Religion in Government

Slaves to Righteousness15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.You are wrong on this one.

riVeRraTYou are bigtime wrong there.First, the fact that something is not mentioned as protected or even considered, does not meant that it is NOT protected. Both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence show that all should be equal under the law. The Constitution is very clear on the subject, all deserve equal protection under the law.Then you say... Nonsense. In fact, even the fools opposing same sex marriage understand that it is protected. That is why they are pushing the "In Defense of Marriage Act" and the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same sex marriage and reserve such rights for the bisexual population.Then you even went on to say... You as a practicing bisexual, have a right to marry someone not of your sex. Okay, no one is trying to deny you that right.But to you really believe, just because you are a bisexual that you have the right to deny marriage to someone else? Come on now. What someone else does, how they arrange their marriage, is frankly, none of your business. You may believe that only blue eyed cherubs can marry, and for you, that's fine. Marry a cherub.Your personal religious beliefs do not apply outside your sect.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Now its going to turn into the gay rights thread again? That thread was already locked because the people that are so for it can't control themselves.
I have a right to believe what I want to believe in.
What gay people are debating about is very hypocratical of them. They claim to be treated fairly based on equal rights. Well what about the beliefs of christians? Are we not to have equal rights as well? If we believe that bad things would happen to this country if we go around approving gay marraige as if were exactly the same thing as a straight marraige, that is our right, and should be respected.
Where is the equal treatment there?I'm sorry but a gay marraige is not the same as a straight marraige, thats why they have different names. It would require its own set of regulations and by-laws concerning "divorce".Webster changed its definition of marriage to appease the gay population, but that does not change the original meaning of the word marriage or where it came from.I believed this as a non-christian too.i.e. In days gone by the courts would favor the woman in a divorce. If two men get a divorce, who then becomes the women? What would the rules be then? This is why it is different. All should be equal under the law, christians included. But you have to compare apples to apples. 2 men or 2 women is not the same thing as a man and a woman, no matter what you say. I am not an expert on this subject, but as you can see, something has to be done to define the deference, which was my thought which lead me to say what I said. This is also the reason why I did not want to get into this conversation. I also would not know how to deal with it as a president, because I would want to be fair and impartial. So some serious thought and more knowledge would be required of me. I never said that I was bi-sexual. I only said that I have a choice. I have chosen. This gets to the heart of the matter in what I believe. Which is completely different to as how I would deal with it as a president.Making it legal would not increase the amount of gays in the world, but to make it the same as a marriage between straight people sends a messsage to our God that we support it, and the bible tells me not to support sexual immorality. If the people of the U.S. decide to allow it and the government supports it, then I am forced to honor it, and then only left to pray about it and ask for the forgiveness fo a nation.This is my right as an American, and I deserve equal treatment as the gays do. But there is a conflict of interest, and it needs to be addressed. You cannot have equal rights of one group at the expense of anothers equal rights.This might be one area where God would be mentioned in the constitution, who knows.If you don't agree with me that it is along the lines of sexual immorality, that is your right. God will judge you on that. So I will be judged in the same way for believing what I believe.1 Corinthians 6
17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;Supporting this as though it was the same as straight marraige seems to me to go against God's will. But I will not try to deny the right of gay people to do what they want.The law obviously needs to be re-written to accomodate all.

Just a request here, and I believe the admin would agree.We need to refrain from sexual harrassment in here. Be careful what you call people or suggest what they could do sexually.
A few things have been said to me along these lines, and when you do that, you violate my rights, and make your arguement seem invalid.

Exactly. It seemsto youto go against GOD's will.That is fine. In your religion, you do not have to allow gay marriage.But marriage is not a religious institution. It is a pure, social, legal contract. You go to the state for either a marriage license or a divorce.You can not get married through a church or divorced through a church. You go to the state.It is not religious and it certainly is not a CHRISTIAN institution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you said god wanted slaves.
So why are you picking on slavery?

---

​

I wasn't the one who brought up slavery and tried to blame it on God.

---

True.You were the one that said that god wants slaves. In response to a comment that slavery is bad and that the people who owned slaves used biblical scripture to justify their actions, your response was to say that god wants slaves.

quote:

---

I never said God wanted it.

---

Yes, you did. How is that supposed to be taken? If god intends for there to be slaves, then god must want slaves, yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?

​

When Loving vs. Virginia was decided, fully 70% of the US population thought that interracial marraige was a bad thing.

​

The SCOTUS said no, marriage is a fundamental right and the Constitution permits interracial marriage.

​

Would you, as president, have fought for the Constitution and its declaration of equal protection under the law, including the right for people of different races to marry, or would you have fought for the "will of the people"?

​

You seem to be arguing that if millions of people do something, that means it's the right thing.

​

Is it never possible for most people to be wrong?

---

​

I would fight for the constitution and what the people want. Majority rules.

---

That doesn't answer the question.What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?

quote:

---

Is this so hard for you to understand.

---

Yes. "What the majority wants" and "What the Constitution requires" are not identical things.It's a very simple question, riVeRraT. It would be nice if you answered it:What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?Are you saying that it is better to allow popular prejudice to subjugate the minority than to fight for a free society where all can live without interference?Do you not understand that if you claim that "majority rules" is the end-all/be-all of government, that the majority can quite easily turn against you? What will you do then? Simply grin and bear it? "Well, if that majority wants me flayed on national television and made to eat the excrement of a thousand camels, then that's what I'll do because, well, majority rules!"What you're arguing for, riVeRraT, is moral relativism: That whatever the majority decides is good and right and just actually is good and right and just, that there are no standards of behaviour that transcend popular whim, and that the only reason marauders shouldn't rape you to death, eat your flesh, and sew your skin into their clothing...and if you're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order¹...is that said marauders don't want to for now?

quote:

---

Consitution first, then majority.

---

But the Constituion requires equal treatment under the law and thus things like same-sex marriage.And yet you have directly said that you would fight to keep same-sex marriage illegal.So which is it? Are you fighting for the Constitution which requires same-sex marriage so long as there is mixed-sex marriage? Or are you fighting for your religion which says nix?

quote:

---

We are talking about religion in governement, not gay marraige.

---

But the latter is prevented because of the former.Can you think of a single non-religious argument that can justify denying the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of equal treatment under the law and thus same-sex marriage should be legal? Let's hear it. Let's hear this wonderful legal argument that somehow justifies treating one class of people differently under the law that doesn't invoke any sort of religious theme.The only reason same-sex marriage isn't legal right now is because the government is beholden to the religious argument that god is against it. Take away that argument and what is left?

quote:

---

But when the constitution was written the word marraige did not mean "same sex".

---

And when the Constitution was written, the word marriage did not mean "interracial," either.Does that mean the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving vs. Virginia in saying that marriage was a fundamental right and cannot be abridged on the basis of race?If it was OK to "redefine" marriage as being between people of different races, even though the founders never considered that to be allowable, why is it not OK to "redefine" marriage as being between people of the same sex?When the Constitution was written, the founders had no idea there would be such things as computers. Does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to articles posted on the Internet?The Constitution clearly says "equal treatment." What part of "equal" don't you understand? Just because the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment didn't plan on it being used for the benefit of gay people, don't you think gay people deserve to be treated equally under the law? Don't you think everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law?"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." Is that what you're getting at?

quote:

---

There would have to be an amendment for it to be clear.

---

Why? There was no need to write an amendment to allow interracial marriage. Why would there need to be an amendment to allow same-sex marriage?Isn't the Fourteenth Amendment clear enough? Isn't that clear? Isn't that much better than trying to delineate the specific rights that are granted to everyone? If everybody is supposed to be treated equally, why not just say that?That's why anti-discrimination laws use generic terms. They don't say that blacks shouldn't be discriminated against. They say race is not an allowed criterion. If you try to come up with a list of races, you'll invariably miss one. So rather than try to come up with a list that will inevitably be wrong, you simply lump them all together: Race.The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't list the ways in which you must treat people equally. Something would be left out. Instead, it states that all laws must be applied equally to all citizens.That includes gay people.Or don't gay people count?

quote:

---

I would be against this based on my religious beliefs, and my personal beliefs. I have the freedom to choose that, it is America.

---

So you're saying that you would choose your religion over the Constitution.The Constitution clearly indicates that gay people are as entitled to the legal contract of marriage as straight people are, but you are against that because you have a religious squick factor.You can understand why some would find you a threat to a free society.

quote:

---

And yes being straight was a choice for me.

---

As you were asked directly, by me:How did you make your choice? I want specifics. How many men did you sleep with before you decided that you didn't like it? Is it possible that you just didn't find the right man? Whom do you still find sexually attractive and what would it take to make you reconsider your choice?Have you considered the possibility that you're simply bisexual?

quote:

---

On the other hand being a chirstian also means throwing yourself into the fire.

---

But the First Amendment clearly indicates that religious justifications have no place in government.So why are you bringing it up?

quote:

---

I can tell you this, same sex marraige and straight marraige are 2 different things requiring different laws.

---

Why? Please tell me what would change in the administration of marriage if we were to change all instances of the words "husband" and "wife" with the word "spouse"? Hell, the tax returns already say "spouse." What would we have to change?What is the difference between a same-sex couple getting married and an infertile couple getting married?

quote:

---

Whether I am for or against it is my right. Even if it is religious based. If you think its not my right to have an opinion on that, then you are anti-American.

---

(*sigh*)What you don't understand and what you have been told repeatedly is that nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. Nobody is saying you have to like gays, get married to someone of the same sex, or have sex with someone of the same sex.Instead, you're simply being asked to stop trying to insert your religious squick factor into the legal system thus forcing everybody else to conform to your theology.Your insistence that gay people are not entitled to equal treatment under the law is, indeed, unamerican.Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to have that opinion. You're simply being told that such an opinion goes against everything the United States supposedly stands for.It is the height of American values to be able to hold unamerican opinions.

quote:

---

quote:

---

am not describing what you feel. You are. I am merely repeating what you said.

​

If you didn't mean it, why did you say it?

---

​

It would be fine if you repeated what I said

---

I did. The fact that you don't like what you said is not my fault. You said you would fight a law that granted equal access to marriage by people of the same sex.How can you possibly justify that with an equivalent claim that you would fight for the rights granted by the Constitution when the Constitution clearly indicates that gay people are entited to equal access to marriage due to the fact that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Slaves to Righteousness

---

Nobody was talking about "slaves to righteousness." They were talking about the American institution of slavery.Therefore, your response that god wants slaves can only be understood in that context.How many times do I have to quote the interchange before you remember it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Well what about the beliefs of christians?

---

What rights would Christians lose if gay people were allowed to marry? Are you saying that gay marriage would force a church to perform a marriage for a gay couple? That they would be forced to actually enter into gay marriage?You seem to think you had the right to discriminate against gay people because of your religion.Let me break it to you: You never had that right. Your right to practice your religion ends with you. You are allowed to conduct your life in accordance with your religious beliefs. You do not have the right to make anybody else follow along. If you wish to petition the government for a special contract that allows your religious relationship to be sanctioned and accorded special rights and privileges, then you must necessarily provide those same rights and privileges to everybody else. You do not get to have your religion treated differently from the others.

quote:

---

Are we not to have equal rights as well?

---

Of course.Please explain what rights of yours would disappear if gay people were allowed to get married.Be specific.Would you be forced to pay higher income taxes than gay people? Would you lose the right to vote? To sponsor your foreign-born spouse for citizenship? Would you be made to pay everybody on your block five dollars every other week?What right would you lose if the neighbors got married?

quote:

---

If we believe that bad things would happen to this country if we go around approving gay marraige as if were exactly the same thing as a straight marraige, that is our right, and should be respected.

---

You can believe it all you want.You do not have the right to have it respected if the only justification you can come up for it to be codified into law is, "God says it's icky."Since your marriage is not affected by the marriage of others, how does allowing gay people the right to get married just like you are allowed affect you in any way, shape, or form?

quote:

---

Where is the equal treatment there?

---

It's in the equal way in which you are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex if that is your decision.

quote:

---

I'm sorry but a gay marraige is not the same as a straight marraige

---

You keep saying this but you keep refusing to describe how.What is different in a same-sex marriage compared to an opposite-sex marriage?

quote:

---

It would require its own set of regulations and by-laws concerning "divorce".

---

Why?What could possibly be different between a same-sex couple divorcing and a mixed-sex couple divorcing?Be specific.Do mixed-sex couples have to pay more alimony by law? Are they not allowed to create pre-nuptial agreements? Is there no way for a mixed-sex couple to have an equitable division of the marital assets and provide for any children?What is the difference in divorce law when we change the words "husband" and "wife" to "spouse"?

quote:

---

In days gone by the courts would favor the woman in a divorce.

---

And that was unconstitutional, too. "Equal treatment under the law" means you have to treat men and women equally, too.

quote:

---

What would the rules be then?

---

The same as they are now:An equitable division of the marital assets and provision for the children.What would change? Treating women differently from men when it comes to divorce is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

I am not an expert on this subject

---

Then why are you talking? If you know you don't have an informed opinion, what makes you think your opinion has any value?

quote:

---

something has to be done to define the deference

---

That's just it: There is no difference.What about the legal definition of marriage would need to be altered beyond the replacement of the words "husband" and "wife" with the word "spouse"? What would need to be added or taken away?Be specific.

quote:

---

I never said that I was bi-sexual. I only said that I have a choice. I have chosen.

---

If you had a choice, that means you could have chosen the other way.That means you find both men and women sexually attractive and desirable.That means you aren't heterosexual because heterosexual people do not find people of the same sex sexually attractive and desirable.It also means you aren't homosexual because homosexual people do not find people of the opposite sex sexually attractive and desirable.And you can't be asexual, therefore that leaves bisexual.So tell us: What kind of man turns you on? How many men did you have sex with before you chose not to have sex with them ever again? Is it possible you simply need to find the right man?What would it take to make you reconsider your choice?

quote:

---

Making it legal would not increase the amount of gays in the world, but to make it the same as a marriage between straight people sends a messsage to our God that we support it, and the bible tells me not to support sexual immorality.

---

What does god have to do with it?You're violating the Constitution again with that attitude. The First Amendment clearly indicates that religious justification is never, ever allowed to be the basis for law. You can believe that it's a horrible affront to god all you want, but the Constitution insists that that isn't good enough.So where are your priorities as the leader of the country who took an oath to uphold the Constitution? Here is the entire oath of office for the President as explicitly described by the Constitution in Article II, Section 1: Where do you find any admonishment to work for the aims of god?What do you do as president when the aims of your god conflict with the aims of the Constitution? You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Where do you get off saying that god doesn't want you to?

quote:

---

But there is a conflict of interest, and it needs to be addressed. You cannot have equal rights of one group at the expense of anothers equal rights.

---

Precisely. You are not allowed to deny gay people equal rights just because of your personal religious squick factor. Same-sex marriage deprives you of no rights, causes you no harm, and has absolutely no effect upon you.So why are you so insistent on denying gay people their rights?

quote:

---

This might be one area where God would be mentioned in the constitution, who knows.

---

I do. I read the Constitution and it never mentions god anywhere. Not once. The only connection to any concept of religion are two (count 'em) and both of them are to specifically state that religion has no sway on governmental justification.Article VI: Amendment I: That's it. There isn't anything else.

quote:

---

The law obviously needs to be re-written to accomodate all.

---

Indeed.The only thing that needs to be changed, however, is to substitute "spouse" for every instance of the words "husband" and "wife."What else would have to be done?Be specific.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

We need to refrain from sexual harrassment in here.

---

Since when is recognizing someone's admitted bisexuality "harrassment"?

quote:

---

Be careful what you call people or suggest what they could do sexually.

---

But you're the one who said it. You said you made a choice.That means you find both men and women sexually desirable.That means you're bisexual.So tell us, what would it take to make you reconsider your choice? What kind of man turns you on? If god came down and personally told you that it was OK, who would be on your dating list?You said you chose. How can it possibly be a choice if you don't actually like one of the choices and would never choose it?

quote:

---

A few things have been said to me along these lines, and when you do that, you violate my rights

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?"Violate your rights"? What right of yours has possibly been violated by pointing out that when you say you made a choice of whom to have sex with in relation to gender, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are bisexual?If you're really that upset, sue us for libel. Of course, you'll have a hard time pointing out that you have suffered any harm since this is an anonymous forum and you aren't using your real name. You haven't even published your email address.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

But I also believe if it happens, and if I support it we as a nation could suffer. I only want to look out for our nation, and not make something that I feel is wrong to be common place.At the same time I do not want to deny people thier freedom. This is why I can't really decide what is the correct thing to do.

No, I have the right to believe that gay marriage is not a marriage at all in God's eyes. I see it as being completely different than a straight marraige. I think the law should reflect that. See the last statement. There you go again, assuming stuff and putting words in my mouth. If its so equal then why do you have to describe it as being different? If you don't know the answer to this one then you are playing dumb.
There are so many more situations that could arise because of children involved than a straight marraige requiring different laws to deal with them. There are also many laws on the books that would have to be re-worded.Here are some things that would have to be changed, or added to, so that it would be clarified for same sex couples.Connecticut
It is illegal for a man to kiss his wife on Sunday.A Florida sex law: If you're a single, divorced, or widowed woman, you can't parachute on Sunday afternoons.It's against the law in Willowdale, Oregon, for a husband to curse during sex.No woman may have sex with a man while riding in an ambulance within the boundaries of Tremonton, Utah. If caught, the woman can be charged with a sexual misdemeanor and "her name is to be published in the local newspaper." The man isn't charged nor is his name revealed.
(buts its ok for a gay person?)Arkansas
Oral sex is considered to be sodomy.
Flirtation between men and women on the streets of Little Rock may result in a 30-day jail termColorado
Keeping a house where unmarried persons are allowed to have sex is prohibited.
It is illegal for a man to kiss a woman while she is asleepMichigan
Adultery is illegal, but can only be punished upon a complaint by the affected husband or wife. Furthermore, no prosecution may take place if the offense was committed over a year from when a complaint was made.These are only the stupid examples, imagine all the others that would have to be reworded. I hope you never get to experience the real truth in this one, cause your in for a surprise. If the courts can't handle this one or follow through on the law, then what will happen to gay people? Because it is America dude, get over it. Because you brought it up again. Because religiously I stated how I stand. Because I brought up many could points from my informed mind. This is the whole idea behind having a discussion. You only wish that I was so wrong and you seem to be attacking me specifically just because I am christian. This is prejudice. Would you clarify that point? You are completely wrong dude, you are the ignorant one. I don't have to explain to you why I had a choice. DING DING DING DING!!!!You have won the prize and revieled your true self. to see what you have won lets look behind curtain #1.
Look its a sexual harrassment charge which could give you a free trip somewhere very special.
Curtain #2 reviels..........
Your true self!!! The need to irrationally put people down and abuse them to make a point. Not the way a civilized person should behave. Nothing cool and rational here. Where are your fans now? What will you say to God when you die?This is the 3rd time you've done it to me, congradulations. So you actually didn't need to tell us who you are and what you stand for. It all came out on its own, and its not something that any smart person would choose to follow. Once again God seems to be the better choice. I say this not to you, but to your little fan club here in this forum.
Oh and what the heck you too.So not to judge you I will ask you, why all the anger? What happened to you? Is this directed mostly towards christians? Isn't this un-American? How would we have a peaceful society if we all behaved this way? Is this typical athiets behaviour? I believed I already explained this. You will never win an arguement by being accusational all the time.
I already said I don't want to deny gays thier rights, and explained it. Doesn't this just prove what I am saying?
The government cannot prohibit my right to exercise religion?
and If my religion tells me to not support sexual immorality, then its my right as an American as well.This is why a separation needs to be made between the 2. I don't know, I gave some examples and the reasons, the rest is not up to me so I won't invest the time needed to figure this out. Thats why we have a government.

????
Intended and wanted are 2 different words last time I checked.
why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Isn't that up to the nation to figure out, not you or I alone? There you go again putting words in my mouth again.
Constitution first then majority(consitution has priority over majority, intil the majority changes it). Didn't I type it that way? Why is it that you don't understand that, or is it your narrow view of christians that makes you put words in my mouth? Using the words "equal treatment" and "same sex marriage" in the same sentence is a contradiction of terms. You have to define that same sex marriage is different than straight, but you also claim that it is equal.
They can have equal rights, but under a different law, one that isn't on the books yet.
It to me is so funny how they want to be the same, yet they want to be different. I believe I gave valid reasons for this also. are you reading my posts? Because we are talking about man with man woman with woman and man with woman, which has nothing to do with race, why would you compare the 2?
Being gay is not a race. There is no race of gay people. This is what my belief religous and non-religious is trying to protect, our freedom. You don't see that, because you choose not to believe in God, and you feel same sex marraige is the same. when the word marraige was invented it was not intended to describe man with man, or woman with woman. It was modified to clarify the difference, as should our constitution, to provide equal rights for a different thing. Who the heck do you think you are? lmao
Then you went on to talk about hot steamy man sex, as if you knew what that was.
This was and is none of your business.Have you ever been approached by a gay person? Has he asked to be with you? Did you make a choice? Are you now a bi-sexual because of that?Because there are gays in the world we are all now bi-sexual? Is this what you are saying? Because this is a forum(not the government) where people state their opinions, reguardless of what you think it should be. I can point out more things for you if needed. I am being asked to give tax dollars to support such an issue.
This does not mean that they can't have equal rights, just a clarification of the difference between the 2. again? words in the mouth. You are nothing but a trouble maker, and you are inspiring gays to hate me and all christians for our beliefs, yet we do not hate them or you (true christians) Because I want a clarification between the 2 different kinds of marraige, does not mean that I do not want equal rights for both, or anyone else for that matter.I never said I fight a law that would grant equal access to marraige of people of the same sex. You said it.Why do you feel the need to differentiate between the 2 different kinds of marraige, I wonder? Because they are different, but should be allowed based on freedom.What if I want to marry a lamb? Would I be covered?
What if i wanted 3 wives?
There needs to be clarification.Also you need to go look up the word spouse and see why that word wouldn't work either.
Spouse is plural of spouse, does that mean I can have more than one wife?Main Entry: 1spouse
Pronunciation: 'spaus also 'spauz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French espous (masculine) & espouse (feminine), from Latin sponsus betrothed man, groom & sponsa betrothed woman, bride, both from sponsus, past participle of spondEre to promise, betroth; akin to Greek spendein to pour a libation, Hittite sipant-
: married person : HUSBAND, WIFE

You went way beyond that, lying will not cover that up. No it doesn't. Maybe thats what happened to you, so thats how you describe it. Wow!!! you mean you have to like both choices in order to choose?What if you never thought about what you liked until the very moment
it was asked of you, then you made a choice right then and there? My e-mail is registered with the forum, and so is yours. I can almost garauntee that you would loose that fight in a court of law, based on what you suggest that I do sexually.
You didn't just consider me to be gay, you went into details.
The laws on sexual harrassment are much tougher than you think.To sit there and pretend that you were making some kind of valid point is only hurting your reputation.Besides God sees right into your heart and he knows what you did and why. Fortunatly for you I believe in God and I try my best to let him handle all my affairs. So take it up with him. I only pray that if you did do something wrong towards me, and God decides to allow the devil to have his way with you, that he would make very clear to you as what and why he is allowing it.
This would help you find God, there is glorification in his judgement.

Non-religiously speaking:Webster changed the definition of marraige to accomodate gay people. It was not part of the original definition when the constitution was written. But even as they modified it, it still clarifies that there is indeed a difference. Noting that it is slightly different than a traditional marriage.
Webster does not make constitutional laws.Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

This statement of yours is very interesting. I was wondering if you could be a little more specific here. I have been searching desperately for a "secular" reason to prohibit gay marriage and it seems like you may have stumbled on it. Please clarify how the tax code makes us pay more taxes if same sex marriage were formally legalized.