“So, I ask those who want to fight to protect the First Amendment to think about what you’re really fighting for: is it the right or for your own beliefs?”

That has often been asked of Christians: i.e. “You want prayer in public schools, but do you want the (Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/insert group) to have the same privilege?” The fact is, the answer or me is ‘No.’ Some faiths do include prayer to the God I worship, but others do not, and I certainly don’t want those prayers being required of students, even (especially) as “multiculturalism.”

I wish that everyone shared my faith, worshiped my God, and reared their children to follow my faith. It’s just not that way. It seems that “freedom of religion” is best protected by “freedom from religion.”

Am I any better than those who pushed the Christian God out of public schools yet see no wrong with allowing children to try the daily prayer during visits to a mosque? I just don’t think there is any middle ground here. Is that what the 1st Amendment was really intended to do?

Does non-specific prayer really establish religion? There are ways of wording such moments to keep it authentic but non-specific. Just holding silence and centering is a form of prayer for some :-)

We all know liberals aren’t interested in freedom of religion. They’re only interested in freedom from Christianity, which is NOT in the Constitution.

Heck, even Jefferson used three different names for God in the Religious Freedom Act he penned while governor of Virginia.

Personally, I’m an atheist. But I have fought and will continue to fight for the free exercise of religion in this country. And not the “everybody but Christians and Jews” approach of progressives.

No. Because many societies have marriage that are not religious. Thus, anyone can get married. The only difference would be that it doesn’t matter to the government. This would be for both straight and gay couples, religious and non-religious couples.

Hence, agreements between the individuals themselves regarding their rights would govern when it comes to state enforcement. What you call your commitment is your decision, not the government’s.

Why is a marriage certificate important? Because it is the piece of paper you file with the state that gives you all these rights and obligations under the law. If the state no longer is involved with marriage, then the marriage certificate loses its importance. You can still have the commitment without the certificate.

The government should not be the thing you look towards to validate your relationship. Isn’t this what same-sex marriage proponents argue? “You can’t tell me who I can love and who I can marry.” Well, then fine. If no one’s marriage is recognized, then the state can’t tell you who you can marry because it won’t care.

Which goes into the next point that you can still be a family without the government recognizes the “foundation” of the family (i.e. “married parents”). Parents will still be responsible for the welfare of their children, as it ought to be.

Can’t answer your question about meaningless “non-religious marriages” because it’s based on an assumption I didn’t make.

Divorce? Again, that should be dealt with by individual agreement. It happens now even with marriages, for example – prenups and other agreements made during marriage.

The family as a unit is more than just whether the mom and dad are married. The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of the children that can be separated from “divorce” proceedings. This is obvious by the fact that there are many procedures already in place regarding the children of unmarried couples now. So, not much would change.

I don’t need the government to validate my relationships. And there are mechanisms available to me to ensure that the people I care about are taken care of without having to rely on things outside contract, trust, and wills law.

I am not saying that my way is the “right” way, but it’s the clearest way, to me, of getting everyone the same rights and obligations under the law, as is meant by equal protection.

Further, if the state removes itself from marriage, what then of divorce? How will the disollution of a family be delt with when there is no state interest in the family as a unit?