Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
He is NOT saying that because most Christians disagree that it should not become law. He is explaining that until the notion of gay marriage is widely accepted by the Christians, it won't become law because it'l never pass.
He said that legalizing gay marriage against the wishes of some christians who are against it would be unfair to those people.
The part where he mentioned being unfair to "those people" was when he was talking about the organized religion having gay marriage forced onto it by the government. It would be unfair. The government shouldn't be doing anything to anyone's religion.
Which assumes that marriage is religious, which ignores that priestly involvement being mandatory in marriage is actually quite a recent phenomenon, while the king, the first estate, having the final say over marriages.
Honestly, I seriously have difficulty imagining an Obama victory. Like, I don't think I can even picture it. A McCain victory, sure; an Obama victory? Not so much.
And I may not even believe that Obama is president until after he's given his last state of the union, in 2016, god willing.
Here, I'll paint a picture for you with words:
Obama gives a speech, most of the country finds themselves in some agreement.
McCain dies a couple weeks/years later, and people don't really care.
When did Than go from Capt. Angry to Lt. Col. Despondent?
Remember that he's bitterer too.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Because there's question over whether it's a religion or just a philosophy, so it's just up the ally for atheists if the decision on marriage is left to the religious community.
Yeah, I was just pointing out that Confucianism is far more homophobic than Christianity. One of its fundamental principles is the traditional notion of gender roles.
As a married guy living in a Confucian society (South Korea), I'll back this statement up. The "that's man's work/woman's work" shit is still on television and mass culture here. 90% of the school books that show familes at home have the mother in the kitchen, dad working outside in the office. Dramas about women usually have them in the Kitchen preparing a meal.
Young boys here are actively encouraged to NOT learn how to cook, and young men send their soon to be brides to cooking school so she'll know how to prepare all the meals the man likes before they get hitched.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, Korea, and Confucian societies are where equal rights for women went to die a slow, slow death.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
edit: What Kungfu said.
Flippy_D on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Honestly, I seriously have difficulty imagining an Obama victory. Like, I don't think I can even picture it. A McCain victory, sure; an Obama victory? Not so much.
And I may not even believe that Obama is president until after he's given his last state of the union, in 2016, god willing.
Here, I'll paint a picture for you with words:
Obama gives a speech, most of the country finds themselves in some agreement.
McCain dies a couple weeks/years later, and people don't really care.
When did Than go from Capt. Angry to Lt. Col. Despondent?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still pissed off about it. I'm just also pretty sure it's going to happen, in spite of everyone's best efforts.
I'm just aware that at this point, America is where hope comes to die.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
I don't see it as a strawman at all.
People often suggest that gay and lesbian human rights need to be vetted before the court of public opinion in order to be valid. You certainly seem to have done this.
When contrasted with the human rights of other groups, often taken for granted, people suddenly cry foul. Just like you did.
And while my viewpoint may be less than objective, the fact that you are bi-curious lends no special authority to your claim that religious groups must be placated and appeased in order to grant gays and lesbians equal rights.
Legalizing gay marriage would not force any religious group to sanctify gay marriages, nor perform them. I've stated this multiple times, and I'm getting sick of this being thrown out as an argument. This is the real strawman here.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
How so?
You're serious?
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
edit: "the fact that you are bi-curious lends no special authority..."
Spare me. You were characterizing me as a homophobe reactionary. "The enemy"? What the hell was that about? Also, was bicurious. I found out I was straight.
Especially when they have a disconnect from reality.
For McCain to win, either all the polls would have to be wrong, or Obama would have to make a stunning mistake between now and the election.
I can't see Obama doing that. People are criticizing him for not being enthusiastic enough, but he's doing the right thing. All he has to do is avoid doing something stupid, and the election is in the bag. Small target from here on in.
I, Zimmerman J. "Zimmy" Doom, of the Maine St. Dooms, fully acknowledge the possibility that I am completely wrong and that John McCain and Sarah Palin will defeat Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the Presidency of the United States on November 4, 2008.
--ZJD, SoKoC
However, while I am aware that this thing could still be anybodies game, the fact of the matter is that such fence-sitting serves no purpose for me. Like most people, I cannot be motivated to fight and argue for my candidate if I do not believe in my heart that my efforts will be rewarded. Also, I have to be aware of the fact that my perception of the race will in turn color the perceptions of others with whom I discuss politics, and thus if I want to do what is in the best interest of my candidate I need to take a position that is in his best interests. I believe he will win because I choose to, because my confidence in his candidacy is contagious, and that I'm not going to win him a single vote by viewing the glass half empty.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Claw: Sort of, yet no. It's always been religious, it's just that it rapidly became a very useful social and political tool. The latter masked the former; the former did not displace the latter.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
How so?
You're serious?
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
This is simply untrue. Civil unions and marriages are not at all treated equally in the legal code. Marriage confers numerous benefits not available to civil unions. Perhaps if you proposed eliminating the government sponsored institution of "marriage," replacing it with a broad concept of "civil unions," which encapsulated both religiously sanctified marriages and all other long term relationships between two consenting adults, more people would be on board.
Matrijs on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
You know, while it's fun to focus on A-Palings performance, I think it's worth noting how well Biden did again. He didn't come across as a bully, he kept on point and what questions I felt he was evasive on, he at least didn't make it 100% obvious that's what he was doing. I think it would have been easy for him to come out and just attack Palin, which probably would have made her turn into an even worse incoherent mess, but it would not have won him any fans (plus the Republican attack machine would have painted him as a bully etc). Instead, he merely kept to facts and figures, ignored the stupid things Palin was coming out with and made himself look very "statesmen" like.
In this performance he can only have boosted confidence in Obama picking him as his VP and the Obama/Biden ticket in general.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
How so?
You're serious?
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
This is simply untrue. Civil unions and marriages are not at all treated equally in the legal code. Marriage confers numerous benefits not available to civil unions. Perhaps if you proposed eliminating the government sponsored institution of "marriage," replacing it with a broad concept of "civil unions," which encapsulated both religiously sanctified marriages and all other long term relationships between two consenting adults, more people would be on board.
That is wrong and needs to be changed. That is also not the case here in the UK. And, as I understand, would not be the case under Obama. And that's what I've always said I supported.
edit: cite:
I'm atheist and I 100% support the Democrat stance on this one. We have a similar system here in the UK.
My fundamental argument is nothing to do with that. My fundamental argument is that the state has no business interfering with marriage, as it is religious.
Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract, and has a considerably longer history as a state-recognized relationship than a religious one. The church likes people to think it invented the institution, but it was a latecomer to the game by centuries at least (marriage predates recorded history, but appears in recorded history for some time before mention of religious marriage).
If the religious world doesn't wish to share marriage with the secular world, that's fine, but they're the ones who are going to have to find a new word for it, not us.
wrd on
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -Ming the Merciless
Trust me, my connection with reality is sadly very untenuous. That said, I am pretty drunk.
Which states will McCain win? I can't see how he can get to 270 based on the poll numbers from the past few months.
It would take a real unpredictable event at this point for McCain to win. The meltdown is pretty much a slam dunk for Obama and McCain is flailing. That said, it is pretty amazing to me that considering the circumstances, Obama isn't up 20 points.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
But there are many churches which already sanctify gay marriages, although these marriages do not carry the recognition of law.
You suggest that these churches are somehow less worthy of the right to sanctify marriages which they consider valid because other, in many cases totally unrelated churches, which hold no ecclesiastical authority over them whatsoever don't want them to.
There is no "THE CHURCH" in the US. There are many faiths, and all are equal before the Constitution.
My fundamental argument is nothing to do with that. My fundamental argument is that the state has no business interfering with marriage, as it is religious.
Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract, and has a considerably longer history as a state-recognized relationship than a religious one. The church likes people to think it invented the institution, but it was a latecomer to the game by centuries at least (marriage predates recorded history, but appears in recorded history for some time before mention of religious marriage).
If the religious world doesn't wish to share marriage with the secular world, that's fine, but they're the ones who are going to have to find a new word for it, not us.
Seriously. Every time I hear the "marriage is a religious thing" argument it makes me fume.
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Wasn't marriage historically an economic and social union long before it had anything to do with religion?
It's my understanding that they sort of developed hand-in-hand. The transactions of bride-as-property were necessary to pass down inherited property, but were usually "blessed" by the religious authority to be made contractually and permanently binding (like pretty much all rituals or major negotiations).
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Wasn't marriage historically an economic and social union long before it had anything to do with religion?
It's my understanding that they sort of developed hand-in-hand. The transactions of bride-as-property were necessary to pass down inherited property, but were usually "blessed" by the religious authority to be made contractually and permanently binding (like pretty much all rituals or major negotiations).
And all contracts and legal proceedings. The religious authority was very often also a state authority, or acting in the stead of one, and was primarily acting as a witness.
My fundamental argument is nothing to do with that. My fundamental argument is that the state has no business interfering with marriage, as it is religious.
Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract, and has a considerably longer history as a state-recognized relationship than a religious one. The church likes people to think it invented the institution, but it was a latecomer to the game by centuries at least (marriage predates recorded history, but appears in recorded history for some time before mention of religious marriage).
If the religious world doesn't wish to share marriage with the secular world, that's fine, but they're the ones who are going to have to find a new word for it, not us.
This is an angle I can get behind, but just like the word gay itself, the word marriage has changed. Not that I disagree with the point being made, but there's a line at how far you can practically go back.
I mean, you're right. But marriage means what it means now. It's just how words work. Saussure and such.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
How so?
You're serious?
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
This is simply untrue. Civil unions and marriages are not at all treated equally in the legal code. Marriage confers numerous benefits not available to civil unions. Perhaps if you proposed eliminating the government sponsored institution of "marriage," replacing it with a broad concept of "civil unions," which encapsulated both religiously sanctified marriages and all other long term relationships between two consenting adults, more people would be on board.
That is wrong and needs to be changed. That is also not the case here in the UK. And, as I understand, would not be the case under Obama. And that's what I've always said I supported.
Even as President, Obama would likely be unable to prevent the individual states from treating marriages and civil unions differently, as typically most laws dealing with the regulation of marriage are state laws, rather than federal laws. The easiest way to explain the position of most liberal Americans is to imagine "marriage" as two separate institutions: a religious marriage that you go to church to get, and a legal marriage that you get a license for from the government. While the two often overlap, they are separate. Advocates of gay marriage are generally advocating for legal marriage to be opened up to homosexual couples, rather than religious marriage. It would be unconstitutional for Congress or any other government body, states included, to attempt to interfere in religious marriage, so there's really no sense at all in worrying about churches being somehow forced to marry people.
Matrijs on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Wasn't marriage historically an economic and social union long before it had anything to do with religion?
It's my understanding that they sort of developed hand-in-hand. The transactions of bride-as-property were necessary to pass down inherited property, but were usually "blessed" by the religious authority to be made contractually and permanently binding (like pretty much all rituals or major negotiations).
And all contracts and legal proceedings. The religious authority was very often also a state authority, or acting in the stead of one, and was primarily acting as a witness.
Indeed, although the majority of the time it wasn't executing its authority in a strictly "religious" sense, it just so happened that all the authority was condensed into a single ruling class.
The fact that "marriage" evolved independently and yet virtually the same throughout nearly every distinct society and religion should stand as strong evidence that it is not a strictly religious institution, but rather a human one whose appearance happened to coincide with the establishment of institutionalized faith.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
This is an angle I can get behind, but just like the word gay itself, the word marriage has changed. Not that I disagree with the point being made, but there's a line at how far you can practically go back.
I mean, you're right. But marriage means what it means now. It's just how words work. Saussure and such.
Modern marriage is not, however, inherently religious, with many marriages performed and witnessed entirely by agents of the state, with no religious authorities.
Much like allowing women and black people access to education is unfair to white men, I imagine.
Oh, hey, fuck you. I have been nothing but comprehensive and polite thus far. I'm even sticking up late to go over this with you because I'm interested in having this discussion. I am specifically trying to address everything people are saying. I don't deserve that kind of crap.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
How so?
You're serious?
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
This is simply untrue. Civil unions and marriages are not at all treated equally in the legal code. Marriage confers numerous benefits not available to civil unions. Perhaps if you proposed eliminating the government sponsored institution of "marriage," replacing it with a broad concept of "civil unions," which encapsulated both religiously sanctified marriages and all other long term relationships between two consenting adults, more people would be on board.
That is wrong and needs to be changed. That is also not the case here in the UK. And, as I understand, would not be the case under Obama. And that's what I've always said I supported.
Even as President, Obama would likely be unable to prevent the individual states from treating marriages and civil unions differently, as typically most laws dealing with the regulation of marriage are state laws, rather than federal laws. The easiest way to explain the position of most liberal Americans is to imagine "marriage" as two separate institutions: a religious marriage that you go to church to get, and a legal marriage that you get a license for from the government. While the two often overlap, they are separate. Advocates of gay marriage are generally advocating for legal marriage to be opened up to homosexual couples, rather than religious marriage. It would be unconstitutional for Congress or any other government body, states included, to attempt to interfere in religious marriage, so there's really no sense at all in worrying about churches being somehow forced to marry people.
Yes. The notion of the government stepping in and telling a particular church how to baptise people or marry them or christen them etc. is laughably stupid. If this is your fear, abandon it. It would be mostly unthinkable, and totally illegal in any case.
Posts
No one likes a realist whose connection with reality is tenuous at best.
Edit: Than has basically said "we're gonna looooooooooooooose" since like 6 months ago.
Touché
Then you're a pretty terrible realist, guy. :P
Which assumes that marriage is religious, which ignores that priestly involvement being mandatory in marriage is actually quite a recent phenomenon, while the king, the first estate, having the final say over marriages.
Remember that he's bitterer too.
As a married guy living in a Confucian society (South Korea), I'll back this statement up. The "that's man's work/woman's work" shit is still on television and mass culture here. 90% of the school books that show familes at home have the mother in the kitchen, dad working outside in the office. Dramas about women usually have them in the Kitchen preparing a meal.
Young boys here are actively encouraged to NOT learn how to cook, and young men send their soon to be brides to cooking school so she'll know how to prepare all the meals the man likes before they get hitched.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, Korea, and Confucian societies are where equal rights for women went to die a slow, slow death.
Especially as it's utterly, completely an unrelated strawman.
edit: What Kungfu said.
Not for nothin', but I'd be careful about trying to play the "my life sucks more" card for emo-cred around here.
You might lose.
I'm just aware that at this point, America is where hope comes to die.
How so?
Yeah but than is angry and has a big Warburton and it scares me.
If his head was less Warburton I'd be all up in his shit too.
I prefer the term "optimistic pessimist." I expect the worst, but try to see the good side of it.
I need to change that. People get the wrong idea.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I don't see it as a strawman at all.
People often suggest that gay and lesbian human rights need to be vetted before the court of public opinion in order to be valid. You certainly seem to have done this.
When contrasted with the human rights of other groups, often taken for granted, people suddenly cry foul. Just like you did.
And while my viewpoint may be less than objective, the fact that you are bi-curious lends no special authority to your claim that religious groups must be placated and appeased in order to grant gays and lesbians equal rights.
-edit-
@Kungfu
Legalizing gay marriage would not force any religious group to sanctify gay marriages, nor perform them. I've stated this multiple times, and I'm getting sick of this being thrown out as an argument. This is the real strawman here.
Marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights that accompany marriage are civil rights. The same civil rights that you can get from a civil union.
The only thing missing is the religious sanctity of marriage, and how the hell is that anything to do with anybody but the church?
edit: "the fact that you are bi-curious lends no special authority..."
Spare me. You were characterizing me as a homophobe reactionary. "The enemy"? What the hell was that about? Also, was bicurious. I found out I was straight.
Especially when they have a disconnect from reality.
For McCain to win, either all the polls would have to be wrong, or Obama would have to make a stunning mistake between now and the election.
I can't see Obama doing that. People are criticizing him for not being enthusiastic enough, but he's doing the right thing. All he has to do is avoid doing something stupid, and the election is in the bag. Small target from here on in.
Trust me, my connection with reality is sadly very untenuous. That said, I am pretty drunk.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
However, while I am aware that this thing could still be anybodies game, the fact of the matter is that such fence-sitting serves no purpose for me. Like most people, I cannot be motivated to fight and argue for my candidate if I do not believe in my heart that my efforts will be rewarded. Also, I have to be aware of the fact that my perception of the race will in turn color the perceptions of others with whom I discuss politics, and thus if I want to do what is in the best interest of my candidate I need to take a position that is in his best interests. I believe he will win because I choose to, because my confidence in his candidacy is contagious, and that I'm not going to win him a single vote by viewing the glass half empty.
Which states will McCain win? I can't see how he can get to 270 based on the poll numbers from the past few months.
This is simply untrue. Civil unions and marriages are not at all treated equally in the legal code. Marriage confers numerous benefits not available to civil unions. Perhaps if you proposed eliminating the government sponsored institution of "marriage," replacing it with a broad concept of "civil unions," which encapsulated both religiously sanctified marriages and all other long term relationships between two consenting adults, more people would be on board.
In this performance he can only have boosted confidence in Obama picking him as his VP and the Obama/Biden ticket in general.
See, being wrong all the time doesn't mean that Puck can't predict things.
It just means umm
edit: cite:
Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract, and has a considerably longer history as a state-recognized relationship than a religious one. The church likes people to think it invented the institution, but it was a latecomer to the game by centuries at least (marriage predates recorded history, but appears in recorded history for some time before mention of religious marriage).
If the religious world doesn't wish to share marriage with the secular world, that's fine, but they're the ones who are going to have to find a new word for it, not us.
It would take a real unpredictable event at this point for McCain to win. The meltdown is pretty much a slam dunk for Obama and McCain is flailing. That said, it is pretty amazing to me that considering the circumstances, Obama isn't up 20 points.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
But there are many churches which already sanctify gay marriages, although these marriages do not carry the recognition of law.
You suggest that these churches are somehow less worthy of the right to sanctify marriages which they consider valid because other, in many cases totally unrelated churches, which hold no ecclesiastical authority over them whatsoever don't want them to.
There is no "THE CHURCH" in the US. There are many faiths, and all are equal before the Constitution.
Seriously. Every time I hear the "marriage is a religious thing" argument it makes me fume.
It's my understanding that they sort of developed hand-in-hand. The transactions of bride-as-property were necessary to pass down inherited property, but were usually "blessed" by the religious authority to be made contractually and permanently binding (like pretty much all rituals or major negotiations).
Thinking you are so good at predicting things is the reason we are in this financial crisis.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Exactly.
And all contracts and legal proceedings. The religious authority was very often also a state authority, or acting in the stead of one, and was primarily acting as a witness.
I mean, you're right. But marriage means what it means now. It's just how words work. Saussure and such.
Rusted-on voters.
The Republicans could select a mongoose as their candidate, and they'd still get 30-40% of the vote.
Even as President, Obama would likely be unable to prevent the individual states from treating marriages and civil unions differently, as typically most laws dealing with the regulation of marriage are state laws, rather than federal laws. The easiest way to explain the position of most liberal Americans is to imagine "marriage" as two separate institutions: a religious marriage that you go to church to get, and a legal marriage that you get a license for from the government. While the two often overlap, they are separate. Advocates of gay marriage are generally advocating for legal marriage to be opened up to homosexual couples, rather than religious marriage. It would be unconstitutional for Congress or any other government body, states included, to attempt to interfere in religious marriage, so there's really no sense at all in worrying about churches being somehow forced to marry people.
Indeed, although the majority of the time it wasn't executing its authority in a strictly "religious" sense, it just so happened that all the authority was condensed into a single ruling class.
The fact that "marriage" evolved independently and yet virtually the same throughout nearly every distinct society and religion should stand as strong evidence that it is not a strictly religious institution, but rather a human one whose appearance happened to coincide with the establishment of institutionalized faith.
Yes. The notion of the government stepping in and telling a particular church how to baptise people or marry them or christen them etc. is laughably stupid. If this is your fear, abandon it. It would be mostly unthinkable, and totally illegal in any case.