Mister Mistoffelees wrote:I was staying out of the discussion until I saw this. Are you arguing that your religious beliefs should be written into law that everyone--regardless of whether they actually believe one single little thing about your religion--has to follow? Why should your religion get to be written into everyone's law code and not someone else's? Why shouldn't Jewish people get to write kosher laws into the US Code? Why shouldn't Hindus get to ban killing cows based on their religious beliefs?
Sorry, your argument has no validity whatsoever in a nation whose laws are clearly and intentionally secular. The followers of Bob Jones "University" believe that interracial marriages aren't sanctified by God, and prevent their students from entering into them; they can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't write laws, based on that belief, which everyone has to follow. You seem to be advocating for a theocracy, the way I see it...
I'm not advocating for a theocracy. Heck, I'm actually considering becoming a hermit someday. Anyways, my point is this: the government doesn't have to back me (and really shouldn't; that's what makes the US unique) and my beliefs. I completely understand that it's laws are intentionally secular (Establishment and Free Exercise clauses): the government's job is to move society to collective action (at least it's supposed to anyway), not to please some particular group of people. However, that does not mean that I cannot voice my disdain in this particular situation. The same way a special interest group may lobby for their agenda to local, state, or national government, am I not allowed to do the same?
The political atmosphere within the US is filled with agendas everywhere. It's a bit of a dog-eat-dog world, and a huge game of "chicken" to see how long a party will filibuster against a bill before consequences occur. At least in this particular case, if the government does not support my viewpoint (which in light of the public opinion, it probably should not), then it is most certainly against my viewpoint, and in the most fundamental way of stating things, it makes me discontent.
Think about it this way: if a law was passed against gay marriage (as being suggested here), it is very evident that a theocracy is being established. How do we recognize the establishment of a theocracy? By the fact that the law is based on belief. However, if the contrary occurred - a law allowing gay marriage - were passed, would that not also state several beliefs, for example, that gay marriage is morally acceptable (if one believes in morality), etc.
My point is that most, if not
all social laws express beliefs: they dictate what is deemed right, wrong, acceptable, or not.