"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

I really think this cuts to the long term core of fundies mistaking the letter, which was not a law, but a letter to the king as a "fuck you" in the Declaration of Independence where it says, "Endowed by their creator", as meaning a collective state religion, and that is not what they meant. They meant "their" as in the mind of the individual, which is what the First Amendment reflects, and what the oath of office reflects, in the final LAW we call the Constitution.

The fundies keep forgetting that there was an 11 year period between the start of the war, to the first state ratifying the constitution in 1787. And guess what, in our Constitution, there is no mention of the words "Bible" "Jesus" or "Christianity".

In that time the founders argued over how to represent God in the constitution. Jefferson and Paine especially AND REPEATEDLY argued that because religion was so personal, all anyone could do is to simply neither be for or against, and if you could not agree to let all in, it was better to leave it at the door.

They were not, not even the more religious of them in Adams, none of them were for setting up a social pecking order based on a religious litmus test. 

Jefferson wrote the "Virginia Religious Freedom Act" prior to the founding of the country, which basically said that nobody could be compelled to fund or bow to a religion. In that, he was NOT saying he wanted an atheist nation, but in that he was saying that no citizen can be forced to participate in a religion they don't agree with nor can they be included or excluded to attempting to make a run at public service based on a religious test. That act became the prototype that Madison modeled the First Amendment on. The concept of neutrality is also backed up by the oath of office, in "no religious test".

Combine that with Jefferson's "wall" letter to the Baptists it is clear that Jefferson, the individual most responsible for the path that gave more freedom to more, and that all the congress back then singed off on those concepts, even the more religious of the founders, it is clear they did not want a religious pecking order mandated by our government.

Jefferson was a Unitarian, not an atheist, but today, most sects of Christianity see Unitarians as not "true Christians". The same guy said the following of atheists regardless.....

"whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists." Thomas Jefferson.

If anyone reading this wants to condemn liberal theists or the liberal atheists whom support liberal theists, then they have to condemn the founder most responsible for why America exists today.

I love wen christains try and say the "creator in the declaration is their god when it is not .