Replies

Two primary problems with this reasoning:

1) You imply that the government and it’s underlings will be protecting and supporting the homosexual agenda to the exclusion of all else, and

2) You are citing biblical andecdotes as evidence of an inevitable “Doom”. I’m not particularly religious, but I’m not exactly an athiest either. Whatever my — or your — personal feelings towards religion and it’s influence on culture growth, it must be reiterated that religion has no place in governance.

To support the ideals of one faith over any other would be unjust, and so no religious teaching should be considered in the creation of law. That was one of the founding principals of the American way.

The founders absolutely assumed orthodox Christian ethics, as Americans have (more recently calling them "Judeo-Christian" ethics) for 200+ years, especially in regards to sex and marriage. They opposed setting up a state Church--like that of the Church of England--but the idea that religious values cannot be a part of law--is something utterly alien to American constitutional history--with more in common with Marxist and Fascist assumptions. Religious values, after all...are what overturned slavery, and later the legal-racism of Jim Crow laws...as ethics must assume certain moral--and inevitably religious--underpinnings.

Jefferson, the radical, was unusual, as he only called for castration of convicted homosexuals--instead of execution, which was colonial and state law (though very rarely resorted to).

Given the Founders--however personally religious any of them were or were not--ASSUMPTION of Christian ethics, this is a non-sensical statement: "To support the ideals of one faith over any other would be unjust, and so no religious teaching should be considered in the creation of law."

Every law has a moral underpinning, and morality & ethics by their very nature have religious assumptions as their basis. Religions contradict--hence laws WILL inevitably "support one faith over any other" (or do you support the execution of apostates--as the religion of Islam demands?)

The promoters of sodomy have a faith--ideals held without objective proof--that homosexual orientation and behavior is perfectly fine and normal--and is to be held up to be as honorable and dignified as marriage. That is a faith-based ideology--even if supposedly "secular," just as faith-based as anything in the Bible. The courts are now saying in essence that we must all believe and accept this, or else.

To oppose this idea--is the moral equivelent of racism and sexism--outright bigotry--in their eyes. As Scalia in his dissent said, Christians--and anyone who has a traditional understanding of marriage, are now understood as "enemies of the human race" who do not need any consideration or respect--THIS THE OFFICIAL WORD FROM THE US SUPREME COURT.