So who is pushing their beliefs on you and what exactly are the beliefs they are holding a gun to your head and making you accept?

[/quote]
You don't have to agree with certain activities, but to limit others based on your own personal beliefs goes directly against the idea of a free society.[/quote]

I somewhat disagree. That is the essence of the political process. When a majority point of view is trampled on, for example the courst over-ruling Prop 8 in California, the political process has been trampled upon by an idealistic judiciary.

The same type of bench legislation created from thin air the "separation of church and state". They did so by redefining the "establishment clause" and elevating it over and above the "free expression" clause. These two clauses are interdependent upon one another. The only way that one is not elevated over another determines the original intent of the framers.

You see, we don't have a right not be offended by my expression of faith anymore than I have a right to not to be offended by the faith of the next man. The First Amendment guarantees ONLY that the government will not sanction or mandate a given religion or denomination, as it was with the Catholic Church in Italy and the Anglican Church England. We see it today in the theocratic rule of Islam in the Middleast. This is what the framers intended, and therefore the "establishment" clause and "free expression" clause are not mutually exclusive.

The solution rests in the power of the states. The federal government and its courts attempt to throw a one-size-fits-all blanket over the nation. If gay marriage works in NY or Cali - that is decision for those states within the framework of their constitution. Be it by simple majority of referendum or by the elected delegates, it is not a matter of national interest.

The Bill of Rights does not include the "right" to marry.
However, I do agree with you that the government should not be in the business of marriage - PERIOD. They have no authority over the institution or the covenant. As a licensed officiant, I will not be told that I must marry any couple that walks in my door. My conscience and world-view is the sole determining factor of who I will and will not marry, not some judge on a bench or public opinion poll. That is MY RIGHT as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In my case, the inverse is true. Activist judiciaries dictating the will of the minority on the overwhelming majority - not to mention the historical practice of the framers themselves - including Jefferson - as in the case of the mythical "separation of church and state". How do I feel about that??? I have a clear understanding that if you don't like something, you actively and peacefully work to change it.

Note the distinct difference here. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE for me to force my faith on ANYBODY. Faith is something you have or you don't. Hearing a public prayer is not coerced conversion. However, for the government to step in and dictate who an officiant must marry, as is the case in Canada, and would definitely be the net result here, is coercing one's super-minority world-view down the throat of the majority.

One more note on your points above tgregory. Rejecting the notion of gay marriage does not prevent this couple from being together any more than an offical document holds people together. Our society become ultra-sensitive, being unable to recognize the difference between disapproval of a lifetyle and hate for the individaul. Disagreement and tolerance are now polar opposites. Fra too many do not understnad that you disagree with a position and not be intolerant of it. I can tolerate any opinion all day long - but I wont't have it pushed down my throat.

Alright - and where does the right to marry come from? My world-view says that marriage is a covenant of trust between God, one man and woman. It is NOT a right - period. Marriage is a sacred insitution given from God Himself. If a gay couple can find a minister to marry them - that is between the three of them and God. They wouldn't find me a willing participant - even if I were to face crucifixion.






I addressed this already. Step back to foundation of this country and see what was practiced. Prayer was a daily routine in the halls of congress. Church services were held weekly at the treasury. You are twisting and confusing terms here.

endorse
verb (used with object) Also, indorse ( for defs. 1–6 ) .
1. to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate

establish   
–verb (used with object)
1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a Medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.

None of the latter three definitions are fulfilled by the former. The government does not run a church. The government is not in the business of bulding churches and appointing their clergy. The government CANNOT establish the truth or falsehood of any particular faith or sect. However, the foudners in fact did endorse Christianity in both private and public with words and actions. That is a matter of public record that cannot be disputed.

The "Establishment clause" does not trump the 'Free Exercise" clause. These are on equal footing, buit separationists want to erroneously elevate one over the other while simultaneously redefining establishment.





I would suggest a simple solution. Stock up on Saturday and take it up the state level. The federal government does not have the authority to regulate in-state commerce. You wouldn't want the feds in the business of regulating alcohol anyway. Remember the 18th Amendment?

Before I go any further, I have to say thank for the civil discussion. So often, the political and relgious dialogue can erupt into name calling, etc. So, it is refreshing to say that you have been very respectful in disagreement. I have tried to do the same and hope that I have.



Marriage is not a right. Like it or not, there are civil and natural laws that govern marriage. Should bigomy or polygamy be accepted? Should a brother and sister be allowed to marry one another of they so choose? Shall we throw age limitations out the window as well? Shall we blur all the lines of common sense and good judgment to appease a significant majority that wants to make marriage a right?

Some regulation is necessary. The government has the obligation to reasonably regulate industry and services. They voiolated this obligation of trust, leading to a full-blown housing crisis in this country. They do not have to exceed constitutional authority. At this point they are not. Forcing homosexual marriage on clergy would be in direct violation of the First Amendment.



You learn to co-exist and work to build peaceful support for your position - without relying on an activist judiciary to rewrite the history books. You have life. Do you realize the life expectancy of an open Christian in Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist countries is exceedingly short. Christianity does not effect your quality of life. You don't have to hide underground to practice a different faith or no faith. But you shouldn't expect the majority to refrain from expressing theirs. If it offends you, you need to re-evaluate your tolerance level. Again, you have no Constitutional right not to be offended.



Whether the church should or shouldn't have tax exempt is open for discussion. What I can say is that the church and para-church organizations in this country are far superior to government run relief programs at every turn - and we do it on a shoe-string - mostly with volunteers. While FEMA was dragging their feet on the Gulf, church groups and para-church organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army had boots on the ground and were providing aid and comfort with private, non-coerced donations. I'll take organized compassion anytime over bureacrats supported by government compulsion.





How are you any less free to believe as you wish? If I lived in a neighborhood that promoted witchcraft, I have enough of a backbone to hold firm to my own worldview. I certainly wouldn't hold them accountable for any influence that rubbed off on me - or my children for that matter. I raise my kids and I'm responsible to plant the and water their worldview. They are responsible for maintaining it.

The government doesn't influence a worldview as much as you would like to think. The lack of prayer in the public school system had no influence over my children - because I was able to counter that influence and they had strength of character not to be coerced. I don't buy into the victim mentality that so prevalent in modern culture. That's a convenient prison we withdraw to escape from accountability.




To me, purchasing alchohol is not a right - but a privilege. Regulations include age limitations and restriction of sales to certain times. If removing the law had enough support at the state/local levels, I am sure it could be overturned. The law is not unconstitutional, as much as you may disagree with it.

tgregory - how does lack of a marriage license prevent a commitment when a marriage license itself doesn't magically produce a commitment? How many heterosexual couples live together without a marriage license? The commitment isn't found in a piece of paper. Commitment is found in the heart. That is something that a ceremony or acknowledgment will not produce. You are free to share a life with whomever you please. There is no power in a marriage licesne and the lack of one shouldn't be a bother to anyone who doesn't believe that marriage is God-ordained.




But they will. That is the ultimate goal - the end game of the agenda. Make no mistake, it is a slippery slope and a short walk from point a to b. Do you realize that Prop 8 in California had language which forced justices to marry indsicriminantly or forfeit their position? Do you really the courst wouldn't have pushed that over from the secular to the religious in a heartbeat?



The point I was making is that this "wall of separation" was fabricated by a short bench of activist judges, seeing fit to rewrite the history of our nation by ignoring the historical practice of the founders. There is a wall of separation, but that wall exists to prevent establishment - not free expression. The federal government cannot by way of legsilation force you to practice a given faith. To date, there is no law on the books. Howeer, the over-reach of the bench legisltors places legal limits on free expression. Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave - even as a nominal Christian. That was never his intent.






It wouldn't change a thing. That's faith. The proof is all around that freedom leads to complacency. The Gospel is flourishing today where it is under attack and stagnating here in the land of the free. I have to be on guard against the enemy within. That is far more powerful than any outside attack.



I do agree with that. Tax dollars shouldn't be used to prop up any industry - including our failing public school system. Time to take the beef out of the federal government period and allow the conscience of the individual to dictate contributions and the states to handle education without the feds in their face and absorbing revenue in layers of bureacracy that could be going to educate our children. The ultra-liberals will fight this tooth and nail because organizations such as NPR, PBS and Planned Parenthood would see donations dry up.



Where man's law deviates from God's law - I am free to place God over man. As I said before, I won't be victimized. I will live according to my worldview regardless of what humanity dictates. I don't have to like it, but let's face the facts. This country is heading fast and furious down the road of "freedom from religion". You can take my freedom, you can take my life - but you'll never take my faith. As long as I have a breath in my body, I will let my voice be peacefully heard.

Again, this really has nothing to do with anyone's right to express their faith or lack of faith. Lifestyle and worldview is not akin to gender or skin color either. It is a behavior, and not subject to special favor. Alcoholism is a behavior as well. So are eating disorders. If we travel far enough down this road we won't need any special classifications - because each of us a personality disorder. We are imperfect.




As I said, I particularly don't agree with it - but it's really a matter for the state. I admire those businesses that choose to close in observance (Chik-Fil-A comes to mind) but you should not compel an otherwise law abiding citizen to dry up on Sundays. If you want the God's honest truth - I find it hpocrytical - if the restaraunts, theaters, etc., are allowed to remain open.

Kelnozz - no imposition at all. That is a fair question and also a compelling reason for a flat or fair tax. I don't know that I would go so far as to say that marriage is a right. I think we would all agree that government infringement is a WRONG. I don't believe the conversation would be as developed and certainly not as heated as it has become in recent years if the government would recognize they have no authority in matters of the heart and certainly no business generating revenue as a result.

Exactly. This is a matter of individual group conscience and not government mandates or restrictions.