In any case, frankly, I don’t believe you when you state that you previously were inclined to vote in favor of marriage equality.

My change of heart was caused by the bullying and intolerance of some gay activists. They assume that the only possible reason for opposing gay marriage is hate. That is insulting to you, Lowell, to my wife and many of my friends who are against gay marriage for principled reasons. Am I being spiteful to now oppose gay marriage? Probably. But gay activists need to recognize that some of their aggressive tactics and hateful speech hurt their cause.

Traditional marriage supporters like me think the answer to the question is no, because we are talking about the definition of an institution – marriage – as between a man and a woman. Interracial marriages are still between a man and a woman.

With all due respect, the distinction you’re making is illogical. Any time we’re debating what the legal definition of marriage should be, we are by definition talking about the definition of marriage. This was just as true 60 years ago, when the subject was interracial marriage, as it is today, when the subject is same-sex marriage. In both cases, what was under debate was the current, legal definition of marriage.

I grew up smothered by religion (Catholic), stood back from it and realized how hypocritical religious people were. Note that I am calling people hypocritical and not their religion. There is nothing inherently wrong in religion. They way people PRACTICE their religion, however, is a very different story.

I am currently writing a book entitled: “Sacred Cows Make The Best Hamburger – How to Become a Lion and Deal with the Christian Right.” After six years of research, my bibliography now has 110 titles. And throughout my research, I kept asking myself how I could be part of an organized religion with so much blood on its hands “For the Glory Of God.” And while I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with Mark Twain’s view that “Christians have proven to be the most efficient killing machines in history,” I am very afraid of our current Christofascists: Rick Warren, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Ken Copeland, etc. Christofascists? I’ve come to realize that there are basically two kinds: there are the Elmer Gantrys and.. the Elmer Fudds. Both are very dangerous but we must always remember: Fudd’s the one with the gun!

My own beliefs? I have faith in God and faith in humanity (something that many Christofascists will not allow since we’re supposed to be born with “Original sin” therefore man is sinful from Day One). After that, I have faith in Karen Armstrong, Bart Erhmann, John Boswell, Morton Smith, Charles Freeman and James Tabor. Oh, and I have faith in looking great in a pair of Speedos.

Thanks again for reading my comments.

“How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”

Daniel, that is quite a statement.

Traditional marriage supporters such as yourself blindly accept what your preachers have told you about marriage. I cringe every time I read or hear Rick Warren’s now ubiquitous statement: “marriage, the union of one man and one woman, has been around for the past five thousand years in every culture and every society.”

If I were on the same platform as Warren, I would simply say: “what a crock!” Then I would point out that of all 1300+ societies before ours, only about 200 defined marriage as one-man-one-woman. I’d also point to Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines…and the pluralistic marriages of Bedouin tribes like the Jews (before settling in Canaan). The union of one-man-one-woman is relatively new: born out of poverty and politics. Of course, it’s not as new as marrying for love. People have poor knowledge of history. One of man’s greatest shortcomings is his inability to look back to ancestors further than his great grandparents.

There is also the inability of today’s “believers” to think of marriage in evolutionary terms: marriage has not been stagnant for several hundred years much as people would like to think: “love and marriage…goes together like a horse and carriage.” Marriage is like any other social institution: it changes shape to fit the social norms (and not, as some think, the other way around). And unless we want to see a second Civil War, one side (your side)has to accept that change.

I would also like to compliment you on using the term “acceptance” instead of “tolerance.” The two are very different indeed. Tolerance can be looked upon as thinly veiled condissention. One of the most righteously arrogant phrases in the English language is: “It’s the Christian thing to do.” The Good Samaritan ACCEPTED the Jew, not content with merely TOLERATING him.

How sad it is that nudging our populace toward acceptance will take much, much longer than you described.