Here in WI, in 2006, a marriage amendment passed as well, even though we elected a Dem as governor that same year and went for Obama in 2008. There aren’t enough conservatives or evangelicals in this state alone to make up the swing for the liberal Milwaukee Co and uber-liberal Dane Co. So Democrats HAVE to be voting in favor of marriage.

Also, in CA, many who voted for Prop. 8 were black or Hispanic. I’ve always wondered if black opposition to gay marriage comes not from religious upbringing but anger that gays try to equate their push for “marriage” with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s…

I don’t care who enters into a contract with whom. If I want my aunt Bessie to by the beneficiary of my insurance and will, I should be able to do that. Same if I want my neighbor Joe. If you want to live together fine.

I just think the State/Church relationship should be a co-existence. The church shouldn’t cross the line of the state and vice versa. If the states kept all commitments, including domestic unions, as ‘union contracts’ and left the church to ‘marriage’ I would be extremely happy with that.

As a religious person, my concern is that what you propose here isn’t enough for some in the gay-rights movement. They’ve already shut down a church-run adoption agency in MA, go after the Boy Scouts for their views on homosexuality, sued a Christian photog who declined to photograph a same-sex ceremony, and took away tax-exempt status on a church in NJ that declined to allow a same-sex ceremony on its property.

So it’s clear to me the lines are drawn, and that the state – condoning gay marriage – will go full-blown into the business of the churches, condemning those that don’t accept or perform gay marriages and punishing them accordingly. Goodness knows the fallout from Prop. 8 and the threats directed at Christians and Mormons is enough to set off red flags that tolerance isn’t cutting the mustard anymore.