I'm not saying she's nuts or anything, just that she's not arguing on the basis of reason, but emotion. Any rational Christian (which I usually consider myself to be) should have the sense to know we DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT GETTING INVOLVED IN HOLY SACRAMENTS! Of course, these are the same people who see nothing wrong with denying Communion to a politician who opposes abortion bans of any kind. Funny thing, the only thing the bible says REMOTELY close to that is that any unfit person accepting Communion eats and drinks judgment on themselves, which in my book is between them and God (and near as I can tell that's usually how God handles such things. )

But, really, where does it end? Today we're banning gay marriage because of the bible; tomorrow we'll be telling Muslims, Jews, Hindus and every Christian denomination except the dominant one (sucks to be you, Catholics) they can't be married either, because their religious traditions don't jibe with the majority and, because they happen to be the majority (today) they've decided to retroactively make their sects doctrines the basis of US Common Law. You can't make an effective case against gay marriage without bringing religion into it; maybe when the global population was a bit less than six billion but, barring the stray asteroid or cataclysm of our own making, the human race should be self sustaining for some time regardless of whether ~10% of the populace is browbeaten into breeding.

How you feel about Christianity or gay marriage is really irrelevant to whether it should be legal. If it were my job rather than the Holy Spirits I'd be happy to convert you for the same reasons as your friend, and remain convinced that if God wanted people of the same sex to wed He wouldn't have made it nigh impossible for them to have children together. That's not said with malice toward anyone; it's a statement of what I BELIEVE to be cold hard FACT (note that is quite possible to be utterly wrong about the facts and completely unemotional, though I don't think that's the case here, obviously. ) In fact, I'll reiterate in passing that I think a key difference between Christianity and other religions is that whether one does more good than evil is also irrelevant to my faith, which I think a lot more fair because 1) everyone has done something wrong, and this perspective acknowledges that equality (and inadequacy to Gods perfect standard) and 2) it doesn't decree diametrically opposed outcomes when one person is "51% Good" and another "51% Evil. " It also puts the focus on Gods glory rather than mans; you can't "earn" your way into heaven. If someone wants unmerited Grace, it's the free gift of God to His glory; if not, no one's going to force them, and they'll get what each and every one of us HAS earned (which I don't recommend. )

Anyway, point is, I get what your friend is saying, but she doesn't seem to understand she's arguing for legislating a Christian sacrament; if she understood it in those terms I guarantee her support for bans would evaporate like a bead of water in a hot skillet. And I wasn't brainwashed by people in CT (though any time the people of CT want their Bushes back they're welcome to them, for my part ) I was born in Houston, my mother was born in Athens and my dad was born in between; I've lived all but two years of my life in TX and, lest she get the wrong idea, I was a liberal long before I got to Austin (in fact I was one of only six people to vote for Carter in our first grade mock election. ) The problem isn't that I'm a liberal, it's that I want Big Government in my church about as much as she likely wants it on her back and in her wallet. It's surprising how much power some people will cede big government as long as it's doing what they want; me, I want a government that can facilitate almost anything and DO virtually nothing on its own, because every scrap of liberty you surrender the government was paid for in blood, and will be regained no other way. So I want a government that makes resources and opportunities as widely available as possible without dictating how they're used any more than necessary (liberals used to call it "equality of opportunity, but not outcomes" before outcome based legislation became the norm. )

IF marriage is to have any legal standing in US Common Law it MUST be in a civil rather than religious capacity, because if it exists as a CHRISTIAN SACRAMENT then the government is establishing (and regulating) Christianity, which, in addition to being an awful idea, happens to be illegal already. Honestly, people, read your history books; we decided a LONG time ago we didn't want to live in a country wracked by a religious civil war every time a new executive took power, force political office holders to swear loyalty to a given church to keep their jobs (knowing that when the other side's back in power that oath required today will be used to persecute them the length of the land. ) Just... NO, OK?

If it's a civil contract, religion has no bearing in it; if it's religious, it's no longer purely a civil contract, and out of the jurisdiction of US law. The government has as much business deciding who can marry on religious grounds as it does deciding who can be ordained a minister, receive Communion or, well, practice any of the other holy Sacraments of which marriage is but one. I don't hold with my church giving me election day "voting guides" and I don't hold with my government telling me which consenting adults I can marry. Though I'll add as another aside it's downright entertaining watching supporters of gay marriage explain why polygamy (or polyandry, to be fair) should be illegal (even the bible won't help them! )