Also, although it would be ideal that we wouldn’t have to force churches to hire homosexuals or provide equal rights through judges, etc, the sad thing is that churches often aren’t held responsible to follow any of the same laws as other employers.

Take my story, for example. I worked for a few churches over the course of seven years and was paid fifty cents an hour, no benefits, vacation or sick leave, and no overtime pay. Churches do a lot of things that are illegal in the eyes of the Department of Labor and hiring gays would be no different.

Sure it is progress what we’ve seen and we’ve seen some regress as well with California’s recent move with this issue. So I will not speak down on the progress maybe 2 states have done, but it isn’t good enough ya know? I hate to be gloom-doom, but as a step forward for ALL homosexuals, its not a big step forward.

I wonder, if the constitution is going to need to be amended in a manner to allow all marriages, regardless of religion, sexuality and race to be recognized by all the states. In other words, force the states to recognize the marriage. Some may think it is a slippery slope, it may very well be. In this one instance, we’re taking away the state’s right to make its own laws for the recognition of all. I mean are we going to have to wait for every state to come to this?

When the people elect the officials and when the people are opinionated in the majority against the recognition of a considerable population in our nation, where’s the hope?

I only think it is going to be possible when it gets to Congress and The White House. Until there is a rise in the states allowing the marriage recognition of homosexual couples, at this moment, I do not see any reason to think it is possible. I mean, is the government waiting for 26 states to give full recognition to same-sex marriages? Full-recognition is the only acceptable outcome. Civil unions are different and some states don’t even recognize common-law marriages anymore. I think as well, an overhaul stance on the legal defining of “unions” would have to be done.

Not meaning to change the topic, I hope you respond to the above as well but now to my next response to your article. I believe in freedom of speech. I agree with many atheists who hold the 1st Amendment must always be administered in our society. The idea of controlling the freedom of speech is detestable to me.

Yet I am conflicted though. Take the situation in your article. We know that many of the fundamentalist attitudes are outright hateful. The message of hate rings true and true through their dedication to their god they have in their heads. Thing is, freedom of speech is not an absolute. For example, Canada does not allow the Westboro Baptist Church to bring in hate speeches.
Is that wrong in a moral sense, keeping constitutions of nations out of this for a moment. I remember as a kid, I watched a KKK demonstration. Yea they were free to express their freedom of speech of their hate filled message, but it was controlled. It looked like an action film from a movie. Bomb squad, the SWAT team, police everywhere. They had to restrict downtown because of this. All this for free-speech? I think that shows the mentality of a society maybe even globally.

Point being, where do we draw the line and is allowing hate-speech to fully express their 1st Amendment right congruent for a society to get passed this ancient, religious hatred? I do not believe freedom of speech is an absolute in our nation.

I find this odd. We have the 1st Amendment and we have Free Speech Zones. That does sound a bit Orwellian. Government controlled zones for political organizations and such? Then we have the issues of sedition, obscenity, libel, slander, Son of Sam laws. If the 1st Amendment was absolute for our nation, or even a absolute moral principal globally, would there be any real order? Those things, maybe think would be reasonable, but I would argue, that the same heart of those things that actually we do censor, is the same heart as the hate-filled speech we see from religious groups.

So I am starting to wonder, maybe banning hate-filled religious speak should start to be done. I am not 100 percent on that thinking yet. The 1st Amendment always comes back in my head. While writing this reply back, I learned some new things about freedom of speech and seeing the issue censorship involved here researching this to make sure I do some background before I get into it to deeply about the idea of censorship in our nation with the 1st Amendment. Plus, for a society to be congruent with free-thinking, with establishing equal rights for all, to finally rid ourselves of these terrible mentalities, should we allow the 1st Amendment to protect the enemy? I’m torn about it to be honest.

Your thoughts?

I think the religious folks can keep their “marriage” term and make that mean whatever they, as individual religions, want it to mean. I say, make marriage in a church/mosque/temple optional, and let that be between them and their god. Leave civil unions for the national government. None of this state-by-state-your-marriage-isn’t-valid-in-Oklahoma junk. Legal rights, tax benefits, adoptions, and such should be given to those who have civil unions–same as marriage is today. All benefits, and all privileges should be given equally to heterosexuals or homosexuals. Full separation. Nothing the government says about unions would have to do with religion, and nothing religion says would change the government.

Think that’d be possible?

I like what you said on number 11. Think there’s an interesting flip side to the coin?

What do you think it would happen if amending the constitution to not recognize a marriage for spiritual reason, meaning ordained by any religious church?

Take the example. A priest, preacherman is ordained to marry through a church. A couple has a license to marriage which means, the state recognizes a proclaimed spiritual union between a man and a woman unless the churches believe there is two marriages going on.

Then we go out and preach separation of church and state, preach the state should recognize a homosexual couple in marriage.

I am all for gay rights and gay marriage but I wonder to be fair to the idea of separation of church and state, how far would one need to go? I do believe that it is a start to get gay people the freedom to marriage. Step towards more equal rights, and secularizing our nation. I just wonder how far people need to go to be true to the idea of separation of church and state.

Equal rights to all doesn’t mean bringing in church and state right?

Hope I am not off-topic.