Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

WASHINGTON (RNS) Foes of same-sex marriage are warning the Supreme Court that lifting state or federal restrictions would threaten their own economic and religious freedoms and lead to social and political upheaval.


  1. “…forcing them “to serve God or country.”

    If they were true Christians they would not serve the country at all. The bible says that “God is NOT partial, but every man who fears him and works righteousness is aceptable to Him” -Acts 10:34,35

    That does not mean AMERICANS only. Serve God. Let this wicked world alone…. But then again, “By their fruits you will know them.” IF they have to chose between God and country, they are slaving for two masters and are already divided, putting fiath in mans governments instead of Gods kingdom. They are NOT true Christians.

  2. “lifting state or federal restrictions would threaten their own economic and religious freedoms”

    Since your rights end where mine begin, this is the inevitable result of ANY change in how rights are construed. Ending slavery “restricted the economic freedoms” of slave-owners. This is a non-argument.

    “Those who disagree with the government’s moral assessment of such relationships would find themselves increasingly marginalized and denied equal participation in American public life and benefits.” – Well, yes. Just as white supremacists have found themselves increasingly marginalized and “denied equal participation” (which is their way of spinning the fact that no one takes them seriously). People with outmoded prejudices and antiquated beliefs deserve to be marginalized – those beliefs and attitudes are a choice and they can always choose to join the mainstream.

    “marriage is intended largely for having children” – then why aren’t you advocating for restricting the benefits of legal unions to only those who actually have children? Because all sane adults recognize that society is better off if people can form deep emotional bonds and strong relationships with or without children.

    “Indeed, before 2000, it had never existed in human history.” – clearly false. The Theodosian Code (342 AD) prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that *those who were so married* were be executed. Therefore, it was clearly legal and practiced up until that time. Note that it was a Christian emperor who passed the law calling for the execution of same-sex couples.

    “the court should let the national debate continue” – right, because that’s their job, to leave matters up in the air. While we’re at it let’s let the states individually decide on whether racial discrimination is okay or not, too. Doesn’t it make more sense to say “we need a decision on this matter so we can end the debate”?