[MarkL]

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Gee, I can't imaging the SCOTUS making a bad decision, how about you? Dread Scott comes to mind, and more recently, Kelo. Again, I contend that the federal government really doesn't have authority in religious affairs, one way or another. The founders obviously believed that, because a number of states that ratified the Constitution had official state religions at the time. I belive that the original intent of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from interfering in religion at all.

Mark

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I contend that the federal government really doesn't have authority in religious affairs, one way or another.

No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion:

Muslim leaders warn of riots (attempting to gag Australia's PM Howard) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694615/posts