I really want to thank Ms. Klungland for her brief yet insightful email about morality and human rights. If only more people saw things as clearly and conprehensibly as she did, the world would be a much better place for all..

The government -- various state governments, that is, since states define marriage -- used to prohibit mixed-race marriages, too, via their miscegenation laws, until the Supreme Court held them unconstitutional in the late 60's. The gay marriage movement is where the civil rights movement was in the mid-60's, but will likely followed an accelerated path, due to the civil rights and women's movements that preceded it..

If, as is stated in this article, law should be based on the will of the majority, and not a religious code of morality, then what happens when the majority doesn't want gay marriage. Further, what happens when the majority no longer thinks that murder should be out-lawed. Beyond this, if we actually lived in a society where the will of the majority was law then all of our laws would be based on Christian Morality, because that is who the majority is. In truth we live in a society where our laws are based in part on the will of the majority, in part on that majority's religious morality, and in part on the majority being forced by law to be a gracious winner and allow the minority views the ability to exist.Push the majority too hard and in a direction it can't even see the merits of, and they will stop playing nice..

We (the people) are the government. The 'government'doesn't regulate us. We send our Representatives/Senators to Washingtonto represent 'our views'. The majority of Americans, at this time,disagree with gays/lesbians marrying. I don't understand whygays/lesbians can't be satisfied with a Civil Union and enjoy all thesame benefits. Discrimination is against the law nationally and therearen't that many rights they are not enjoying. Why push this issue?The gay/lesbian population is a very small % of the population. Moralityis not the issue, it's Marriage continuing (as it has throughout most ofhuman history) to be a Christian institution. .

Civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage. The only way tologically apply the same rights would be to have heterosexual coupleshave civil union, too.Rights are for all Americans, without exception. If you want to live ina theocracy, there are plenty still available. Like Iran..

"In God We Trust" We mind as well throw that out the window too. Because Marriage is sacred or blessed only because of how it's viewed in the sight of God. That's what makes it virtuos. Those who don't quite understand, can make it about religion or government or any other idea that may fit for the time being. But the truth aboutthe matter is, it's only about God. We as humans can make it anything we want, but God is the only thing that has been consistent in our lives from the very beginning of our existence. Even before what is now known as religion. So no one needs tosay what is right or wrong because if your reading/wrote or have just been dealing with this issue you already know. .

Those who believe marriage is a "Christian institution" that has remain unchanged through the years are choosing to ignore their Bibles. Many of the Patriarchs had multiple wives, and Jacob/Israel had children via four women, two of whom were concubines and not spouses. Biblical illiteracy or selective ignorance aside, the fact remains that one's religion should not dictate the actions of others. For example, we do not allow the Catholic church to dictate that everybody must eat fish on Fridays during Lent, and we do not allow the mullahs to tell us that we must read the entire Qur'an during Ramadan. Similarly, we should not let a coalition of churches tell us that we must tithe, fast, pray, read the Bible, or who can enter into CIVIL marriage.I suppose it's not surprising that those who choose to ignore their own Bibles so they can pretend marriage has always been the way they think it should be fail to understand "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."..

Those of you who object to same sex marriage tend to talk in the abstract. You are talking out of your religious conviction. You and your church have the right, under the law and the Constitution, not to perform the marriage rites for homosexuals. However, marriage exists on two levels. To certain religions marriage is a four-way compact between god, society/state and each of the partners. However, under the law and socially it is a three-way contract between the two partners and society/state. The law lays out the rights, priviliges and responsibilities of each partner to one another and between society and the partners. In that context we are talking of civil rights. If two people are married in the context of a church service they accept certain responsibilities to their church and their deity(s) that are above and beyond the society at large. In most states the marriage ceremony ends w/ a statement such as, "... by the authority vested in me by the state of **, I now pronounce you ..." That phrase is the crux(no pun intended) of this discussion. Whether the person who officiates calls on the blessing of their god(s) or not the authority for the marriage comes from the state. The permits (marriage license) are issued by the state. The rules, laws, rights, responsibilities and restrictions are established and documented by the state. The XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states,"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..." and"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." The I Amendment establishes, "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Denying people their "...equal protection of the laws..." Imposing arbitrary rules and laws based on religious doctrine and dogma constitutes "...law respecting an establishment of religion..." An american citizen is one of "We the people..." who has commited to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."(Preamble to the Constitution). Can anyone show me satisfactorily how any of the stated purposes of our country specifically are undermined, diminished, harmed or hurt by granting to two people who, out of love, have committed to sharing a life together the rights and priviliges enjoyed by every other couple that have made that committment? If you, as a member of any church, wish to deny homosexuals the sacrament, the fellowship and the community of your church that is your right. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution that is your right. However, to deny anyone the protection of the law is an abomination under heaven and on Earth. It must not be allowed to exist. Anyone who disagrees with that is well within their rights to leave. As I have said before, you and all of your ilk must decide... Are you Christians living in America OR are you Americans who practice christianity? The writer that referred to the motto"In god we trust" should know that it became the Motto in the mid '50s. to combat "the red menace" After all it was thought at the time for a communist to say god would cause their tongue to cleave to their palate and the words to burn in their throat. RRRIIIIGGHHT! As an after word, any rights that are denied to even the least of us in our society diminishes us all. I am sorry if you don't understand that.Thank you for the article..

Democracy is the rule of the Majority. However, Our Constitution established a democratic republic. It then immediately established the 1st 10 Amendments, The Bill of Rights, to protect individuals from excesses of the majority. The majority is always right except when they oppose the Bill of Rights and the limits imposed by the Constitution..

The argument that marriage is wholly a "Christian" institution in the United States today is flawed. Many Christian religions do not allow for divorce, and more specifically, new marriages following a divorce. Certainly, many Christian religions do not allow for adultery within a marriage. Yet many people engage in the "Christian" institution of marriage while simultaneously engaging in these Unchristian behaviors. The argument that marriage is a "religious institution" in the United States is also flawed. Many, many couples choose to get married without ever involving a church-they deal directly with the state. Furthermore, many religions have differing views on the lawful terms of a relationship between two people: these views are hardly all represented in the larger institution of marriage.At this point in society, marriage is a social insitution, managed by the state. Those who choose to involve a church are free to do so, just as those who choose to keep it just between them and the state are also free to do so. Let's recognize marriage for what it is today: no longer an institution managed soley by the church (just as we as a people are not managed by one church, one relgion). Marriage today is a social institution, and let's allow our laws to reflect the current terms of our society, a society that includes LGBT members. .

Mr. Paul Diamond laid out all the facts about this issue and covered all the bases. It's very informative and nicely written.If only the powers that be would do their jobs and stop bending under the pressures of churches to legislate morality maybe we can wake up from this nightmare and begin to feel like we're still living in a democratic society. To the bible toting religious fanatics in America who would like to dictate how others conduct their lives - "Live and Let Live". Thanks..