“Douthat doesn’t want to get rid of the sucker. [LHM] He thinks it’s “one of the great ideas of Western civilization.”
You’ve nailed it, Mr. Silk. I constantly read comments from people who say they “support traditional [i.e. heterosexual] marriage” as if proponents of equal marriage for gay couples are somehow ‘against’ traditional/heterosexual marriage.
This is patent nonsense, of course. We think that heterosexual marriage is a terrific institution – for heterosexuals. We do not wish to somehow “destroy” or “attack” marriage. We wish to fully participate in it, since it is society’s institutiono and gay people are likewise participants in society. In fact, I know of not one sinnlge individual who want to “get rid of the sucker” – not one.
But your disclaimer at the end I find a bit disingenuous for you speak in the wrong tense. “marriage … will be a fundamental right”. Mark, it already IS! this is established law.

Well, Grumps, it’s a fundamental federal right in California at the moment. And a state right in a few other jurisdiction, including my own Connecticut. But so far that’s it.

Sorry Mark, but I believe you are wrong.
The SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia (1967) decided that marriage was a “basic civil right of man.” They didn’t say only for heterosexual Christians…they said everybody.
And, in Romer v Evans (1994), the SCOTUS decided that laws designed to deny homosexuals rights “that others enjoy or may seek without constraint” was unconstitutional. And the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution guarantee due process and equal protection under the law. This is what the California decision re-asserted.

I meant that marriage has not been judicially determined as a fundamental right so as to include same-sex unions, that’s all.

You would think these public servants, government and the courts would be swift in moving away from all this and their ignorance and demonstration of lack of education. It is apparent, from their statements and decisions they were, and perhaps still are, ignorant to the simple fact that God gave marriage to man in a time predating government and courts. They, government and the courts, are best to obey their own ends and workings and leave marriage alone for their claim of there being a separation of church and state. The book of Genesis, a compilation of oral traditions handed down since antiquity and the apparent beginning of man, and finally recorded by Moses, around 1440-1400 B.C., is the strongest evidence of their, government and courts, lack of authority to be involved in marriage. Have things worsened to the point they can no longer even recognize their own ignorance and errors? Then surely, the times written of, about satan taking rule, are here upon us! Or, are they claiming they have already held trial and decided against God and in their favor?

Actually, under the Constitution, American courts are foreclosed from using Genesis (or any other part of the Bible) as probative of God’s will, and are foreclosed from using a belief that God willed something as the basis for judicial determinations. Once upon a time–in the 19th century–American courts did consider blasphemy grounds for criminal prosecution, based on the view that American jurisprudence incorporated English Common Law, which considered blasphemy a crime. But that’s no longer the case.

I just love people who quote from “The Book of Genesis” (or from The Bible) as if either rules America. What the Bible sez or doesn’t say is irrelevant to the Constitution. As much as what the Book of Tao, or the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Kells, or the Q’uran.
Winston and others like him would do well to remember that America is not a theocracy. Yet, anyway.
I mean, it’s not like Justices of the Peace intone those magic words, “By the power vested in me by The Church, I now pronounce you …”.
Why do so many people of faith confuse the institution of (civil) marriage with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

If modern day people use the bible to condemn homosexuality, witness what the bible does and doesn’t say about slavery and it’s tradition in civilization: Quotations by learned men from the 19th century: – “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. – “There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.”Rev. Alexander Campbell, – “The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina – “The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.” A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA). – “The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.” United States Senator James Henry Hammond Quotation from the 21st century: – “If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I’m afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff. The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been “sanctioned in the Bible.” They argued that: – Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. – The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because — after all — the slave was his property. – Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery — the owning of one person as a piece of property by another — is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism. – Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution. Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil — like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in “the Good Book” was lost — never to be fully regained.