[thecavemaster]

I don't get my boxers in a wad, as I don't wear boxers, I wear the hybrid tyvm. Just because my principles lie in my Christian values, doesn't mean I am not capable of putting them aside and arguing a topic without using my religion to make my point. However, you cannot. You speak more about God and Christianity that anyone on here. You can't argue the right to gay marriage unless you try and attack Christian values, however, there are gay people who do not want gays to have the right to vote. Its not just those Christian values that determine someone's stance on this subject, there are Christians who are also ok with Gay marriage.

I agree the Constitution is a living breathing document, but its not meant to be changed on every whim, or be interpreted based on the views of the times. Its living breathing in the fact that it can be changed, but it is not easy, if Gays want the right to marry, then maybe they should get an amendment added to this living breathing Constitution.

Once again for umptenthousandth time, equal protection covers constitutional rights, marital recognition by the state or federal govt. is not a constitutional right.

Well, it seemed to me like you were getting your hybrids in a wad. You have stated elsewhere that you feel your beliefs are anchored in a correct interpretation of Judaeo/Christian thought. Others argue "god this and god that" about most all topics. Can you explain why turning this around to offer a different perspective annoys you? In my reading, "jesus" was a radical who threatened (with power of spirit) the existing political, social and economic power structures, which got him executed. In my reading, the poor are blessed, those who mourn in a broken and unjust system are blessed. And, once again, the issue you announce as settled is making its way through the courts, where, no doubt, Mr. Nativist himself (Justice Scalia) will pontificate your position.