You would think these so-called " religious Folk" would be upset about....oh, I don't know.....$3 Billion a week going to WAR to KILL people...Hunger in America and Around the world, 47+ Million Americans WITHOUT Healthcare...the economy, Gas Prices...the environment...you know, the Things that REALLY Effect society as a whole? Nahhh - they're too busy worrying about 2 consenting,committed adults loving each other....PRIORITIES?

Found this article written by a Buddhist Monk I found very good, will throw up an excerpt:


As for the more general issue involved, Buddhist ethics (at least in the Theravada or southern school in which I am ordained) does not really address homosexuality. For monks, the ethical position is clear. Any kind of sexual activity, with any sort of partner, is explicitly forbidden. For the lay Buddhist, sexual ethics is laid out in the Third Precept which calls for "abstaining from sexual misconduct."

In the only place where the Buddha defines sexual misconduct he is speaking to a (presumably heterosexual) man, so the definition is couched in terms appropriate to that perspective. The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy.


Another consideration is that the Buddha often spoke about the spiritual dangers of unrestrained sensuality. This would mean, for instance, that promiscuity of any type is spiritually harmful. The implication in sexual matters would be that celibacy is the highest state, with monogamy a good situation for most people. Since gay people wanting to marry would presumably be monogamous, this should be seen as a positive development.

I respect that some religions have strong prohibitions against certain practices but I can't see the sense or justice in making such prohibitions general law. It's as if the Orthodox Jews were lobbying to ban eating of bacon.

I'm an Obama supporter, but his civil union as opposed to gay marriage stance is extremely disappointing. He SAYS his religious tradition is what influences him...but when HIS parents married it was a common religious notion that blacks and whites were created differently because they weren't supposed to mix. I'm not suggesting that religious traditions are a bad thing generally speaking, but to use that as the ONLY reason not to do something just doesn't cut it.

There are issues like abortion and the death penalty which have religion as A mitigating factor but not THE ONLY factor. Arguments can be made against them which have nothing to do with religious beliefs, there are secular moral or legal positions for why abortion or the death penalty should be abolished. Therefor it makes sense for issues like these to be debated in the political sphere of America.

However, when it comes to gay marriage, the ONLY reason I have ever heard offered for why it should be banned is religious in nature. It's a SIn; GOD made a man and a woman and that's that. But we do not live in a Middle Eastern country where what some believe to be God's law is enforced. We live in a society where church and state are separated, this is one of our nation's founding principles. Therefor, a law (such as a marriage ban) which is ONLY predicated on a religious notion has no place in our society.

!

It's about citizenship.

Even residency.

Even passing through, as in visiting.

EVERYBODY deserves to have the SAME RIGHTS.

It's about law, not religion.

Good for the California Supreme Court.

!

Judicial activism of either the left or the right is BAD! People forget that the courts were judicial activists for most of our history, only on the conservative side. We got segregation because the Supreme Court twisted the law to suit their prejudices to circumvent the clear intent of the 14th Amendment. To overturn that distorted ruling, even though it was clear black letter law, Warren thought that to overturn the precedent he HAD to have a UNANIMOUS vote. The stupidity of the CA court is such that it not only voided past customs and law, went against the will of the people, with only a narrow split decision. THAT is incredible and without legal merit. To make up law as the court did in its own opinion is wrong. They observed that since the views have somehow been determined to have changed, that now gays are a protected class. They could not cite any law or legal precedent which is the usual method. It is only a vague assertion on their part. THAT is not doing their job. It is NOT their job to make new laws as they did in this case.