What it far more relevant to this argument is the fact that gay marriages bans are unconstitutional. Many churches now recognize and perform gay marriage ceremonies which means that ALL levels of government MUST recognize gay marriages or they are in violation of the couple's First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Its too bad that activist conservative judges with their own agendas have ruled against the most important rights of Americans and instead ruled in favor of discrimination and hatred. Every time I think about it, it makes me sick to my stomach.
I normally don't address things like this, but arguing that gay marriage bans violate First Amendment rights to freedom of religion is spurious, if not simply hilarious from a Constitutional point of view.
I would suggest an argument from the 14th amendment equal protection clause (saying that sexual orientation should be subject to more than rational basis review, note: Lawrence v. Texas never disputes this) or that recognition of marriage must happen through the Full Faith and Credit clause regardless of who it's between.
Otherwise, I wouldn't start laughing halfway through your post.
As for Mark Dayton, it's entirely his opinion as to whether a Gay Marriage amendment is un-Christian or not, though I would argue his point is irrelevant.
Why shouldn't there be an argument based on the First Amendment? People are always talking about the "sanctity of marriage" and how allowing gay marriages somehow will violate it. The religious right is constantly complaining about how this is an attack on their religious beliefs yet no has pointed out the fact that many churches (as in denominations of Christianity not individual congregations) are blessing same sex unions left and right. If marriage truly is a religious institution, isn't the state obligated by the First Amendment to recognize it regardless of the sex of the partners?
\
However, in my view, any support for or against gay marriage which stems from religious text is irrelevant. What it far more relevant to this argument is the fact that gay marriages bans are unconstitutional. Many churches now recognize and perform gay marriage ceremonies which means that ALL levels of government MUST recognize gay marriages or they are in violation of the couple's First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
So, if churches supported murder, does that mean that illegalizin murder would be unconstitutional?As a Libertarian I am surprised that you would not support an argument for gay marriage based solely on a person's constitutional rights. Legalizing murder based on religious beliefs would of course be ridiculous because it would violate the rights of those being murdered. On the other hand, whose rights are being stomped upon if we allow gays to marry? I'll answer for you: no ones.
Also, I'm pretty sure that any constitutional argument for legalizing murder would get shot down before you even finished the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Its too bad that activist conservative judges with their own agendas have ruled against the most important rights of Americans and instead ruled in favor of discrimination and hatred. Every time I think about it, it makes me sick to my stomach.
Activist conservative judges? Gay marriage has not been recognized for centuries. Only since the twenty-first century have liberals been talking about gay marriage. It's the liberals who are being activists and cutting and pasting words into the constitution.
Just because an injustice hasn't been recognized for centuries doesn't mean the courts don't have an obligation to correct injustice. By your reasoning, we should still all be owning slaves and segregation should be legal.
Also, conservatives and liberals are both equally guilty of reading their own agendas into the Constitution. It just so happens that conservatives are the violators in this case.
Poll
