For one thing, marriage between a man and woman - and the subsequent family that usually results - has been the social norm for millenia. The family is the building block of society. But now, because of these newfound rights gays have, the definition of marriage is supposed to be turned on it's head? I've already gone on many times before how this country long ago outlawed polygamy, though that actually did have Constitutional protection due to religious freedom, unlike gay marriage. So what makes gay marriage any different? How long before we have people wanting to marry their dog or their car? How far do we stretch the definition of marriage to suit people's claims about their "rights."



If gays want to do their thing behind closed doors, that's one thing. Them trying to get government sanction for it, and changing the definition of marriage in the process, is another. That's when it becomes other people's business. A woman having an abortion is automatically somebody else's business - the child inside her. But, like the gay marriage issue, liberals are all about changing the definition of things, i.e. it's "not a child" or worthy of protection until it's crossed that magical second trimester line if not even later.



You can quote polls all you want. In state after state it was voted that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. It's why the gay marriage supporters had to get that changed through the courts. They didn't, and still don't, have the votes. Maybe that would eventually change over time but it should still be left up to the states. Not a single overreaching, activist judge.

And nobody is "invalidating" anything. Gays can be "committed" to each other all they want. They don't have a Constitutional right to redefine marriage in order to give their relationships legitimacy.



You are taking these words and stretching them extremely far in order to justify whatever suits you. Unless we're talking about freedom of speech, which is another matter, there's nothing in the Constitution about "freedom of expression." And, using your logic, anyone could use the excuse of having the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to justify almost anything.



This is why I don't think secular liberals should be quoting scripture - they don't understand it, much less believe it. Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37 are two translations of the same utterance by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. The correct translation I posted above applies to both.