So putting a direct vote to the people of California takes care of that, yes?
I'm of the view that this is, among other similar quandaries, fundamentally a tenth amendment issue.
I KNOW -- ever since Bush looked into Putin's eyes and "saw his soul," America's been looking more and more like Totalitarian Fascism every single day! :P (Don't be mad at me, Droopy! I'm just kidding around.)
I'm glad to hear that, as if not, I'd have to throw you into the same hopper with Anges, Mercury, and Phunk.
I get that -- pure freedom would equal pure anarchy. However, what the founding fathers did try to ensure was fair or even equal treatment under the law for all people.
Yes, but fair and equal treatment under a fundamental set of philosophical and political assumptions that do not necessarily mirror post sixties concepts erected around them.
If a gay couple is allowed by their church to marry, but cannot because the law won't allow it, then I do believe their civil rights (freedom of religion) are being infringed upon.
Then you would support the live sacrifice of puppies or kittens, forced marriage, polygamy, and honor killing in the name of "freedom of religion"? What about human sacrifice, if the victim consents (consenting adults)?
Let's rework your argument. "If an Indian wife of a deceased Hindu is allowed by her church to commit
suttee, but cannot because the law will not allow it, then I do believe their civil rights (freedom of religion) has been violated"
Or, 'If a Muslim couple wants to get married, and one of them is 12 years old (and consents to do so), but cannot because the law will not allow it, then I do believe their civil rights have been violated".
This is one thing to consider; the limits and conditions under which "freedom" in an ordered, civil society is understood and applied. The other is the original intent of the Constitution. The First Amendment religion clause had no other intention then to prohibit the formation of a state church, or, alternatively, the showering of the state of a particular church with special perks or dispensations.
Yet, that the state is not to "make any law" infringing freedom of religion contains within itself the same inherent demarcation lines as do the other rights. Congress shall make no law inhibiting freedom of speech, and yet it is against the law to libel another, yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or incite to riot.
In the same manner, freedom of religion is not a form of unrestricted licensure to any conceivable sub-cultural element in society seeking acceptance within the mainstream of the culture. Indeed, the entire concept of freedom as consisting primarily in social licensure is a rather recent one.
Quote from Droopy:
Homosexuals cannot be married because homosexuality and the institution of marriage are conceptually exclusive
That is ONLY true if you view marriage as solely for dynastic or procreative purposes. If you wish to beget an heir, then homosexuality is the wrong vehicle to complete the task, and your above statement is quite true.
If, however, you see marriage as something more than a means of producing legitimate children, then your statement no longer applies. In the last two hundred years or so, Western societies have come to see marriage as between two people who are in love and wish to be exclusively tied to one another. It is for reasons of companionship and love that many people marry. They may or may not have dynastic intentions, and in that way, are no different than homosexual people.
In the last two hundred years? More like the last third or so of the 20th century, particularly after the Fifties. At least the dichotomy between companionship, love, and child rearing; the compartmentalization of sexual love and emotional bonding from the concept of posterity and family creation is very recent indeed, and a strong argument can be made that this has not been all things considered, a positive development.
In any case, your entire argument here, phrased in the language of value relativism ("If, however,
you see marriage as something more than a means of producing legitimate children, then your statement no longer applies."), implies no general, ultimate ground of values from which our conduct, individually and collectively, can be derived. The Gospel exists precisely to dispel purely human, self contained assumptions and rationalizations about the universe of this kind.
Interestingly, the philosophical background of the Constitution implies and is derived from exactly the understanding that a free, civil society must be grounded in a deeply rooted moral order that itself implies strict limitations upon human conduct in certain areas such that a free, civil society can exist at all.
Homosexuality is incompatible with civil society because of its incompatibility with both of the two primary purposes of marriage: the creation of future generations and the human blossoming of the individual man and woman in a stable, long term intimate relationship one with the other (also necessary for the healthy family environment needed for the creation of psychologically and morally healthy and productive individuals in a free society). Its aggressive, indeed hyperaggressive promiscuity, also a long historic aspect of the homosexual lifestyle (especially the dominant male homosexual lifestyle) is also utterly incompatible with a civil social order, both because of the masive social pathology it creates among its own members, and because the homosexual sub-culture seeks to extend its values to the greater society around it (homosexual marriage).
As I've long argued, the aggressive sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals that came to prominence in the sixties in a close corollary to the kind of values long present in "Gay" life, and we've now seen the results of these values come home to rooste for several decades, in progressive waves of social pathology and general societal decline.
That's pure speculation. Countries in Europe that allow gay marriage are also countries that consistently score at the top end of quality-of-life studies. (Well above, I might add, America.)
According to whom and upon what criteria?
Well, at the very least, any argument claiming this would be logically problematic, as one would have to provide some logical connection between allowing homosexual marriage and the subjective category of "quality of life" along a number of other dimensions (many Muslim's, including many who have been in the west for sometime, like living under Sharia law. What do you think these Muslims might say in a quality of life survey?).
Hugh Hefner would say that his quality of life was quite high. Others would say he has lived his life in utter moral and intellectual squalor. How objective are quality of life kinds of appraisals?
