but both have huge overlapping issues
Of course they do. So does nearly everything.
The only chink in your armor!
Considering the historic influence of the leading casts over the 400 years in the new world, the religious influence in these matters can not only be not denied, it is unmistakably obvious:
Inquisition and Puritans...owe...and religion has nothing to do with our traditions?
First, I did not say that religion has nothing to do with our current traditions. I agree with you that it does. However, you say that as if that fact makes it incompatible with disagreeing about the traditional definition of marriage. Long before there were Jews and Christians, there were marriages. And they were one male and one female to the largest extent. The fact that we can find evidence of tiny fractions of populations where some other arrangement was the norm only shows that the norm itself was indeed one male and one female. So by 'tradition', I do in fact mean pretty much all of human history to the extent that we can determine.
Second, regardless of how we came to our current definition of marriage - whether by recent religious influence or simply by the tradition of all of human history - here we are. Marriage in the USA has meant one man and one woman since we began as a nation. Some argue (and I am one of them) that asking for same-sex marriage is not about the rights of homosexuals to be together, but about the redefinition of a traditional union, one which is at the core of our society.
I suppose it is possible. But usually the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are those of religious nature.
Again, I agree with you that quite often they probably are. I would follow that up with 'so what'? Again, people have the right to make voting decisions based upon anything they like, including their religious beliefs.
State the damage they do. I am sure we can find enough examples of the opposite, along with the damage done by tradition couples.
I won't state the damage they do, because that would be silly. I have an opinion and a vote, and so do you. I believe that same-sex marriage does damage to society. I don't have to prove it, it's not up for debate, and there is no trial by which if I lose, I don't get to feel that way or vote that way anymore. Again; you seem to want my opinions and my vote to be based on some standard you set - for example, if I state the reason I feel that same-sex marriage damages society and you scoff at it, then I lose and can't vote that way anymore. It doesn't work that way, so I won't engage in that sort of thing.
True enough, but usually when state doctrine is crafted after the ideas of an ideology driven group, civil liberties of those not in the group are generally infringed upon.
That's what we have safeguards in place for thankfully. But some are slow to catch on.
That is why we have a Supreme Court. That is their job. The people vote without concern for whose rights they are infringing on - why should they care? I mean anyone, not just on this issue. If I think pot-smoking is a bad thing, I'll vote against it. If that's violating someone's inalienable right to blow a doobie, too bad, so sad. I don't know and I do not care. Nor should I have to. My responsibility is to vote for the society I want, not the one you want or the one that is fair, righteous and just. The Supreme Court's job is to ensure that the laws my vote helps create don't infringe on the rights of others, and I, as a citizen of this nation, have agreed that this is proper. If I vote against pot, and the Supreme Court says people have a civil right to toke away, then there it is. But it is not prior restraint on me. I vote for what I want. I do not care what you or anyone else wants. Why would it be any other way?
Ahhh, but again safeguards! So the minority is not thrown under the bus in favor of the majority. Ingenius frame work that constitution is!
I think you misunderstand the Constitution. The Constitution does not care one whit about the rights of the
minority. It only cares about the civil rights of
citizens. Majority, minority, it doesn't matter. If the majority vote to make it mandatory that everyone pull up their damned pants, and the Supreme Court does not find a civil liberty right being infringed, then that's the law. There will be a minority that is upset by this - and that is just too darned bad. Minority does not mean you get special rights. Minority means you get the same rights everybody else gets. If you do not have a 'civil right' to do thus and so, then too bad if you're the minority.
I really think a lot of people in the USA think that the job of our government is to make things fair for everyone. It's not. Our laws are not fair and they're not supposed to be fair. They are supposed to be applied to everyone regardless of majority or minority status, and they can't infringe on our civil liberties. That is all. If the minority gets it's panties in a bunch, well, it sucks to be them. That is how it works. No fair at all; too bad.
