Why can't they just call themselves married? Why does a Justice have to marry people in circumstances he does not believe in? Because the truth is that they want to impose their relationships on the rest of us. They want to force their beliefs down every one else's throat. Marriage has nothing to do with love, it is about mating & reproducing. Back when marriages were about property and family alliances, the divorce rate was much lower.

Then it follows that they should be able to do whatever they want? If a 17 year old girl wants to bring a 30 year old boyfriend that's okay? What about drinking and drugs? Why shouldn't those be allowed at a prom? It IS for the students after all, and even the queer chick admits the majority support the decision. She has the exact same right to attend as any other student, under the exact same conditions. The problem is, she wants to engage in activity and behavior that is not in keeping with the rules and the set of a the prom as the hosting authority - the school district - sees it. If it IS for the students, then let the students host the damn thing. They have already received a free education for up to a dozen years from that same school district, why are they owed a party too?



That is absurd. There are limits to those freedoms and they end where other people's rights begin. No one is dragging her out of her bedroom to be punished, the people who are throwing the party set for the circumstances and they are being applied equally to everyone. No one is saying she can't be a lesbian, they are saying she may not bring a same sex date and she must adhere to the dress code. The people throwing and hosting the party have every right to do so. You speak about freedom from persecution, but that is exactly what legal recognition of same sex novelty institutions will violate. People will be persecuted by being forced to give recognition and support things that violate their beliefs.
As for your retarded final assertion, you obviously seem to think I would have a problem with that. Setting aside the fact that I am a member of the most-persecuted religion in the history of my country, which once had a national-level party organized in opposition to it, where only three adherents have ever been nominated from President and in the first two incidents, their religion was made a major issue of the campaign. I would have no problem being fired from a job for my beliefs as long as that was the universal position. I would have no problem with employers being allowed to fire employees for their beliefs, if not for the fact that a great many people have already made an issue of it. That is the only reason I would protest. I have nothing against employers doing what they want with their money...as long as that principle is applied evenhandedly.