I do not understand why you and many, many other conservatives lump gay marriage in with pedophilia and bestiality. Heterosexual marriage is (except in one or two states) strictly limited to being between two consenting adults. I, and almost every other person in the country is fine with that for the obvious reason that marriage is an adult decision and should be made by adults. Gay marriage would also be strictly limited to being between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent, and no matter how much think Fido wants it, no court of law will allow it. Animals cannot consent. Children also cannot consent. There are already age of consent laws in this country that are not in danger of being overturned any time soon. In most states, the age of consent laws say that children between 16 and 18 can have a sexual relationship with someone under 21, but not older than 21, because when kids date, stuff happens. Once that child turns 18, though...well we know what happens then. There won't be any more marriage of minors than there currently is today if gay marriage becomes a reality. One has no outcome on the other; they are two very separate issues, and child sex has a lot of psychological data for barring it. NO ONE who is not a pedophile would be "for" child sex and therefore child marriage. As for polygamy? There is less of a cogent argument against it, though one can argue that outlawing it has to do with the cutting down the spread of genetic diseases. Many Arab countries have genetic "epidemics" due to multiple wives and inbreeding.
It all has to do with the separation of church and state. It isn't so much that it is Christianity being shown in public, it is if it is on government property or at a government sponsored event. Government cannot be endorsing one religion over another. When the government does this, people can, will, and in my opinion, should sue. It is all about equal opportunities for others. I am a Christian, but I know how awkward it would be walking around in an Islamic nation and having it thrown into my face constantly. I agree with Sandra-Day O'Connor on this one...government displays including religious iconography are only permisable if they are surrounded by other secular icons as well as other icons from different faiths and that a concerted effort to include every religious belief is made.
Of course I would support all of those! What a silly question. I agree that it SHOULD have little to do with her support, but in Bush's eyes it had everything to do with it. Conservatives balked at her lack of experience and he tried to assuage them by explaining, "but she's an evangelical Christian!" That is what I find appalling. That the President thinks that her religion would and should be a factor in her decision-making, NOT her jurisprudence, is what scares me. As I said in my previous post, nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she is an evangelical Christian is NOT something supported by me. However, I would have few qualms with her being nominated for her vast experience and legal expertise without regard to religion...but sadly that was not the case.
I don't think that that is scary...it just means that our President is not doing a very good job representing the will of the American people. His presidency has swung American politics too far to the right, and in 2008 there will be a paradigm shift. Politics will hopefully go to the center, but may overcorrect and go slightly left. I hope it stays in the center; I don't like extremes, especially since most Americans are somewhere in the middle than either extreme.
No problem.
