I wrote this before I read the previous blog...Do not be scared Republicans, speak.

There are some articulate social conservatives who peruse and write on BloggerParty. I wondered if one or two so had the inclination to explain the reasoning for opposing gay marriage. A couple of days ago I watched Larry King Live while this issue was being debated. From an equal rights point of view, I cannot figure out when this issue eventually gets to the Supreme Court what the side opposing gay marriage is going to present. All I heard on this TV show was “God wants it this way� (which did not work for Mayor Nagin), or the bible says….

I am a huge proponent of separation of church and state. I do not see how God and the bible have a legal leg to stand on in a court case. I do not know how smart it would be anyway to start quoting the bible because if you start dissecting it, you discover all kinds of behavior not acceptable in today’s standards (death penalty for adultery or for not obeying your father, slavery, polygamy, incest…even Christ exhibited some prejudice refusing to heal gentiles and calling them “dogs.�) So, take away the bible; first, it is a religious piece that does not belong in a secular court of law. Second, take it away because people can argue their interpretation of scripture back and forth with no resolution.

What is the case against gay marriage if you cannot argue God and bible? I am honestly not baiting a fight. I am trying to understand from that perspective. The people on Larry King all spoke from the heart. It was interesting to hear a discussion without venom being spewed. But strip away the heart and get to the legal case, I do not understand how it is anything but a simple case of equal rights.

And perhaps what will happen, as was predicted on the show, we will go to a European system where the state performs a ceremony to legally bind and then each couple goes to the church of choice (or not) for the religious ceremony. Religious leaders can marry or not marry whomever they choose. (The law protects ministers and priests to marry or not marry whom they choose now. They will never have to marry a gay couple if they do not want to. Ever. So, what is the fear?)

Why not gay marriage?

I would love to hear the reasons OTHER THAN God and bible. Oh yes, and not the tiresome “choice� argument either. I like the question—when did you choose to be a heterosexual? It puts choice in perspective. I won’t argue with your statements, just genuinely want to understand that side and how you think you have a LEGAL case.

Sorry, one more qualifier—no accusations of “activist� judges either. I have come to believe all “activist judge� means is a judge not in agreement with the other’s thinking. Besides, the argument that these issues should be legislated and not decided by activist judges pales when the California Senate did pass a bill for gay marriage and their governor vetoed it claiming the issue should be settled in court. You cannot have it both ways. So, this looks like it is destined for the Supreme Court one day.

One last time (I promise!), why not gay marriage? I am interested in your thoughts if you can express your reasoning without using: God, bible, choice, or activist judges. The terms will be moot points in a secular court of law.

Those who avidly support gay marriage, please, do not respond to this with venom at social conservatives. I sincerely would like to hear reasoned responses to increase understanding, not increase the gulf of misunderstanding with more pain and anger.