Well said. This is indeed about religious freedom, but not of the kind the other side is talking about.

God did in fact speak out against homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

To Robert, not saying that i disargree with you because honestly I didn't read your entire post. But you should also not generalize the voice of others "we believe in religious freedom in Minnesota". We (The USA) believe in religious freedom, but you should still not be the voice of others when you do not know exactly how they feel about things.

Micah,

Leviticus 3:17, “It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

Leviticus 11:7-8, “And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.”

Leviticus 19:27, “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

Leviticus 20:10, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Leviticus 20:27, “A man or woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.”

Leviticus 21:18-23, “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sights or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles; no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God…He shall not come near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries…”

A bit selective, are we?

What? Who told your daughter or your church anything? If you believe in religious freedom, why are you telling these students they can't have any? They're merely stating their position on marriage - or does freedom only count when they agree with you?

Cody Whocares, you are right, I am not the voice for all Minnesotans. I am the father of a lesbian. I am a friend to a guy that has two gay sons. I am working to defeat this amendment for them. My Christian values tell me to do not harm. This amendment does harm. I think most people would reject the amendment if they understood that HATE IS THE SIN, not homosexuality. I pray that most Minnesotans will vote NO or at least leave it blank if conflicted.

515 laws and 1138 provisions stemming from DOMA that discriminate against same-sex couples. It's abhorrent that in the twenty-first century, after we gave women the right to vote, ended segregation, and put an end to anti-miscegenation laws that members of our society would still seek to enshrine ignorance and bigotry.

We should LOVE all. However, that doesn't mean accepting sinful behavior as 'okay'. We can't change who God is - God is who he is (I AM who I AM). If we change who we think God is, can we classify ourself as a Christian? Is a vegetarian who eats pork a vegetarian? No. For we must be unified in what we believe, as Ephesians 4 says, "One faith, one baptism..."

Stephen: See my comment to Zach below. "The Bible matters NOT ONE BIT IN THIS DISCUSSION. This is a matter of SECULAR, civil policy, not religious." Aside from the fact that not passing this amendment won't result in same-sex marriage on November 7, you're free to not marry gay people and regulate the religious sacrament of marriage however the hell you like. But in civil affairs we abide by secular rules. This country is not a theocracy. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this repeatedly.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as sin. I don't know how to make this more clear. The Garden of Eden is mythical. Adam and Eve are myths. It is genetically impossible for the entire human race to have sprung from two people. We are the product of 200 million years of evolution. The only "sin" we can commit is against other people. It isn't "imputed" to future generations, and it doesn't follow us after death. I might point out that in your Bible, Christ didn't condemn people. He condemned the religious leaders who forced their moral will on the people.

Your cat can't consent to marriage.

Joe, the yard signs clearly say, "Don't limit the freedom to marry." Isn't your consent clause a kind of limit? Of course it is, which is why that tagline is ridiculous.

Bert: Constitutions should expand, not limit, the rights of citizens; and if they do have to limit, they'd better have a damn good reason for doing so. Totalitarian regimes are the ones that limit their citizens' rights. Just look at Iran and North Korea.

David, I am sorry to hear that your experience at Northwestern and with the Christian community there was not a good one. I am sure supporters and opponents of the amendment on campus who are Christians would say that neither group rejoices in that. However I would like highlight one part of your comment: "Until Christians start speaking up for what they truly believe..." Let's stop right there for now. With your objections, are you stating as fact that not one Christian on the Northwestern campus truly believes in marriage as between one man and one woman? Now, I know you wouldn't presume to know what every person truly believes, because that would put you above them and you have stated that you don't like people making others feel like second-class citizens. I would also assume that you aren't calling other people "stupid" when you label the college as a "bastion of ignorance." If I am wrong on either point, please correct me. I would rather see myself corrected than close down a conversation. I would also like to look at your statements below. The sentiment below that I see you expressing is that you believe it is people like Isaac and Max that are lumping the whole LGBT community together and rating them as second class citizens. I would wonder if you are also into the same kind of generalizations when you say, "[Isaac] is typical of the pro-amendment community" (I assume you mean ignorant and bigoted) Again, if I am wrong, please tell me.

(Continued...) I am glad that Northwestern through its student senate stated its stance in regards to marriage. I am also glad that it did not take a stand on the amendment itself. I come from a school that has chosen neutrality on this issue. For the last week and a half I have seen signs and heard shouts saying, "Neutrality is discrimination" When it comes to this amendment, I would say that a school's neutrality is the ONLY way to encourage dialogue. Taking a stance EITHER WAY would be detrimental to the community. Lastly, I look to your statement that you are now a firm atheist thanks to your education at Northwestern. Please do not blame the college for your choice. I am sure the college is not perfect, but ultimately that choice was yours. I am sorry that was your choice and that you feel that the Christian community is against you, I truly am. I am not one to insert myself into a discussion like this but when I see people throw around the word "bigot" which means, "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" and then see that same person contradict that by saying that those opinions really aren't the person's actual beliefs, I feel I must speak up. I will repeat it again, I am truly very sorry you have so much anger toward Northwestern. I am a Christian, not a bully, bigot, or religiofascist. I believe you are a person, a unique one at that. An imperfect one, but so am I. Hey we share something in common!

Nate,

Frankly, I don't think anyone on staff or faculty, or who attends Northwestern College cares one bit that I had a negative experience. No one has reached out, nor do I expect them to. All they want from me is money, and I had them take me off their potential donor list ages ago.

Point of clarification: Northwestern College didn't "turn me atheist." I came to the conclusion that "there almost certainly is no God" (to quote Richard Dawkins) on my own -- but the college certainly helped. The "bastion of ignorance" is one such reason. To turn away from valid scientific evidence in favor of belief in what a Bronze Age book says, written mostly from oral history by largely illiterate peasants living in barbaric Palestine, with no knowledge of science, philosophy or literature, is willful ignorance. To believe the Bible contains "everything that anyone might ever need to know" (to quote Christopher Hitchens) is ignorant, which is a shame because there are some very intelligent Christians.

This is what turned me off to Christianity and religion -- the refusal to deal with reality as it exists. To insist that the earth is 6,000 years old when our best estimate says 4.5 billion years, and the universe 14.6 billion. To believe, as the Church once did, that the sun revolves around the earth. And now, against all evidence to the contrary, that homosexuality is unnatural, though it has existed in every culture and hasn't hurt anyone. This is ignorance.

And I certainly hope you're not lumping me in with "sinful humanity" when you say we are imperfect. We are imperfect for being evolving human beings, not for a mythical crime committed by a mythical couple in a mythical garden.

David, lately in chapel pastor Peter Haas has been speaking and he has been talking about different religiously transmitted diseases, meaning that sometimes as Christians, we are like the pharisees who had the Jesus the living God here on earth but denied it was him, because He didn't fit their own standards. Sometimes as Christians we criticize and judge others more than non christians do, but as everyone else, we are not perfect either. Quoting what you said later in the discussion: ''This is what turned me off to Christianity and religion -- the refusal to deal with reality as it exists. To insist that the earth is 6,000 years old when our best estimate says 4.5 billion years, and the universe 14.6 billion. To believe, as the Church once did, that the sun revolves around the earth. And now, against all evidence to the contrary, that homosexuality is unnatural, though it has existed in every culture and hasn't hurt anyone. This is ignorance.'' Yes, evidence says that the earth is old, but who are we to deny that it could have been made looking old, but still is young? You know about the Bible, and know that satan started with jealousy by trying to become like God (Isaiah 14:13-14). Jealousy has existed and sometimes honestly I feel like killing someone, but I don't because I know that God would not appreciate that, I know that it has existed in every culture, but does that mean it is right?

To continue what I was saying, I am not judging gays or anyone here, because that is not my job to do. There is a lot of ignorance, not just at NWC but also in the world. Just because there are ignorants in christianity does not mean I stop being a follower of Jesus. Just because someone who claims to be a christian insults me while walking down the road does not stop me from being one. I attended a church a couple months ago, and was part of the worship team and got along with the youth really well. I decided to leave the church, and did the pastors come and reach out for me? no, it seemed as if they did not even care for me. At first I was hurt by this, but then I realized I am not a christian because of them. I do not base my christianity on what people think about me, or what they do to me. (I must say though that after a few couple weeks went by after not going to church they did ask about me, and told me that I should go back to that church).
Many times instead of building a church we are dividing it. Many people who claim to be christians are the ones saying: you are going to hell because you are not doing this, or because you are doing that, or because you are not doing anything at all! No, I think we have christianity all messed up. We have everything all messed up. David, I am sorry that your experience at NWC was not good, but do not base your christianity on scientific evidence, on what people do or not do, because no one is perfect.

David, lately in chapel pastor Peter Haas has been speaking and he has been talking about different religiously transmitted diseases, meaning that sometimes as Christians, we are like the pharisees who had the Jesus the living God here on earth but denied it was him, because He didn't fit their own standards. Sometimes as Christians we criticize and judge others more than non christians do, but as everyone else, we are not perfect either. Quoting what you said later in the discussion: ''This is what turned me off to Christianity and religion -- the refusal to deal with reality as it exists. To insist that the earth is 6,000 years old when our best estimate says 4.5 billion years, and the universe 14.6 billion. To believe, as the Church once did, that the sun revolves around the earth. And now, against all evidence to the contrary, that homosexuality is unnatural, though it has existed in every culture and hasn't hurt anyone. This is ignorance.'' Yes, evidence says that the earth is old, but who are we to deny that it could have been made looking old, but still is young? You know about the Bible, and know that satan started with jealousy by trying to become like God (Isaiah 14:13-14). Jealousy has existed and sometimes honestly I feel like killing someone, but I don't because I know that God would not appreciate that, I know that it has existed in every culture, but does that mean it is right?.

John,

Thanks for the comment. I was actually wondering if someone would be brave enough to make the "God made it look old" argument. And here you are! No doubt you know that this is called the "Omphalos hypothesis," which sounds like something out of a DC Comics storyline, and it's one of the sillier pieces of theology (aside from God's massive identity crisis/multiple personality disorder). This essentially makes your God into a petty trickster, a deceiver, and your God is supposedly truthful. In that case, how do we know that God didn't make the universe last Tuesday and create everyone with their memories of the past? Furthermore, how do you know the Bible isn't just as equally fabricated?

This theory, like the rest of creationism, lacks falsifiability. It cannot be disproven and therefore is not valid as a scientific (or rational) theory.

But as to your second point -- is the only reason that you're a moral person because you're afraid of divine retribution? Doesn't that make you more immoral, as I choose not to do bad things without promise of reward or threat of punishment.

I am not a Christian, in any sense of the word. I am an atheist -- that is, I believe and live my life as if there is almost certainly no God. There is simply not enough reason to be a theist, to believe in a deity, or in any of the claims of religion. The scientific method offers far more credible and logical explanations, so I'm going with that over a Bronze Age book.

Hi Max. Sorry to have to inform you of this, but we live in a secular society, not a "Biblical" one. If we lived in a truly Biblical one, all those who committed adultery would be executed, there would be no women CEOs or senators, witches (including psychics, mediums, and occultists) would be burned alive, and we would put to death anyone who converts to another religion. Hell, there would BE no other religion in this country. But that's beside the point.

The point is that religion has NO -- let me repeat NO --place in this conversation. You're entitled to your religious opinion, however outdated or out of touch with society it may be. But this is a battle over a religious opinion, and it has no place in a secular government constitution. I don't need to know you, Isaac or anyone else. That is an irrelevant point, although I'd turn it back on both of you to say that you don't know me or any of the thousands of LGBT Minnesotans you're seeking to make second-class citizens. And you are seeking to do just that by making one law for one class of citizens and another (inferior) law for the rest of us non-heteros.

The grace of your God has nothing to do with disenfranchising American citizens who have done nothing to warrant such discrimination. Quote your Bible verses all you want. I'll simply quote the text of the First Amendment back at you: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

David, It appears this Student Body President is saying Northwestern is Bible - based, not society as a whole.

Hey Max. I don't think this is a correct way to interpret Romans 1:26-27. The Romans had a much different conception about homosexuality than contemporary American ideas. Homosexual marriage was illegal in Rome, and it would not have been permitted. This is due to the fact that marriage was a social event which had one primary function: to produce children. However, homosexuality, especially in higher class males, was very common, and usually expected. In fact, there was a very complex social structure based around homosexuality in ancient Rome. Of course, it follows that these homosexual acts had to occur outside of marriage (because there was no homosexual marriages.) These homosexual relationships were therefor never really monogamous or controlled by any sense or morality.

I think Paul's point in this passage stems from the fact that homosexual in ancient Rome necessarily indicates infidelity and promiscuousness, since it could only take place outside of marriage. So, rather than the act of homosexuality itself being immoral, it is the breaking of marital bonds that Paul might be saying is wrong. Maybe the lesson of morality in Romans 1:26-27 is that we should respect loyalty in marriage; we should recognize that sexuality is essential to our being human, but we shouldn't make it a commodity or do it thoughtlessly. So, considering historical context, Paul might be making an argument for intentional and meaningful sex, not an argument against homosexuality.

Ani,

Just to add a few things, it's not necessarily that homosexuality was common in ancient Rome. Our definitions of "person" are totally different. Don't forget that there were two classes in the ancient world: free men, and everyone else (women, slaves, etc). It was all about confirming a male citizen's masculinity over slaves. The purpose of heterosexual marriage was largely for breeding purposes, and aside from doing his duty in making more Roman citizens, a man was free to have sex with anyone he liked -- and male slaves were a common target, mainly because they were more receptive than women and without the risk of pregnancy. There were nine different classes of male sexuality in Rome, denoting everything from male concubine to being a privileged slave "boy toy."

However, there were same-sex marriages, especially in the upper classes. The emperor Nero married twice, first to a freedman, Pythagoras, then to his 'puer delicatus', Sporus.

All that to say, what Paul was supposedly talking about in Romans is very different from what we consider homosexuality today.

Max, I went to Northwestern. I graduated from there. I know first-hand what kind of conservative rhetoric gets thrown around there. You can say that you don't condemn others, but you do. By refusing to acknowledge the fundamental personhood of me and every other LGBT citizen of this state, you call us less than human, and not deserving of the rights and protections of our state and federal constitutions. It's people like you who convinced me that there is no God, because if there were he'd have already righted you lot.

To David, you cannot just force the views you think people have upon them to make your argument valid. You continue to tell us here at Northwestern, how it is at Northwestern, when you are no longer here. You say that we are calling you less than human, whereas we never said such a thing, you are pulling words from nowhere and saying we said them in order to further your argument. And another thing, if you came to Northwestern then you must have taken the required bible courses such as O.T and N.T? Correct? Then you should know that God is a merciful God. "he'd have already righted you lot".. Did he "right" the Israelites for not slaughtering the Canaanites?.. in a sense yes, but it's not like he wiped they themselves off the face of the earth. I personally do not agree with legal amendment of marriage between one man and one woman. Because let's be honest, they are going to be together wether they are "married" or not. And in today's America there is separation of church and state, we shouldn't force our religious views on others through restricting legal rights. But it's not a big deal, so get over it and go find something productive to do rather than continue to argue against your own views that you are reflecting off of us back towards yourself.

Cody:

I'm with you 100% on separation of church and state. I think that fundamentalist Christianity has taken a disturbing Dominionist turn that is antithetical to our country's Constitution and ideals. It is in the best interest of both parties if they remain separate, with neither interfering in the affairs of the other. We have contemporary examples of what happens when religion merges with politics.

However (and not that you have, or to put words in your mouth), to say that my natural sexual orientation is "disordered," "wrong," "broken," or any of the myriad of ways (however nicely stated) to denigrate and belittle me as a person by attempting to make me feel less than human is wrong. I wouldn't be making a "big deal" of it if people weren't actively trying to take away my civil rights (as per this amendment, and the other three amendment battles in Maine, Maryland and Washington), and to attempt to force or bully me back into the closet. You're right again: my boyfriend and I will be together whether the law says we're a family or not. As we're not harming anyone, the government has no interest in banning us from legal marriage status.

I also wouldn't be making a "big deal" about this if children weren't being sent the message that their families are inferior to their peers raised by heterosexuals, and conversely giving children from opposite-sex families the idea that their families are superior in the eyes of the law.

John Doe (real brave there, mate):

I don't care who Jesus was. That is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about Christian dominionists trying to enshrine a religious belief into a secular state constitution. Aside from violating the separation of church and state and the First Amendment, it violates the religious beliefs of those who believe that homosexuality was created by God and is therefore (like everything else he supposedly created in six (!?) days) good. Does their religious freedom not matter as much because it doesn't have the deep pockets of the Roman Catholic Church? Apparently not.

Government action as concerns religion must fulfill three (count them, three) requirements: (1) It must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) It must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) It must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. This amendment violates all three.

There is no rational secular case for banning same-sex marriage. If the amendment granted legal marriage to only couples who procreate, it might be reasonable. But it doesn't. The amendment grants legal marriage to couples regardless of their ability or intent to procreate, which is also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

And yes, I believe every person has the right to marry whom they love. (Sorry, incest, polygamy, bestiality and pederasty are red herrings. I've heard them all, and it's a non sequitur and a slippery slope argument. We are talking about consenting adults who love each other and want to commit to spend their lives together.)

As for the notion that "anyone who does not agree with me is ignorant and bigoted," I only consider someone ignorant and bigoted if their views are anti-human, and they simply don't care how their action affects another person. You may not necessarily hate gay people, but neither do you love us. That's indifference, and it's almost worse than hate because you simply don't care enough to care.

Aaron:

So in this supposed equitable world, are you saying that homosexuals should, along with heterosexuals, wait to have sex until marriage?

Sin, along with Adam and Eve, is a myth. The only "sin" is either against ourselves, or against other people. Follow the Golden Rule, which has existed in some form in every culture since the beginning of civilization. It comes, not from God, but from our evolution as a species and from the development of our human consciousness. Treat others as you want to be treated. That's self-policing, and all-encompassing. We don't need a god to know that.

Zach: For the record, I said above that the Bible matters NOT ONE BIT IN THIS DISCUSSION. This is a matter of SECULAR, civil policy, not religious. Contrary to what you may think or have been taught in church, the United States of America was founded on secular Enlightenment values. Nowhere in our Constitution is God mentioned once (though, yes, he is invoked in part as Creator, though this is the God of the deists, of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and not the God of the Evangelicals today).

It also bears pointing out that we live in a democracy (albeit a representative one). We don't simply silence or degrade those who disagree with us by making laws. We work together to find a way to live as harmoniously as possible. We don't want to make your children gay, or whatever else you may think. And if you think that you can teach your children that homosexuality isn't natural and them not treat LGBT individuals as less than human, you are sadly mistaken, and I fear for your children.

We aren't asking for you to attend pride parades, play the bloody Village People, or go to a gay orgy. We are asking you to afford us the dignity and respect as human beings that your Christ would have afforded us. After all, who did he condemn? Not people, but the religious. Think on that.

And I've also said this elsewhere on this page, but there is NO secular purpose to this amendment. If it were about affording legal marriage to couples who are capable of and choose to procreate, it might be one thing. That would at least be in accordance with our Equal Protection laws. As I said to John Doe above: "The amendment grants legal marriage to couples regardless of their ability or intent to procreate, which is also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."

Government action as concerns religion must fulfill three requirements: (1) It must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) It must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) It must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. This amendment violates all three.

This is indeed about free speech -- and this amendment violates the free speech and religious freedom of those who believe that God doesn't care which genitalia you have or where you choose to put them. They believe that their God only cares that you love and are loved. I don't believe in God, but am inclined to agree with the latter part. I'm not planning to someday ask my boyfriend to "be my roommate" or to "civil marry me." This life is short enough. If we've found something that makes us better people, why dump all over our happiness by making our relationship a second-class one?

And if you want to get technical, if you argue that homosexuality is unnatural, you do unnatural things every day. You wake up to an alarm clock every morning instead of a cockerel. The coffee you drink has been chemically treated. You get to work not on a horse but in a machine built by human ingenuity. Your house is lit by electricity that (though itself natural) has been harnessed for human use. Even modern medicine is an intervention of natural processes.

Religion is not related to one religion... you being an atheist is a religion.. hence how is saying no to this not purporting your religion?(though it is fairly boundless). You can argue till you are blue in the face that religion doesn't matter here, but it does. You find the need to have atheist be your selected fb religion. You find a need to write letters to atheists in america. Religion is a focal point in this argument... I think we need to recognize all religions david norris

Zach: I'll say this one more time. THE BIBLE MATTERS NOT ONE BLOODY JOT IN THIS CASE. If you want a theocracy, go live in one, but ours is a SECULAR society. What part of this are you not understanding?

Jefferson believed that the Bible had moral principles, but he also cut out all of the miracles and supernatural occurrences -- or did you forget the part about people burying their Bibles when he was elected President? And you tread on dangerous ground speaking for what the founders would or wouldn't have approved of. Back then they also approved of slavery. Should we bring that back too? They also didn't approve of interracial marriage (even though they had no problem getting their black slaves pregnant).

Societies and mores change. I understand that Christians have almost always been uncomfortable with that notion (Galileo, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Joan of Arc), but that's no reason to continue letting y'all hold us back from progress.

"I think we need to recognize all religions." Good night, and you call yourself a fundamentalist Christian? ALL religions? Hinduism? Buddhism (which is more philosophy than religion)? Taoism? Mormonism? Islam? Zoroastrianism? Polytheistic reconstructionism? What happened to "I am the way, the truth and the life"?

Jesus may not have granted Gay Marriage under Christianity, however, I'm atheist and don't care what Jesus granted or not. I can however get "LEGALLY" married with a woman anywhere in the United States and I do not follow Christianity or any other Religion and people are OK with that. If a man/man that do not follow the teachings of "Jesus" attempted to get "LEGALLY" married, there is a ton of banter of whether or not they can just because "Jesus" said it wasn't OK. Take 5 seconds out of your ignorant lifestyle and think about that for a second.

Your belief's become invalid as an argument because this entire argument is for LEGAL reasons, *not* RELIGIOUS reasons.

Marriage AND Religion are mutually exclusive regarding legality.

Only in your pre-conceived, bigoted -- too many CAPS in too many telling places to be otherwise -- definition of "Creator". (You're in the majority so take comfort in automatic support of your blatant religious supremacism). Successfully injecting religions where they were intentionally not meant to be, specifically because of people like you and yours, doesn't give your religious views any extra validity. Eventually the obscene execution crosses of death and the illegal, anti-Constitutional 10 Commandments monuments get removed from public property, the 1950s-era insertion of "God" into our national properties will be reversed. Our money will be cleaned up, our motto "E Pluribus Unum" will be returned to its premiere place of honor, the Pledge of Allegience will be returned to all of the people of the USA, etc. The decades-long (I'm 58), studied, illegal and un-Constitutional attempt to hijack the USA for the Christian-American version of the Taliban will be reversed and we will be living closer to the Founders' ideals, but not any time soon. Except for inside the brains of religious people, which is to say, except for a person's own beliefs and actions, government-issued same-gender marriage licenses issued equally to consenting adult citizens have no bearing on the religion of any of "The People" who are all to be "Equal Under The Law." And, there are laws against incest, along with provable, evidenced societal interest in preventing that consentable crime against genes.

BTW, my "Creator" was my mother, with an assist from my father, though "Co-Creator" isn't mentioned in the ... Declaration of Independence ... which did not even create the USA. Neither "Creator" nor "God" is to be found in the Constitution of the USA. For the good reason, as you know, that our nation was founded by (hypocritical) people who knew what it was like to live under a state "religion" making up the laws for everyone of every religion and none. They chose freedom for everyone, at least ideally.

Anna,

Thanks for your comment. I wish there were more Christians like you. The world might look different.

If you're interested, there are a few resources I could point you to. One would be Justin Cannon's "The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality (http://inclusiveorthodoxy.yolasite.com/resources/The%20Bible-PDF.pdf). That's where I started when I came out gay four years ago (that was when I was still a Christian and wanted to know what the Bible really said about me).

Another would be Jack Rogers' "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality," which is about a Presbyterian minister who was torn over having gay congregants and not being able to minister to them fully.

Also, Jeff Miner's "The Children Are Free" is another good one.

FYI, to me, a 58-year-old gay man, Max used Northwestern to inject a very public Northwestern endorsement for the anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-marriage amendment, in order to defeat the ban on tax-welfare receiving churches and religious organizations endorsing ballot measures, political parties, or candidates. But then again, US Christians no longer want to abide by the laws that allow them to exist tax-free and enormously profitable. They are intentionally breaking the IRS laws. Max will go far in the political Christian (Republicans Only, No Gays Allowed) establishment. And he'll smile beatifically as he willfully yet ignorantly crushes underfoot the lives of me, my family, and my tribe, sharing what he calls God's love, but only creating rivers of our blood gushing endlessly from under his blood-soaked sandals.

To clarify -- atheism is not a religion. It is a position about the non-existence of God. We don't have creeds; we don't have churches; we don't have hymns. To quote the great Thomas Paine, "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."

In this context the Bible doesn't matter in the making of SECULAR civil policy. Your beliefs may matter to you, and good on ya (as the Aussies say); but they don't matter when it comes to making legislation that governs a society made up of many different kinds of people -- and not all of whom disapprove, as you do, of homosexuality.

What slavery and homosexuality have in common is failure to acknowledge both the humanity and the personhood of an individual. You likely view homosexuals as broken, diseased and needing treatment; to "pray away the gay" -- even though every major, mainstream health body (the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization) has acknowledged that homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality and does not need to be treated. You likely also believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that God poofed everything into existence exactly as it stands today.

Welll played Scotty boy! I see you caught my blunder, and way to go with the bit about marriages! I'm convinced!

Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. Atheism is a lack of belief in that. Atheism is not a religion.

Thank you, Joe. Glad to see there's a rational person on here.

Zach, there's nothing more I can say to you. You believe in Young Earth Creationism, which has been refuted continually by scientific evidence, and is being invalidated the further we look into deep space and see further back in the cosmological record (the most distant object we have observed is 13 billion light years away, which means that the universe has to be at least that old).

You believe in conversion therapy, which has been condemned as psychological terrorism by every mainstream health body (e.g., the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association), and there is NO verifiable evidence that anyone has ever successfully changed their sexual orientation. (Even the president of Exodus International, the largest "ex-gay" group in the world, has admitted this year that he doesn't know anyone who has.) However, if you indeed know people who have truly "converted," I'd like to talk to them, because to claim to "know people" isn't proof.

You refuse to believe in "life before 4,000 BC," even though they've found ceramic hearths from the Klisoura Caves in Greece that have been dated to between 34,000 and 32,000 years old. There is so much evidence, and for you to ignore it in favor of a Bronze Age religious book tells me that my burden of proof is VERY different from and more demanding than yours.

You were taught "classification of beliefs" by fundamentalist Christians who assume that they have the one-and-only Truth (with a capital T). Atheists, on the other hand, acknowledge that there is no absolute truth, that there are many things that we don't know, that it's okay to not know everything, and that every new piece of information we acquire is a piece of a larger puzzle that is continually changing and growing. Just look at the images coming in from the Hubble Space Telescope, of our universe and our miniscule place in it, and tell me that gay marriage still matters. There is so much that we don't know -- why write things off as categorically wrong?

As Virginia Mollenkott, a theologian, has said: "Apparently the Creator likes diversity a lot more than we human beings do. It's built into the creation, so it seems to me high time that the human race, instead of telling God what God should have done, we say, 'Oh, this is what we have here'."

We know there is no absolute truth because that "truth" keeps changing. 50 years ago black and white people couldn't get married. That was an "absolute truth." Black people were once considered inferior to whites and were therefore fit only for slavery. I notice that your Bible is pretty silent on the whole question of outlawing slavery. In fact, Christ uses slavery to show his listeners how God treats people. That's a Nobel Prize-winning idea, that is.

Considering the size of the universe should give you a sense of perspective on what matters and what doesn't. If there is a God, aside from doing an awful job designing it and assuming that it's actually interested in what human beings do, I imagine that the chief concern is that we're being good to each other. "Be nice. Love people. Leave the place better than you found it." Contrast this to the teachings of Christianity, which led people to burn heretics at the stake for disagreeing with a bunch of old men, and torture, murder and malign each other.

How about you pay attention to your own relationships, leave other people alone, and stop assuming you have everything figured out.

Zach, the fact that you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old essentially invalidates everything factual you claim. And actually, the Bible does command people to literally put each other down because of their race: the Amalekites, the Ammonites, the Hagarites, and so on.

I am angry with religion (1) because it's not true, yet encourages people to essentially mutilate themselves for the sake of getting to some blessed afterlife where they tell God how wonderful he is; and (2) it seeks to halt progress and change. And because I thought I had to try to be heterosexual for many, many years or go to hell. That might have something to do with my ire toward Christianity.

Zach, you're wrong. You're just wrong. I'd say try looking at the world through the eyes of an LGBT person who hears you say that to accept people for who they are is to "hold their hand into hell so they can have whatever kind of relationship they want," but I don't know if you or any fundamentalist Christians are capable of such empathy.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

I'm reminded of when William Lane Craig claimed that the slaughter of innocent children in the Bible by Jewish soldiers was really their salvation. "So who is wronged?" he asked. "Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.” For good people to do evil—that takes religion.

Zach, you're happier because Christianity doesn't really challenge you, and it tells you how and what to think. You've never had to struggle with whether or not how you were born has destined you for either a life of loneliness and misery, or an eternity in hell because God hates you. This has made you callous. You don't have any sympathy. What you are feeling is self-satisfying pity. It feels good to have pity for "those poor gays" because it makes you feel like a generous, decent person. And that's what I find especially insulting about anti-gay Christians. You don't hate. You "pity."

Jesus Christ on a bike. Your morals? Letting gays marry is the same as throwing granny off the cliff? What is wrong with you? What about the morals of other people? Are they of no concern to you? What about the thousands of Christians who believe that the LGBT community has just as much right to marry as anyone else? I suppose you and your precious so-called God know better than everyone else, so civil rights are of no consequence to you and your heaven-bound pals.

How about you focus on your own "sin" and leave everyone else to deal with their own problems. You clearly fear the LGBT community and the threat of change, just as many white people feared interracial marriage during the 1950s and 60s. Deal with that fear instead of taking it out on people who have never done you any harm. I hope we start voting on your civil rights soon, and you'll get no sympathy from me.

Besides, when this amendment doesn't pass on November 6, gay marriage will still not be legal in Minnesota. We are not voting on same-sex marriage. We are voting on whether or not to ban it PERMANENTLY. It's really too bad that the followers of a religion supposedly built on the teachings of a radical humanitarian are so callous.

Well Christ does know best...
I can't help but notice that Sammy's morals are of no concern to you...

Wish there were more Christians like you, Bob. Thanks!

And if you compare countries that are more religious to those that are more secular, the secular countries are more peaceful, more educated, have more women in government, and have a better standard of living. The more religious countries are more violent, have higher rates of illiteracy, keep women and girls in virtual slavery, and have a lower quality of life.

When same-sex marriage is legal in Minnesota, there will doubtless be a conscience clause that will protect churches and clergy from being forced to perform ceremonies. And rightly so. I don't want to force anyone to be part of my "special day." That day should be about having the people I love and who love and support me and my partner around. No one wants a gloomy, hateful Christian casting disapproval and condemnation on what should be a happy occasion. However, I expect that as society continues to grow and evolve (and the only good thing about this amendment is the much-needed conversation we're starting to have), those places will be increasingly isolated as more congregations become affirming and welcoming. For me, as an atheist I plan to get married in a secular space by a humanist.

I don't need to prove it to you. Go to the Smithsonian. Hell, just head to the Science Museum. The evidence is all around you. Things like amino acid racemization, the distance of starlight and the time it takes light to travel (the most distant object we've observed is 13 billion light years away), helioseismology (which puts the earth at about 4.5 billion years), geomagnetic reversals (which happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years), dendrochronology, cosmogenic nuclide dating, ice layering (which puts the minimum age of the earth at 160,000 years)... there is so much evidence, Zach. You just have to be open to considering it.

Zach, you are voting yes because you're a privileged white heterosexual evangelical Christian male.

And if you'd done your homework, you'd know that when same-sex marriage is made legal in Minnesota, pastors will not be forced to perform them or be thrown in jail if they refuse. Your arguments are so flawed and full of logical fallacies and poorly constructed suppositions that there's no point in bothering. This will come down to our day in court, hopefully before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is post is definitely constructive to your argument. Nice. I believe that student government was reaffirming (in this time when marriage is trying to be redefined) the biblical definition of marriage, not providing the definition themselves. Nice slight!

Who asked them? What are their credentials for Biblical interpretation? What is the intended goal of this announcement (scholarly, social, hearing themselves speak, etc.)? What weren't they doing when they decided to make this announcement?

Also, who today is trying to redefine what the Bible says about marriage?

Hey Ryan,
I hope all is well, first and foremost.
Student Government released this statement to reaffirm our stance on the biblical definition of marriage, as a student body, because a season of impassioned political agenda is attempting to redefine what is a religious ceremony and covenant between a man and woman under God. You had mentioned the senates' credentials were not present to make such an assumptive statement. I would argue that it is fairly obvious what God's plan for marriage is in the Bible. God creating man to be with woman (Genesis), the sin of sexual immorality (specifically homosexuality in this case- Romans 1), and the covenant created under God for marriage (Matthew 19:6) would all be clear indicators that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.
This statement was not released to "hear ourselves speak." More so, it was released in part to inform our student body of the importance of these issues that will be voted on. This year, Student Government will not be pursuing busy-body, trivial, self-initiated issues. This is ultimately part of a campaign to activate our campus in the political world. The student body thought it was important to reassert our stance on the biblical definition of marriage in light of the amendment, so we did.
I would say that the amount of conversation and information generated for those who were uninformed previously, because of the public reaffirmation, is even a pretty good justification for it.
Wouldn't you agree?

Max,

I don't know how to make this more clear. You're free to have whatever religious opinion you desire, short of doing physical harm to another human being. (I think that should extend to mental abuse, but that's another matter.) But what your holy book says about marriage has no bearing in a SECULAR, CIVIL matter. You're free to weigh in, to express your opinion, and to make your case. But the government must remain neutral in matters of religion. And this is a religious question of what "God's definition of marriage" is. You and Isaac have squashed the beliefs of other students who do not agree with your narrow-minded definition, and bullied them into silence. As Martin Luther said, "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." And you, student government and school leadership are clearly encouraging (or inadvertently threatening) your peers to do just that.

Genesis is a myth, and the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and the Trees are mere legend. It is a Bronze Age attempt to explain where we came from and why we're here, and not meant as a construct for defining human sexuality and sexual relationships. This is what happens when you blind Reason.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Your mom existed in order to give birth to you? Or written history? No way is this the same as proving the earth is 10,000 years old or billions of years old. Another great contribution, Ryan.

Why should I take their/her/your word on that? I can't see from any of your perspective. I don't know if you're lying. As far as I know, I could be God floating in vast nothingness and all of this is just an illusion I've created to keep from getting bored. Although I suppose if that were the case I would have to take some serious issues with my design.

Dan: You are free to believe what you like about marriage. You're free to belong to a religious community that regulates marriage within the confines of the faith community. But this is a SECULAR matter, and religious beliefs have no place in the crafting of civil legislation. Constitutions are about expanding and protecting the rights of citizens, not about limiting them based on one group's dislike of another. In South Africa we called that "apartheid." The fundamental question is: Does the gov't have a secular interest in banning same-sex couples from marriage? Supporters of the measure claim that it's in the interests of children, yet the amendment says nothing about limiting marriage only to couples who are able to and choose to procreate. it also claims to be pro-family, but neither does it ban divorce.

So I disagree with the notion that you "have nothing personally against people that are homosexual." I just penned an essay on MinnPost about this (http://goo.gl/XHeIQ) but I don't think it's being quite honest to say that your opposition to equality for the LGBT community is entirely objective. The government isn't trying to de-define a religious ceremony. Again, within a church ceremony you're free to define marriage however you like and ban whoever you like from getting married as membership in a faith community for adults is voluntary. But in the secular context such action is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Dan: So you're claiming that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. actually have Biblical (i.e. Christian) marriages? Or worse, that they don't have "real" marriages because you claim marriage as a Biblical institution? The sheer arrogance of your position is breathtaking.

Anonymous: As an alum of NWC who later became an atheist, I'd like to hear your story and be of help or encouragement if I can, because I can very much relate to what you're going through and where you're at, both geographically in the school and emotionally. Send me an email - david dot humanist at gmail dot com.

Joker: Yes, go ahead and laugh while the world burns. In the meantime, the rest of us are actually trying to make something of it. Go back to your magic tricks.

Again, the vote was not to vote yes or no. It was to reaffirm that we hold to the scriptural definition of marriage.

I agree! You should shut your mouth! I never want to hear anything from anyone that has anything to do with a politically charged issue! It's biased to state your opinion!

Max, it's semantics. "Holding to the scriptural view of marriage" is voting yes.

I understand that the definition is synonymous for you. It is for many people on this thread. I would disagree that a biblical foundation is the same as a political agenda. It is not semantics if their is a genuine heart behind restating something that is laid out in the Bible.

I really do apologize for your experience at Northwestern College. If you would be willing to have a conversation in person, I'd be willing to buy us hot drinks. Of every post in this thread, you are the person that I am feeling most affected by. If you are not willing to meet, then please know that I am praying for you, and my genuine hope is that I can be a better representative of Christ for people who feel the same way as you while upholding our responsibility, as Christians, to be Biblically based. This will be my last post in this thread.

I didn't realize that Leviticus 18:3, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Jude 1:6-7 were convoluted. I would have thought the translators(who have had some schooling in secular and Christian institutions) would have put more time into translation.

sorry for the sarcasm but I think God knows what he meant to say. God does not support homosexuality. He is not a homophobe. However he did use creation to tell us what he meant marriage to be. He also has messages about one man and one woman relationships throughout the Bible. If homosexual relationships are just as godly as heterosexual relationships... why does the Bible never mention them in a positive way?

Oh Zach, God can't be a homophobe because God almost certainly doesn't exist. The Bible doesn't mention homosexuality in a positive light because the Bible is a Jewish document, and the Jews at that time were obsessed with sexual purity. And blood. They killed people for having sex in the wrong way. That's how crazy they were.

But you may as well be asking me what Hermione Granger thinks about this issue, or Lord Voldemort, or Darth Vader. They're all fictional characters, along with God.

ok David I will once again ask you to prove that.... Paul who wrote about this sexual purity was a Roman citizen who became a Christian...not a practicing Jew but nice try...

Um, Zach, have you READ the Bible? Paul was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). He was a Roman citizen by birth, but he was a religious scholar first who came from a religious family, meaning that he was inculcated into the whole system that was obsessed with blood and sexual purity.

David... Once again...he converted to Christianity. He also brought his message to the gentiles. Something that Jews stuck in their traditions would not do. He was Roman by birth as well as a jew, but his conversion was to a mission minded Christianity. The two are totally different.

Now I will be done with you until you prove that God doesn't exist or that the earth is over 10,000 years old... because I have a feeling your claims are baseless and lacking evidence.

To sweeten the deal... if you prove that God doesn't exist then I will replace the vote yes sign in front of my place with a vote no one... now jump on it.

Zach,

I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist. The burden is on YOU to prove that he does. Do I need to prove that Zeus doesn't exist? Thor? Vishnu? The tooth fairy? No. One by one we abandoned belief in those superstitions as our understanding of the world expanded. Your claims are baseless and even a bit childlike. So go ahead and be done with me if you like, but know that you're on the wrong side of history, along with the Neanderthals and any other species that failed to adapt to change and grow.

Homosexuality was taboo for a God Breathed scripture? I don't think so. Once again forgive my sarcasm... but you haven't even completed an undergrad in Greek... Greek is simply a few credits of your required courses... I have had professors with their doctorates in Greek who would vehemently disagree with you...
Homosexuality was not taboo... it was common in the Roman empire(bisexuality as well) which ruled over the Jews of that time. Trajan was a gay emperor of Rome from 98 to 117 A.D. so I would check the facts on that subject being taboo.

You signed the DCC... therefore you signed a document that says you believe in the Biblical definition of marriage... and that is what stugov said

We were forced to sign the DCC after we'd already matriculated. Not exactly a reliable document as far as anybody's beliefs are concerned.

That's it exactly, Emily. People changing their minds based on facts, not holding mindlessly to ancient traditions and superstitions. Frankly, having been there, NWC is frozen in the Dark Ages along with the rest of conservative fundamentalist Christianity.

Anonymous student... you were accepted, not matriculated. Signing the DCC and the lifestyle statement along with your intent to attend the school. So you were not obligated to be at NWC before you electronically signed these statements. I went through the process.

Also why come to NWC if it is so dark ages and terrible. It is no secret that NWC is a conservative school. If you dont like it then don't attend.

Zach, two things: One, you have a habit of that. "I went through the process." Translation: "I did it, so I am an expert on the subject. I know more about this than you."

Guess what. I went through the process, too. However, I can see where the disconnect is, because it would appear that you don't know what the definition of matriculate is. So there's that.

Exactly: the existence of God is a matter of faith, and therefore it's insoluble and not on the same plane as empirical reason. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. You hit on it though: diversity is good -- of belief, opinion, sexual orientation, etc! There are plenty of Catholics who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, and we don't need Church leaders cracking down and silencing differences. This is definitely a matter of religious freedom under attack, and I think that worries both of us.

Perhaps I failed to articulate this more clearly: Zach is free to believe whatever he wants. Belief itself isn't wrong. What is wrong is forcing a belief on others who do not share the same view -- more simply stated, religious liberty ends when it tramples on civil liberty. Mostly I take a laissez-faire attitude toward religion and belief. However, when a belief leads people to mistreat or harm others, limit others' rights, or spread fear and ignorance that hinders people from living together in harmony, I speak up.

Right now I'm concerned about Christians teaching children to mistrust science and education as tools of the devil. These people do exist, and Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia is one of them (http://goo.gl/OcUJk). It's the idea that the Bible contains everything a person could ever need to know, when there is so much information to consider. Zach is free to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that we were poofed into existence by some all-powerful deity who cares which genitalia we possess and what we choose to do with it. He's not free to blind his children to scientific evidence. Similarly, he's not free to blind his children to the fact that LGBT people are no less human than he as a white heterosexual male is.

Again: religious liberty ends when it tramples on civil liberty.

The 14th Ammendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Without due process of the law."
Voting to add the Marriage Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution would be due process of the law.

Benton,

I don't care if you respect my views. If you don't stand on the side of marriage equality and equal rights for LGBT citizens here in the United States and around the world, you stand with centuries of fear, ignorance and oppression. It astounds me how people can claim to "have gay friends," yet see no problem in opposing their right to have their relationships recognized by the law, the same as any heterosexual person currently enjoys by sole virtue of being heterosexual, whether they intend to or are able to have children or not. This is not about "making Christians eat their words." This is about defeating fear and ignorance, and giving the next generation of LGBT youth the hope of one day being able to live in our society without having to look over their shoulder for fear that someone is going to abuse, hurt, kill them for being different. Ultimately, I hope to do my small part in making the world a better place for all, not just "my kind." Unless you have tried to look at the world through our eyes, you will never be able to look past your position of privilege as a heterosexual male.

Benton, by your statements, you seem to be only too interested to focus on what YOU deem to be disrespectul aspects of David's arguments, and miss the point of contention. "Enjoying life's greatest blessings" is the whole point of the opposition to this amendment. Preventing 2 consenting adults from marrying because of an alleged Biblical interpretation (especially 1 derived from an implication found in the Bible, where marriage was not only between man and wife but between man and 100 wives, who may or may not be underage and therefore unable to consent) is the very act that is preventing an individual who loves another of the same sex from the ability to "enjoy life's greatest blessings"-marriage and all of the rights thereof, provided under the law. For some, this may not be a serious, important issue worthy of passion, anger, and argument, but to the individual whose rights to "enjoy life's greatest blessings" are being VOTED upon, this is THE issue of his or her life. I presume that if we were to vote on whether you should be allowed to marry the consenting individual of your choosing, you would be somewhat angry, frustrated, and passionate about fact that the issue was even one to be decided. Should we start voting as to whether Christians should be allowed to marry--whether a Catholic should marry a Pentecostal...a Christian and a non-Christian...Perhaps we should find out what "Biblical scholars" would say about that and then create statutory law based upon that.

Actually, if we went by the principle of "it's been around for thousands of years, therefore, let's keep doing it--it's traditional and therefore, the right thing," then by that rationale, slavery, discrimination against women's property and voting rights, and polygamy would still be legal (all are found in the Bible, by the way). The state's interest in children has no relevance to marriage--using your own rationale regarding time and tradition, single parents have been raising children on their own for "thousands" of years; further, individuals have been getting married, under state law and with state licenses, and NOT having children for "thousands" of years.

Shifting the burden of proof to the minority to oppose a law, while stating that the law is valid because of how long it's been on the books, are strategies that have been deemed unconstitutional and unfair for some time. Each law should treat people equally and be Constitutional. The test is not "how does it (marriage equality) benefit society" but "what reasonable interest does a government have to limit your right to do it." An alleged Biblical proscription does not provide such reasonable governmental interest. Biological "design"--whatever that's supposed to mean--has not provided a scientific basis for arguing against marriage equality. Simply stating "children should be raised by both a mother and father" has no relevance to marriage equality.

D- thanks for your reply. You're proving my point actually - on all the issues you brought up - changing the status quo was proven to be beneficial to society. My second post responds a bit more to the other arguments, but as I stated, obviously there are couples who don't have kids and single parents out there - but marriage law is first and foremost in place to promote child rearing and stable homes for said children.

When I say biological design - I'm implying nature/evolution's design.

I know homosexuals hate this argument - as it eliminates the idea of love from marriage momentarily - but the law says nothing, and promotes nothing about marrying for love. Because of this, the law is equal to all people, as every person in this country has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The state has no interest in promoting the marriage of same sex couples because it does not benefit society.

Actually, that would be incorrect. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were created to guarantee that the majority could not take away the rights of the minority, including the right to equal protection. Again, the government has not care about whether a marriage produces children. Quite frankly, it never has, and I'm not sure why you seem to think so nor why you have such preoccupation with whether or not a marriage produces children.

Further, if one believes that a certain group of people should not have the same benefit of marrying as the majority has, simply because of irrelevant rationales for such belief, then that would be a bigotted, homophobic viewpoint. Your belief implies that you feel that such minority group is not entitled to equal treatment under the law. Currently, only heterosexuals may marry another consenting adult of his or her choosing. Homosexuals cannot under the law. You're entitled to have such viewpoint of discrimination, but you should own it for what it represents. I would almost have more respect for your opinion if you felt you had a Biblical basis for it. To come up with random arguments that would only be applicable to the existence of children--that have nothing to do with whether a marriage is legally recognizable--makes you sound less genuine. If your only qualm with marriage equality related to children, there are plenty of studies that show homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual ones.