I fail to see what has changed to cause her to apologize, other than politics.
God hasn't changed.
Scripture hasn't changed.
The rightness and wrongness of the issue of SSM and the other LGBT issues hasn't changed.
My own position is that SSM is a fait accompli. My objection now is the twisting of people's arms to say it's OK with God. Scripture says what it says on the issue, and short of God providing me with a dramatic revelation that His Word on the subject means something other that what people of sincere faith and study have determined it to mean for MILLENIA, I'm not going to change my position, or apologize for it. Why a politician should be different on an issue of morality is beyond me..
Tulsi once struck me as someone with the guts to stand on principle over career, but I suppose that's not the case. I'd think more of her if she just said she's changing her position for political consideration, than with the "Aloha" (and a rather somber "Aloha" at that) Apology Video. Pols do the expedient thing all the time. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
The problem people had with her previous position was more than just her personal beliefs. It is not only that she opposed gay marriage, she supported conversion therapy and other very homophobic beliefs as well. She should have apologized for those beliefs and I believe her apology was sincere .
Also Fuzzy the constitution clearly says you cant make laws based on any religion so your argument here doesn't hold merit. Also just because you believe something is a sin doesnt mean the government should get involved against it or you should treat others differently because of it.
So does that mean that every law and statute must contradict Scripture in order to be Constitutional?
Does that mean that only non-religious persons can be elected to legislatures and serve as Governors and Presidents, because otherwise any action taken could be argued as "motivated by religion"?
Legislators and Presidents/Governors are PEOPLE, and they are motivated by SOMETHING. Legislation is a result, in part, of the private and personal motivations of the Legislators. Are you saying that legislation cannot coincide with Scripture in order to be compliant with the First Amendment?
That's where people are going with this argument. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion, or a state naming a particular denomination the "official" religion of this state. I don't believe for a minute that it means that Scripture cannot be a motivation behind public policy. For if that is so, given our pluralistic society, only atheists could Constitutionally create legislation. (That is the goal of people that push this sort of thing; they want to remove Christians from the lawmaking process and ensure that only secularists participate.)
Laws are based on religion all the time. Laws against murder and theft are based on religion. Laws regarding perjury and false statements are based on religion. They coincide with the Ten Commandments. Are these unconstitutional simply because they coincide with an authoritative portion of Scripture?
We've gotten ridiculous on this issue, and the motivation for it is to neutralize the effects of Christians in public life. I suggest people read Phillip Hamburger's Separation Of Church And State for an in-depth discussion on the issue of the intent of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause.
No that means you should keep your personal religious beliefs to your self
Any Violent Crimes and Theft are crimes because they violate other people’s right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness not because of religious script . Perjury and obstruction is a crime not because of scripture but because they obstruct the ability for justice to be done . You can easily make a non religious reason why all of these should be crimes .
Tell me a non religious reason why gay marriage should not be permitted.
It will put same-sex couples on equal footing with opposite-sex married couples in the areas of adoption.
No one can say with any certainty as to whether or not this will be beneficial or harmful to children over time. People assert that it will be fine, but it is a MAJOR change in adoption law that institutes same-sex couple adoption, which is, at this point, experimental (in that the longitudinal data as to child outcomes isn't really in yet).
This may or may not be fine. I view this experiment as one more in a series of experimenting with the idea of the nuclear family; it's something that contributes to the happiness of adults, but it's not clear that it doesn't detract from the happiness of children.
Indeed, that is my objection to most of the experimentation as to family structure over the last 50 years. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead has commented on this extensively over her career and has pointed out the obvious: The paradigm in family has shifted from a paradigm where child welfare is paramount to a paradigm where the happiness of the adults is paramount, with blindness toward the reality that what is often in the best interest of adults is in conflict with the interests of children and what contributes to adults' happiness often detracts from a child happiness. Ms. Whitehead spoke of this in "Dan Quayle Was Right", an article she wrote for the Atlantic Monthly in 1992. SSM wasn't even on the radar then, but I view it as just one more social experiment focused on adult happiness.
You asked for a secular reason. You've got one.
One question I have to ask you is how is denying gay couples the right to adopt children solely on the reason they are gay not government-sanctioned discrimination. Should all gay couples be able to adopt children no but neither should all straight couples, the criteria for permitting adoption should be based on the couples merit.
This is not even close to the equivalent of the baker in Colorado refusing to bake a cake at a gay wedding because in that case that is a private business refusing to give his services at a ceremony he personally thinks is sinful. You could make an argument in that case forcing him to give his services to a cermony he thinks is sinful is violating his rights as well.
On the other Government-Sanctioned Discrimination is clearly unconstitutional
