And laws need to change legally. I am concerned with what is right, but to accomplish what is right we need to do so legally while also respecting the rights of others. SSM is an issue of policy, people can disagree on taxes and someone can be right or wrong but ultimately it's up to the voters and the governing body to enact laws regarding tax policy. In a Democratic society and in states where they put up to popular vote the definition of marriage via state constitutional amendments it is completely legal and right for people to vote according to their beliefs and having an amendment added or not added.
So do we need to start asking people in polling places if before they vote on an issue they formulated their opinion based on their faith? Would the guy that thinks homosexuality is "icky" and thus shouldn't be allowed in the definition of marriage have a more legally valid opinion than the person who's religious beliefs tell them that homosexuality is sinful and those relationships do not fit within God's plan for marriage? What about if someone supported SSM because their religious beliefs tell them it's not OK to judge others and that God allows for homosexual unions in marriage? Should their opinion be nullified because it comes from that person's religious beliefs?
If laws violate the Constitution they should be struck down. If SSM is a Constitutional right under the Federal Constitution then laws against it should be struck down in accordance with Constitutional law. However, under no circumstance should people be barred from voting or having their opinions made into law because they come from their religious beliefs. However, my opinion of the Constitution is that it's within a states' rights to uphold the traditional definition of marriage or to change the definition to include same sex relationships. It's the voters' Constitutional right to amend their state constitutions and have their opinions made into law regarding same sex relationships and marriage status. It would be a violation of free speech, the right to vote and religious freedom to say that because someone's opinions come from their faith that they cannot be made into law.
That is what I mean. It's lawful and it's acceptable for a state to uphold traditional marriage or for another state to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. I have my own views, but I also respect the views of others and their right to vote in their states. A state can make a law or amend their constitution to state that voters must present a valid government issued ID at the polling place before they can vote. Someone else may disagree and think it's a violation of rights and completely unethical. If one side has a majority when put to vote then a law will be made reflective of the vote. One side can be right, the other side can be wrong. However, that doesn't mean that the law cannot be made and that it's unacceptable. If the law doesn't violate the Constitution (and I don't think traditional marriage violates the Constitution) and it is put to a vote then it becomes law regardless of it it's right or wrong and we all need to respect that although we have our beliefs and vote that others have them as well and we may lose political battles. Like I said before, I think that it is within the Constitution and within a states' rights to define marriage upholding the traditional definition or changing the dentition to include SSM. Someone can think it's unlawful discrimination or that it's completely wrong, but they still need to respect that others can disagree and vote and that the outcome may not be what they wanted. This goes for both sides of the issue. Unless the SCOTUS rules that SSM is a Constitutional right and that it's unlawful discrimination to uphold the traditional definition of marriage or unless a Constitutional amendment is added that makes SSM a Constitutional right that cannot be infringed upon then states and people can vote on the issue and bring about an outcome.
