[OBAFGKM]

"If God wanted men to marry men and woman to marry woman, he would have put it in The Book."

And if God wanted people to eat pork, he would have put that in the Book. (The Constitution is likewise silent on consumption of bacon.)

Pardon me, but I fail to see why your religious notions should have any bearing whatsoever on secular law.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

where are you again? I remember . . . The United States of America, a country founded on Judeo-Christian Morality. I am not saying that everyone should be Christian, but understand that these values are the core of the country.

[FormerLib]

And if God wanted people to eat pork, he would have put that in the Book.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the book of Acts. In there you will find why Christians are not bound by the Jewish Law except where sexual morality is concerned.

Pardon me, but I fail to see why your religious notions should have any bearing whatsoever on secular law.

Because those moral traditions are sound societal traditions as well. Would you have us lift the bans on murder and theft simply because they are also Judeo-Christian religious notions?

Perhaps you should tell us why you believe it is acceptable to the Gaystapo to block allowing the people to have a say in whether or not this misguided legislation should become law.

[Antoninus]

The idea that (wo)men should be able to marry other (wo)men has NO precedence anywhere in Western Civilization. It is a preposterous idea that should never be given the force of law anywhere and should be forbidden everywhere. Even though religious leaders are at the forefront of this debate, is not a purely religious issue. It is a common sense issue. It's time to end this insanity.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Pardon me, but I fail to see why your religious notions should have any bearing whatsoever on secular law.

Oh probably because the religious notions of our founding fathers had great bearing on the secular law that they gave us.