So you're basically saying that society hasn't evolved since the days of our founding fathers, that times haven't changed, and that the way they wrote it 240 years ago is perfect as is? Because the founding fathers admitted that they knew the Constitution wasn't perfect, and that society during Colonial times would be vastly different from society 50, 100, 200 years in the future.
No. As a matter of fact, if you're familiar with what I've been saying, we've largely devolved since the time of the founding fathers. And I'll go with what they believed over today's judges.
[quote]The First Amendment prohibits government from instituting a state church, as well as.allows.its citizens the freedom of religion. Therefore, if the government cannot institute a national religion, it stands to reason (in my mind anyway) that religious beliefs have no place in law making, because it presumes that the people who these laws affect also share those same views. I'm not a Christian, there are many people who have no religious ideology. You have to take them into account too. Therefore, voting against something like legalizing gay mariage based solely on one's faith is irresponsible. There is really no other way to look at it.
You guys can keep repeating "religious beliefs have no place in law making" like some kind of liberal mantra, but it's neither practical or Constitutional. Any of the law makers at the local, state, or federal level are going to be influenced by their religious beliefs in how they make laws. Well, the ones that actually do hold to those beliefs anyway. To expect them to completely set those aside is delusional. Not to mention without warrant. For example, Utah has a lot of Mormons and relatively strict alcohol laws. That's not a coincidence. Is it unconstitutional? No.
As for gay marriage, there's nothing in the Constitution about that. So it should be left up to the states. Technically speaking, the Supreme Court may have something to say about DOMA. But they have NOTHING to say about it on the state level. Just like they should have had NOTHING to say about abortion when they made it a "right" on a national level; misinterpreting the Constitution to do so.
