There has been a lot of controversy lately over whether gay marriage and other things ought to be allowed. The courts are supposed to decide. But not every citizen agrees over what should be allowed or not. In fact, the constitution doesn't even say whether we may hold a barbecue or not.
The constitution is a lot like the Bible in one respect ; it can be used as an excuse by anybody to advocate making this or that legal or illegal. But we can't all tell the supreme court to ban or allow everything we like or dislike. This would be sheer chaos.
Some people are opposed to abortion and gay rights etc, others
are convinced they should be allowed. The supreme court is supposed to decide, but these decisions are based on the subjective
opinions of nine robed people in a Washington court, and also the
wheedling of politicians and private citizens or groups of them.
Take abortion. There are those who say that this is murder, and
that under the law, it must not be allowed. But when the founding fathers were framing the constitution, abortion was a non-issue.
It happened then as now, and for thousands of years before.
Nobody discussed it in polite company. If any of those framers
had even mentioned abortion at a meeting, let alone making it
illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !
The same with homosexuality. There are those who say that since
it is generally reviled and proscribed in the Bible, it should be
illegal according to the constitution. But what business does the
government have prying into people's bedrooms ? If homosexuality
is against the constitution, does that mean that the government
is justified in putting up surveillance cameras in every bedroom, and to arrest, prosecute, imprison and possibly execute gay people ? Come on, this isn't Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Many years ago, some self-righteous people wheedled the supreme
court into making the consumtion of alcohol illegal, despite the fact that the founding fathers greatly enjoyed imbibing. Did it stop people
from drinking ? Hardly. And organized crime had a field day.
And suppose some wackos got it into their heads that holding
barbecues is profoundly immoral and against the Bible and the constitution. Theoretically, they could wheedle the court into outlawing barbecues, and putting those who held them in jail.
I'm not an expert in constitutional law ; I don't know if gay marriage should be allowed or not. But it doesn't interfere in any way
with heterosexuals getting married and having children. And I don't
know about you, but if I were a small child, I would rather be
brought up by a gay couple who were responsible and caring parents than a heterosexual one who abused me physically and
sexually, or neglected me.
Conservatives are always complaining about "liberal" judges trying
to impose their liberal agenda on America, as if conservative judges have never tried to impose THEIR conservative agenda on this country.

we can follow both the 1st and 14th amendment when it comes to gay marriage:

1st - some religions support it. we refuse to recognize any of the religious marriages between non-straight people. we endorse the religions against gay marriage and go against those in favor. this isn't good.

14th- if one person can do something, everyone else should be able to.
if I'm of age and can marry someone I love (who is also eligible to marry), than others should be able to as well.

__________________
I'm so Obamafied

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

Amendment I
"Congress 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."

The first amendment says what it means and means what it says. It's very simple wording, clear english with NO strings attached. Only a liberal would try to pervert this very plain statement.

__________________

I think you have neo-conservative confused with liberal.

If you replaced liberal, with neo-conservative, your statement would make more sense.

agreed.
I've seen one group go after the constitution - it wasn't liberals.

__________________
I'm so Obamafied

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

I see how Amendment 1 makes the banning of marriage for gay couples sound unconsitutional.

Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...''

Though, I feel that marriage should be left to a man and a woman. Marriage is a Christian value, even though it is part of American law. I am for civil unions, gay couples can do their thing in the bedroom, get the same tax benefits, and have the same rights. I would ALSO like civil unions to be available for straight couples who are not religious.

at least you are consistant.

I'd say the only issue is that marriage can be secular - or it can religious but non-christian. and the law is made that way. civil unions carry a lot of issues. the law isn't made for them, so while they are suppose to be the same a as a marriage they are not.

__________________
I'm so Obamafied

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

Someone should MAKE them the same as a marriage!

I would like to get a civil union if that is an option for me when I get married, seeing as how I'm not a religious person. I'm not an annoying athiest either, I dont want a civil union to protest.

I say ''Under God'' when I say the pledge, also.

From a purely, Constitutional perspective, I am of the opinion that Marriage should be a private religious affair, if the connotation is that it is only between a man and a woman, for religious compliance reasons. Thus, after anyone gets "married" they would also have to get a civil union license, to comply with our secular Constitution, and its unappreciated role as the supreme law of the land.

I understand all the arguments.

But there is a reality , law will please anyone
Example
Families coming from Latin America, Asia and Africa
complain many times that in America , laws protect children too much and take away authority from the parents
They complain that the behavior which is not condemn in Latin America, Asia , Africa such as physical and verbally punishment here in America according to the law
it is abuse and children can accused their parents of violence which goes against the custom and culture in Latin America, Asia, Africa
They complain that the laws here are too liberal for women , and homosexuals.
Many people from around the world are used to live in closed society unused to live with people who belief different, act different or have different faith or not faith
They feel uncomfortable
Many in their cultures practice arranged marriage and feel threat by American culture and law that allow women to choose .
Many do not like the freedom of religion or the freedom of be an atheist
So , any kind of law always never will please everybody.

How many cultures around the world and how many social, economical systems
allow the kind of freedom which people from around the world who moved to America consider too much
People from ex Soviet countries feel shock , they never have such kind of freedom , even in the case of gays , it was a nono, only East Germany did not penalized homosexual sex but the rest of the Soviet yes.
So I understand that people complain but from both side of the aisle
from those New Americans who feel that the advances for women, gays and diversity of ideas is too much
and those who take for granted all the freedoms which we have in America and consider it is too little
never their goals will be fulfill
Many New Americans would like to roll back and Many used to American culture wants to push the envelop
common ground ?