"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language.

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.

No, it's not "the old 'change is bad' philosophy", which is another
bit of demagoguery anyway, a reiteration of the "what are you afraid
of?" challenge, reducing it to being equivalent to "homophobe".

If a person's objection is only to the change itself, and not to some
specific drawback to the change, it is just applicable as "homophobe" and
just as silly an argument.

"Change is bad" is not a philosophy.

Of course it is.

It's markedly more accruate to say that the *position* (not the
philosophy), is more like "rapid agitative change is disruptive to an
ordered society," which is true.

Trust me. Nothing about granted gays marriage rights is going to be rapid.
There's no need to pass laws to specifically disallow it. But even if rapid
change were bad, why pass laws specifically against gay marriage? No...a
person who is genuinely against rapid change generally would argue not in
favor of laws specifically directed against a minority, but rather in favor
of laws that limit the progress of new laws generally.

Easy divorce was one such change in the institution of marriage that
many people now feel was a bad move, citing single moms, deadbeat
dads, latchkey kids, double households, and other such evidence as
proof of the mistake.

You forgot to put "proof" in quotes. There were single moms, deadbeat dads,
etc. long before divorce was more socially acceptable. I do think that too
many people are willing to choose divorce as a solution to their problems,
but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to
allow a marriage to work.

Those kinds of people weren't in working marriages even when divorce wasn't
acceptable.

Now, people are calling for yet another change
in the institution with similar preparation and reasoning.

I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near
as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it
allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals.

If we're gonna make such a change, we must, in my opinion, think
through all the ramifications of it, and carefully implement it in
stages, checking our work all the way. We haven't done that, in my
opinion. All we've done so far in the last 30 years is toss epithets
calling each other sub-human.

The gays certainly didn't start that. They are just trying to gain equality
in our society. As for thinking through all the ramifications, perhaps YOU
haven't been thinking about it for 30 years, but I assure you that lots of
people have.

I've yet to hear of anyone
supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that.

You've responded to one.

Please. See above...as I said, if you were truly against the rapid change
in general, you would be arguing in favor of different, more general laws,
rather than one that singles out a minority group. At least, if you were
exercising basic common sense.

By your reasoning, you would have been in favor of bills that prohibited
freedom for slaves, voting rights for women and blacks, and desegregation as
well. All of those things were, at the time, considered radical changes.

Members of my extended family, in connection with California Prop 22,
canvassed their own neighborhoods with flyers. I wrote to state
representatives and state senators expressing this line of reasoning.

But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can
answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large
helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious
beliefs from your political motivations?

Is Bill Clinton a "homophobe"? He signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"
into law.

I don't know if he is or is not. Politicians are a funny breed, since they
often act counter to their own moral compass (such as it is), if they think
doing so will help them or their political party. Regardless, it certainly
offends me that he would sign such a bill.

Pete