Blade,
Hey Doc, just were did the "separation of Church and State" come from.. It is not in the constitution or any legal documents of the government.
Fair enough question - but you appear to not understand what is in the U.S. Constitution.
Try this:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html - which site lists the original language of the Constitution and its amendments.
In modern journalistic shorthand, this amendment is called the "Separation" clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the clause that says we can't establish a religion - and this term in this context specifically means we CANNOT declare Christianity or any specific denomination thereof as the "official" religion of the USA. Which means that we cannot officially recognize laws of a specific religion as being the laws of the USA. We can, of course, pattern our laws after those religious laws that make sense.
"Thou shalt not kill" - makes sense, so we have laws about the right to life. "Thou shalt not steal" - makes sense, so we have laws about property rights. "Thou shalt not covet" - is unenforceable, so we have no laws on wanting something that isn't yours.
Where this religion vs. secular law comparison becomes an issue is that religious attempts to deny marital rights conflicts with the "Due Process" clause:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Denial of marital rights comes through the "liberty" clause, but also comes more strongly through the updated amendment:
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.
The bugaboo here is the "equal protection" clause - which means you can't treat gays differently than you treat non-gays. That "No State shall ... abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens..." clause doesn't help your position either, since the first clause in that paragraph says that if you were born here or naturalized, you are a citizen. If that interpretation is correct, this clause in isolation would only allow your religious types to discriminate against gay illegal aliens. (However, there are treaties preventing that small issue from becoming a reality.)
Blade, I will state this very carefully: You might be the nicest guy in the world if we actually saw the way you treat people, but most of us can ONLY go by the words you have posted here. Please understand that I am reacting to your choice of words and do not condemn you as a person. I do, however, condemn the positions you have published in this thread. Since you had a choice in what you would post, that condemnation must at least slightly apply to you. (Unless, of course, you claim that your words were all divinely inspired - which doesn't imply anything nice about your source of inspiration.)
I said what I just said because I can hate the words yet forgive the speaker. (Sound familiar?)
