@Sasha
"'the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.'
Even if this were true, so what? What does it have to do with homosexuals getting married? It's not like we're going to run out of straight people very soon."
They seem to think their morality has some kind of metaphysical reality, and ignoring that reality will cause disasters.
Imagine someone enforced the new value of PI being 3.000, and requiring all trains planes and automobiles be designed using that value. How well would these designs work?
They seem to imagine the same sort of thing happening to human society if their redefinition of reality is not obeyed. Human society only works if it obeys the metaphysics the giant cloud-man created. If they're ignored we will have the social equivalent of cars with square wheels.
@Spukikitty:
"They admit it's Constitutional and that "José Gimenez!" went against it & they approve!"
I don't believe that's what they meant. That was a quote from another article, I think it was taken out of context.
These recent marriage rulings by the appellate court are based on the supreme court Windsor decision. The article seems to say the Windsor decision does not invalidate an earlier 1972 decision that only men and women can marry, thus claiming the appeals court constitutional argument, based on Windsor, is invalid.
Remember these fundies think the constitution was based on their religion. If it is used to violate their religion, you're doing it wrong.
