Everybody votes to bring the law into line with their beliefs. To say only Christians are doing that is disingenuous as well. Also, in those non-religious societies, how do they define a marriage? Don't they almost all recognize a marriage as being between a man and a woman? Getting away from religion will not ensure you an audience of people who will recognize a marriage as being between two people of the same sex. I know it's convenient for you guys to scapegoat Christians on this issue, but the fact is, we're not really the problem. All over the world marriage is understood to be an institution of a man and a woman.
Very true, people do vote in accordance with their beliefs. I vote in accordance with my beliefs regarding taxation, healthcare, education, foreign policy and same-sex marriage. Happily for me, my religion does not have a party line for me to consider when I do so, but even if it did I would have to have a very good reason for infliciting my religion's party line on to people who do not subscribe to my religion.
I think that a large part of the problem with this debate is that we're using the same words but have different meanings for them.
So- 'belief' can mean 'religious belief' based on one's understanding of one's religious text, i.e. the Bible, or it can mean 'political belief', i.e. how one tends to vote, based on one's understanding of the world around one.
These two types of belief can overlap, as can the conclusions reached.
There is a religious reason for saying that murder is wrong, there is also a political reason for saying the same thing.
I can see why you believe there is a religious reason to vote against same-sex marriage, I do not see why you think there is a political reason to do so.
And there's the other word that we're tripping up over- 'marriage'
That also has a religious meaning and a secular one.
In terms of religion, a marriage is the spiritual joining together of two people via a religious ceremony.
In secular terms, it's a contract of commitment between two people that gives them certain rights and responsibilities towards each other.
Again, these two definitions can overlap- in Britain a Church of England marriage ceremony automatically includes the secular contract; but Hindu, Muslim, Jewish etc marriage ceremonies don't. Those couples have to do the secular component as well, but that is generally got round by the officient being a registrar as well who can register the secular component at the same time.
I'm afraid your claim that "All over the world marriage is understood to be an institution of a man and a woman." is simply not true.
Polygamy is and has been a very common model for marriage, polyandry is much rarer but still exists.
And there have been a number of examples of same-sex unions, several of which come under the religious definition of marriage, in history-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
An appeal to tradition simply doesn't work here.
And to say that most people believe that marriage, religious or secular, is and has always been between one man and one woman is little more than an appeal to ignorance, and is an even weaker position.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that same sex marriage has never been a part of Christianity. Let's say that none of the current dominant religions have ever acknowledged same-sex marriage.
What has that to do with secular law? I for one am not fighting for religions to be forced to recognise same-sex marriages, only for the secular version to be introduced and recognised legally.
Saying 'my religion says this, therefor it should be law and I shall vote accordingly' means that you are using your religious beliefs as the basis of an attempt to dictate secular law in contravention of the Constitution of the US which states that no law shall be made in respect of the establishment of a state religion (please someone, if I've got this wrong do correct me).
Do you feel that this is a tenable position both legally and morally?
