Thank you then, for giving me the last word
If you don't want anonymous comments, then turn the feature off instead of insulting those who use it. It is you who set the policy here, so it is you who need to live by it.
You say, "Keep your religion out of my laws is absolutely how I feel and I WILL NOT back down on it. If you have any actual evidence that states that gay marriage is somehow going to negatively affect society, I would like to hear it. If your evidence is an ancient book of mythology, that is not good enough. It is fine for you, your Church, and your family, but NOT good enough for law."
Are you making the implicit statement that you will not abide by the democratic process if things don't go your way? When you say you WILL NOT BACK down on it, do you mean to the point of jail time or armed revolution, or is this just some sort of drama-queen bombast?
Actually, as a voter, my evidence is good enough. It is wholly unnecessary for me to convince you of it. If I win the vote, I win the argument, at least for that round. If that weren't the case why would we bother to have voting at all?
You vehemently and self righteously state that "keep your religion out of my laws" is how you feel. Fine. I feel differently, and as we all know, it is feelings that are paramount, yes? I of course, am equally free to say "keep your atheism or agnosticism or heathenism or religious confusion or whatever it is out of MY laws." However, that is not my position. You are free to vote your conscience based on whatever metaphysical assumptions look correct to you.
It is amusing that you think you are somehow different from me in this respect. Almost without a doubt, you are "pro-choice". Now, by what right do you impose YOUR implicit religious viewpoint on the unborn? I'm just trying to protect my church from the persecution that will undoubtedly be unleashed should the legal fiction of "same sex marriage" become law. Otherwise I am entirely live and let live with respect to homosexuals and their unions. And you regard this as some sort of brutal imposition. Meanwhile you, free of the taint of religious insanity, impose your pure-as-the-driven-snow, and eminently caring and fair morality on the defenseless and inconvenient, with a body count in this country of 40 million and counting since the Courts usurped the legislative function and imposed Roe v Wade. But of course, stripping the unborn of the right to life itself is the neutral position, and anything else is merely the invalid imposition of religious lunatics. It must be quite convenient (and soothing) to have a position of utter metaphysical neutrality, yes?
Please clarify for me how voting according to religious conviction violates the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution are the religiously inclined stripped of their democratic rights?
The Constitution does no such thing. That being the case, all you are offering is a bit of bluster, intimidation, and "shut up, sit down, and don't vote your conscience".
I'm not buying it. Again, I would not ask you to do the same, since I do not really need to win you over to my side. All I need to do is outvote you. As I've just done!
Saturday, November 08, 2008
I've had a bit of back and forth in the comments to this post. I think I was making good points, but the person shut me out on my final comment. So, for the record (and because I have no intention of getting a LiveJournal account), here it is: