I found this to be a refreshing and insightful notion--perhaps one that has been on the back burner for too much of this debate over same-sex marriage. Thank you for raising it up again.

During the recent elections, I found one of the oddest notions put forth by the anti-gay-marriage folks to be that the state can be used to as an instrument to "maintain the traditional definition" of a word used in society. In the end, it may be folly to hope the state could be successful in such an endeavor--as I have no doubt that pro-gay churches will continue to marry same-sex couples whether or not the marriage sacrament is sanctioned as legal by the state.

An interesting idea raised in my mind by this article is whether it should be constitutionally permissible for a majority to use the state as a means to control the evolution of the English language. This issue seems even more serious in the context of the same-sex marriage debate because there is very much a religious aspect to it. Essentially what has occurred is that religions with marital sacraments restricted to male-female partners are trying to ensure that the secular, state definition of a word with the same name is more similar to the definition used within their religious doctrines rather than to the definition used within doctrines of religions permissive of a same-sex marital sacrament.

I am troubled by this because America is becoming a nation of minorities. If one minority cannot see that it is in its own long-term interest of security to protect the civil liberties of another minority that come under fire, what will happen to liberty in the United States? It will be handed away for a pittance. Election day was a truly sad day for me because it demonstrates that a majority of Americans are so poorly educated that they really don't understand the notions put forth by our Founding Fathers. Neither side of this debate should be celebrating. It was a dark day in the history of liberty.

Dear EarthboundSpiral,

Our founding fathers issue on homosexuality would have been simple, they would have put them to dealth, so it would not have been an issue for them.

Today the issue is simple, Christians do not hate sinners, we hate the sin, so we have no issues living with sinners, as we are sinners ourselves, and we are not going to judge them, or we get judged.

But at the same time, we do not want our children to be tough that his is okay, as it is not in our religion, and we view this as a huge mistake.

We also are not going to be force to perform these types of marraiges in our churchs, as we are against them, they are acts of sin, and we would shut down our churches before allowing such acts.

We are willing to allow them any freedom they want, that does not effect the our freedoms, and every single state that has voted on this issue agrees.

It is only the court that has forced this on us, and the court has no power to create laws, and they need to stop this, as this is causing huge issues.

If the court in CA throws out the law, then you are going to social unrest, as we no longer have a legal government, and as such nobody should be compelled to support it.

The people have to agree to be governed, and if we do not agree to it, their is nothing the state can do to compell us to comply.

God Bless You

Shoo troll

Take your hate with you

Dear Mark,

Your comments are a perfect example of the type of uniformed reasoning I continue to hear regarding this issue. They betray your obvious ignorance of the principles set forth by James Madison in the Federalist Papers.

Also, can't you see that your concept of "freedom" with respect to this issue makes no sense. You could similarly argue that slaveowners' "freedom" to support the "traditional" Southern states' definition of employment between blacks and whites should give them the right to re-establish the "traditional" institution of slavery by a majority vote.

I attend a church where same-sex weddings are conducted willingly by our parish priest (who is gay). These same-sex weddings are celebrated by our bishop as well. Proposition 8 will not prevent my church from continuing to have gay weedings, and gay couples will continue refering to their relationships as marriages. If Proposition 8 hadn't passed, STRAIGHT CHURCHES WOULD NOT BE FORCED TO PERFORM GAY WEDDINGS. Similarly, now that Proposition 8 has passed, GAY CHURCHES CAN CONTINUE TO PERFORM GAY WEDDINGS. All that passage of Proposition 8 did was to prevent these gay marriages from having any official recognition under state law.

You are completely mixed up about what is the secular sphere (i.e. the things "rendered to Ceasar") and about what is the religious sphere (sacraments as defined only by our churches). Proposition 8 was only about the secular sphere, and many of its supporters (like you) are under the false delusion that it was about changing rights in the religious sphere and within society as a whole.

That you are so bold as to exhibit your faulty logic on a website such as this makes me sad, indeed, for the future of Liberty in the United States.

Mark_RSM is a troll

Don't feed the Troll