Now what?

[Pyrrho]

I didn't bother to check to see if anyone else replied to this, but here is my viewpoint on it:
I think you missed the point entirely when SCOTUS made its ruling last week. For starters, religion does not get to have a monopoly on marriage.

That's the thing. 'Marriage' is a sacred covenant between man and God in the Christian religion. Now if their were a True separation between Church and state, the state would not be able to dictate who is to be married. Which does not mean the state could not sanction state approved cival unions. which would given anyone the same rights as a Married couple. It's when the state demands that a church acknoweledge or perform said wedding (as per the article I posted) that I take issue.

If "marriage" were purely a religious matter, it would have NO legal status whatsoever.  If you are blessed with holy water at your church, that is pretty much nothing as far as the government is concerned.  "Marriage," as a secular institution, has laws governing it, with legal privileges and legal responsibilities.  And it is only insofar as it is a secular matter that the law governs it.

This is why the various sects that have polygamous "marriages" do not have legal recognition of their "marriages."  They are not marriages, as far as secular law is concerned, no matter what religious beliefs the people in those sects have.  Of course, the religious people still call their "marriages" "marriages," but they are not legal marriages.

...

It was not about going against GOD or throwing anything in the face of Christians anywhere[/b].

If this were remotely true then why not change the word marriage to civil union? why does your term have to be the same as ours? Why force Churches to be used, Pastors be threaten with Jail if we do not respect your 'Marriage?'
...

The legal term for marriage has been "marriage" since the beginning of our country.  Why change it now to "civil union?"  It should certainly not be changed just to please some religious fanatics.