Frankly that is a stupid argument. Considering there was a vote and she can still vote for public officers she has representation. Under her reasoning anytime you lose an election that affects you in some way you are morally obligated to not pay taxes. No, that means you lost an election but come back term and try to turn that around democratically.
The "taxation without representation" analogy doesn't work, but I could see this as a reasonable cause for civil disobedience, as long as one doesn't mind going to jail.
your interest isn't in civil or equal rights, but in the ability to violate the first amendment. To encroach upon the rights of religious freedoms.
How does that encroach on religious freedom? Nobody who has a religious objection to same sex marriages would have to enter one. No church that is against performing same sex wedding ceremonies would not have to perform one. Where is the encroachment on religious freedoms? The only encroachment seems to be in not allowing some people's religious beliefs to be legislated to others. Legislation should not be based on enforcing one particular view of religion.
How exactly are you prevented from practicing your religion? This is like saying the religious rights of Muslims are violated because stores are allowed to sell bacon, or you allow the sale of alcohol. Or the religious rights of Catholics are violated because people can eat beef on Fridays or during Lent. Using your logic we must ban every practice in the country that any religion finds offensive. If you kill a mosquito you've just violated the First Amendment by encroaching on Buddhists religious beliefs. The truth is your rights aren't violated because you aren't involved in the transaction at all. It is a giant reach to think otherwise.
Way to ignore the big picture and focus on the small stuff. If it makes you happy, repleace prevented with encroached and repeat my previous post.
do you even understand the meaning of encroach? and then you reply with a statement like this.......... irony......... gay marriage is just a chisel used to chip away at my religious rights. the vast majority of gays are athiest and just want to completely erase God from american society........why protest in front of a church? go protest in front of capital hill......... the pandora's box that gay marriage opens is lethal to heterosexual marriage. soon, people will be crying out, 'hey, I'm bi-sexual, what about my rights? my bi-sexuality isn't hurting anybody, I have a right to marry a man and a woman.........' and then 'hey, I'm in love with 2 women and a guy, we have the same constitutional rights as a straight singular marriage person, after all, we aren't forcing anyone who doesn't believe in plural marriage to have multiple partners' and then 'hey....I love my sister, it's love, we deserve equality' and then 'hey, we should adopt, yeaa........lets not even bring that lil nugget into the debate right now. and then, the american family is a complete circus and marriage between a man and a woman means absolutley nothing. be gay......FTW. I don't care......just please do not try to equate homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage. homosexuality is ABNORMAL, period. goodnight.
So is heterosexual marriage about elitism because you can and gays can't? Would gay marriage really devalue your marriage between you and your wife? I mean would you wake up at night and think, "Those damn gays. If it was still illegal I'd love my wife more. But those damn gays ruined it." Seriously. Also you're putting way too much thought into this. I was waiting for the, "If gays can get married soon animal f**ckers will think they have the right to marry Ole Bessy too." You're putting way too much thought into this and associating gays with stuff that's not even related.
where is the difference between changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuality but not multiple partners? Its perfectly legal to engage in sex and even live with a bunch of girls but many people have gone to jail for being married to them. Would they not have a legal defense at that point?
Do you have a link to back up the claim that most homosexuals are atheists and want to erase God from American society? Remember you claimed most had that objective. Also how is allowing them to marry chipping away at any religion you hold. You can still have whatever you views you believe in about homosexuality. That won't change. Your church doesn't have to marry gay couples if they don't want to. Tell me one way that your rights would be chipped away. Why? Why would that be the case? Even if it was the case why would that lessen your heterosexual marriage? Even if all those marriages were allowed how would that infringe your religious rights? Again your church wouldn't have to change their policy, and you and your mate would still be married. Why would a marriage between a man and a woman mean nothing? Is the meaning of your marriage only strong because others aren't allowed to enjoy a marriage of their own? That doesn't sound like a meaningful marriage to begin with. I think the evidence has shown that homosexuality is actually normal, while not prevalent. But even if you were right, why does abnormal equal bad, and why do other people's abnormality damage your marriage? You've made a case as to why you might feel uncomfortable with homosexual marriage, but you have yet to show one way in which your rights are restricted by allowing homosexual marriage. I would like to point out that it isn't a right for you to feel comfortable.
To follow up on Franchiseblade and Ottomaton's point there is no encroachment as the rights of a religion aren't being encroached upon. The only way they would be is if the law mandated that churches had to recognize gay marriages, or any civil marriage. Churches aren't required by law to recognize marriages of any sort.
It has to do with the contractual structure of marriage, and also civil unions, as being an institution where there are only two partners to the contract. At the moment the argument about gay marriage isn't about creating a whole new institution but granting the same contractual rights to same sex couples as two heterosexual couples. If plural marriages were legally recognized you would have to develop a whole new institution to regulate that.
Extend rights that exist in standard marriage(taxes, visitation, next of kin, etc) to "homosexual domestic unions". Case closed. Problem solved. Good night, see you later.
Considering marriage is a biblical institution that spilled over to the secular world(bible says a man should leave his parents and take a wife and that the 2 would become one flesh) I think having a non-biblical institution for those that are not "jiving" with biblical principle that still gives them rights under the secular laws is a pretty good solution.
So atheists, agnostics, hindus, and anyone not down with the christian god should be forced into some other classification as well? Interesting. What of the marriages that pre-date the bible like those of ancient Greece or Egypt?
