IS THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE REALLY ABOUT MARRIAGE OR ABOUT FORCING THE CHURCH TO ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY. THEIR FIRST STEP IN TRYING TO REWRITE THE BIBLE?

And as James Madison stated very eloquently when introducing the Bill of Rights to the US Congressional Amendments committee

"In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be leveled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper.

But I confess that I do conceive that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body.

The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power.

But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government,

but in the body of the people,

operating by the majority against the minority."

Only once before have we seen this type of "majority against the minority" when it comes to the basic civil rights of ALL citizens.

I hope that the SCOTUS has the guts to do what is right and correct and live up to its responsibility to do what is right and correct and outlaw discrimination against homosexuals in this country.

You would like to think so, but according to the latest polls by Gallup in November 23-29, 2012 56% of responses said same sex marriage should be recognized as a legal civil process. Further, 51%vs 41% said Civil Marriage was a basic civil right (balance were undecided or did not respond)

The concept of a Civil Union has been ruled out by the very basic and simple response made in the California Supreme Court answer to Prop22, Two things (civil union vs civil marriage) with the exact same civil rights is contradictory to the by virtue of the different name when applied to two different groups with in the civil society is unconstitutional. Hence, only one shall exist and that is the "civil contract of civil marriage".

Where your "logic" fails is that we are speaking of TWO totally different actions. One the "civil contract of civil marriage" as regulated by civil law. It is the "contract" which society recognizes for all things legal with regards to basic civil rights, benefits, responsibilities and privileges. This includes "status" within the community and access to ALL of societies coverages of ANY kind within the society.

The other the "religious rite of marriage" regulated by a religious organizations dogma, doctrines and beliefs too which a couple submit themselves and acknowledge to their fellow members their future adherence to those religious dogma, doctrines and beliefs. NO ONE is forcing the religious organizations to change their dogma, doctrines and beliefs.

Frankly, the argument that same sex marriage is forcing religions to change is specious at the very least and absurd to the 'n'th degree, when in fact it is the coalition of religious organizations who are attempting to impose their religious dogma, doctrine and beliefs upon all in society.

Smile. This will be over soon and older generation that refuses to evolve with the changes in our society will die off and the love between humans as humans will prevail.

You'll find if you do you homework that the civil law code marriage was around some 6-7000 years ago in 5000BCE In the Indus River Valley civilizations and in the Chinese history of the same time period. You'll also find that the first "constitution" as it is referred to by most historians, the Law Code of Hammurabi circa 1750BCE gave detailed descriptions of "civil marriage" and never mentions any religious attachments to the process. It even provides for punishments for failure to abide by the parameters of the civil law code.

Later in Egypt and in the 1st century Israel they had civil law codes that governed civil marriage. Further in the Roman Empire period there were laws showing civil marriages. And if you want to get right down to it the Bible even gives parameters for "civil marriages" called "bride price marriage", and just so you know "bride price marriage" a tradition of man, still takes place today although technically a form of slavery which was made unconstitutional by the 13th Amendment, and still flourishes in other cultures.

As for you statement that JP and judges etc have only performed marriages for a couple of hundred years, you really don't know your history very well. Marriages were not blessed exclusively by a church but by the permission of the local fiefdom official or the area Duke or the King of the local area/empire/nation. MOST of the time this duty being passed off to lower level individuals. It wasn't until about 1000ce that the RCC took it upon themselves to invoke their limited authority to "bless" marriages and build a bulwark for the church to exert additional authority over the people in parallel with the civil rulers.

To find a solution? It has existed all along. The religious organizations simply don't want to admit it.

The "Civil Marriage" is a civil law process and is seen by the governments as the only legally binding law process for people in the eyes of the government to create a "civil contact of civil marriage" which by virtue of the law protects the to people to the contract and any children which may be involved in the family unit.

The "Religious Rite of Marriage" is and always has been a voluntary submission of the couple to the dogma, doctrine and beliefs of the religious organizations to which they voluntarily have joined and submit to the spiritual authority of that organization. There is not now nor has their ever been any legal standing except within the confines of the religious organization giving the "Religious Rite of Marriage" legal contractual status.

THUS enforcing the Separation of Church and State. This being the case any religious organization can reasonably reject the requests of same sex couples to be married in their organization. Proof of my statement that the SCOTUS agrees with this is found in BSA v DALE SCOTUS made it very clear that membership organizations can set standards of conduct for their members. The failure to abide by those standards is simple expulsion from the organization.

If you don't see this then there is not use continuing the conversation.