Equal protection under the law...

"Seeing as how the US is not a theocracy, it doesnt really matter what your particular religion thinks about it, therefore it has no say in how others should live their lives."

Religious beliefs are perfectly legitimate sources of policy even - no, especially - in the United States, although presently the range and scope of such new policy (as with any new policy) admittedly is severely constrained by existing policy. That this is some how legally invalid is a common mispercetion. Yes, such policy must be stripped of certain religious content, but there is no inherent restraint on its origin or application.

Suppose that some particular religion A has as a tenant or present application that we should make war on nation B. Nothing prevents our policy makers for enabling and executing a war against B. And nothing prevents the public or the policy makers from voting for the war againt B because they subscribe to or are sympathetic to religion A.

I am not suggesting that we should make war. But I do want it to be made clear that religion as a system of values or rationality is as equally valid a basis for policy as is any other system of values or rationality.

The difference is that while one can in policy set as or appeal to as informative context a declaration of Universal Human Rights as a system of values or rationality, one probably can not get away with (constitutionally today) appealing to God's Righteous Requirements as a system of values or rationality. But stripped of religious language, the only constraints in scope and application - so far as I am aware - are those of existing policy.

If a majority believe firmly and without reservation that Xenu will rain fire down upon the town of Denver, Colorado next week, it is perfectly legally valid (though perhaps not expedient) to enact and (unless there have been anti-evacuation laws created recently) enforce a policy of the evacuation of Denver, Colorado, early next week.

You see, it is not the origin of the policy that matters. It is only its language, and that its scope and application are constrained by existing policy.

"Seeing as how the US is not a theocracy, it doesnt really matter what your particular religion thinks about it, therefore it has no say in how others should live their lives."

Religious beliefs are perfectly legitimate sources of policy even - no, especially - in the United States, although presently the range and scope of such new policy (as with any new policy) admittedly is severely constrained by existing policy. That this is some how legally invalid is a common mispercetion. Yes, such policy must be stripped of certain religious content, but there is no inherent restraint on its origin or application.

Suppose that some particular religion A has as a tenant or present application that we should make war on nation B. Nothing prevents our policy makers for enabling and executing a war against B. And nothing prevents the public or the policy makers from voting for the war againt B because they subscribe to or are sympathetic to religion A.

I am not suggesting that we should make war. But I do want it to be made clear that religion as a system of values or rationality is as equally valid a basis for policy as is any other system of values or rationality.

The difference is that while one can in policy set as or appeal to as informative context a declaration of Universal Human Rights as a system of values or rationality, one probably can not get away with (constitutionally today) appealing to God's Righteous Requirements as a system of values or rationality. But stripped of religious language, the only constraints in scope and application - so far as I am aware - are those of existing policy.

If a majority believe firmly and without reservation that Xenu will rain fire down upon the town of Denver, Colorado next week, it is perfectly legally valid (though perhaps not expedient) to enact and (unless there have been anti-evacuation laws created recently) enforce a policy of the evacuation of Denver, Colorado, early next week.

You see, it is not the origin of the policy that matters. It is only its language, and that its scope and application are constrained by existing policy.

Is America to become another Sodom or Gomorrah?

Equal protection under the law...

Equal protection under the law should not extend to sexual
orientation.

This matter of homosexual "marriages" is totally ridiculous. I can
understand equal protection under the law based on race, color,
creed, age, and gender, but to think there should be equal rights
based on sexual orientation is patently absurd and I believe a
misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Is America to become another Sodom or Gomorrah? The steep decline in
moral values we are witnessing is very troubling and a very bad
omen. I recently heard that more people watch pornography than all
sporting events combined. Do we not fear God anymore?

What God did to Sodom and Gomorrah, He can do to America. In fact,
what He did to those two cities was meant to be a warning to future
generations not to go down that road.

[/color]Do you have any actual reason other than personal prejudice why a group of law abiding citizens should be excluded from the 14th amendment?

Because there is nothing immoral about one's race, color, creed, age, or gender. But homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord.

Do we not fear God anymore?

In the UK you cannot descriminate against someone's sexual orientation anymore than you can descriminate against gender, age, race and creed. Having said that I do think the word 'marriage' should only be applied to heterosexual couples. However, there is no reason why a partnership agreement, with a ceremony, if desired, should not be held by gays or anyone else who wishes to make a commitment to each other.