about when one man wants to marry 2 women? What about when a man wants to marry a minor? His dog? Where does it end?

It depends what you mean "wreaked havoc on society". Why "Divorce rate jumps, out of wedlock births skyrocket, etc." is a bad thing? If a couple decides that they dont want to be together anymore, its better to stay together sad, because "its not right to divorce?"

The goal of your life is to be right or to be happy?

It's pretty much been proven that FAR higer percentage of crimes are committed by children from single family homes. If there are more kids from single parent homes, it's logical to assume the crime rate will be higher. Never mind the fact that econimically single parent homes are at a HUGE disadvantage, which harms the children.

So if you get drunk and get pregnant a woman that is hot but the dumber person your have seen, you will try to keep the child and marry her?

Well, I can't marry her since I'm already married (assuming my wife didnt' leave me, I guess), but absoloutly I would keep the child and either adopt him myself or work out a joint custody.

If you wasnt married then. The true question is: Do you understand how difficult it is for some people to follow what your religion and your views are?

I believe that you are not supposed to do something that you dont want if it affects yourself much more than the other ppl.

Yes, I understand how difficult it is. And when I was younger I felt much more the way you do. But I think it would be incredibly sefish to put what easy for me in front of the welfare of a child.

Again the "welfare of a child" is subjective. You can be a good parent if thats your intentions even if you are divorced. Everyone is guided by selfish feelings after all, even if he cant see it. There are always grey approaches to the problems.