All your response tells me is that you didn't take my question very seriously. Graven images means idolotry, as in bowing down to false idols (unless you are Amish and take a stricter interpretation). That commandment means don't put any other gods before God.

Many blessings, Jennifer

Relax, religious freedom isn’t being threatened when gay people have equal rights with straight people. When religious organizations choose to participate in public life and public services, they are subject to public laws. There is nothing in the Catholic faith that requires the church to place adoptive children. The secular aspects of faith groups are indeed subject to secular law. Same with photographers. Ironically, the New Mexico photographer is violating the Ten Commandments prohibition against making graven images, so it’s a stretch to claim religious discrimination when you’re violating your faith of your own free will. In addition, I suspect the New Mexico photographer would gladly photograph a ceremony involving a person on his second marriage (committing biblical adultery) or the wedding of a non-virgin bride.

Christians, in particular, have become very biblical when it comes to homosexuals, but appear willing to be quite unbiblical for anyone else. Very suspicious!

* * *

Good points, Jennifer.

The topic of religious liberty is not just about churches, as your examples illustrate. It is about the freedom of conscience of individuals and their religious-based organizations. Indeed, freedom of conscience is a direct concern for the irreligious, too.

On one hand we have the marriage issue with its many interconnected implications for all of society. It begins with what makes marriage, marriage. It hardly seems conducive to social peace for the Government to set itself against the major religions in an effort to marginalize the core meaning of marriage as "bigoted".

On the other hand we have this peculiar sectarianism of gay identity politics which seeks to impose its supremacy, through Government force, on all of society. That begins with group identity superseding freedom of conscience. For that project, marriage is just a political vehicle to that end.

The Rabbi isn't talking strictly about the bill in Britain. He also isn't talking about theoretical future events. "when Roman Catholic adoption agencies are forced to close because they do not place children for adoption with same-sex couples..." (from the article above) is here, in the US, in Massachusetts. Why didn't they create a clause so that Catholic adoption agencies could continue to be consistent with their beliefs and still conduct adoptions?
What do you think of the photographer in New Mexico who was fined $6000 by a judge for turning down a lesbian couple to photograph their commitment ceremony.
How about Yeshiva University? Crystal Dixon?
Religion isn't imposing itself on the state, the state is imposing itself on religion.

But the problem that the SSMers have helped identify in this discussion, is that they agree (even if reluctantly in some instances) that it is reasonable to presume that a gay judge is personally against the CA marriage amendment.

That presumption could be completely correct, and judge could still perform impartially in a trial.

That presumption could be completely incorrect, and the judge could still perform partially in a trial.

However, what we do have with Judge Walker is a judge who has performed impartially and, according to the SF Chronicle, who is openly-secretly a gay man.

Has personal bias interfered with his performance in a trial in which he has chosen to conduct an investigation, from the bench, into the personal motivations of the defendants in search of personal animus against gay persons, such as openly-secretly gay judges? That cannot be dismissed out of hand since it is highly plausible, even based on SSM argumentation itself as per the anti-8 litigators approach during this particular trial.

* * *

I have asked a fair question that has not been answered by SSMers. Emma has come the closest when she conceded that it is safe to presume that gay people would not have voted "to take away their own equality under the law."

The anti-8 litigators are framing their case in just that way, too. It is not about marriage, but about gayness.

You, Dexter, like Emma and other SSMers, have not said if you can come up with good reasons for a gay person to be in favor of the CA marriage amendment.

I may be mistaken, but that is because you can't think of good reasons that would convince a gay person to agree with the amendment.

You probably consider yourself to be a reasonable person. And well-versed on the subject. Someone who is very empathetic with how gay people feel about this.

So, in your view, is it reasonable to presume that a gay person is against the amendment?

That being gay is a very strong predictor of being against the amendment?

I anticipate that your answers are yes, it is reasonable -- very reasonable -- and, yes, it is being gay is a very strong predictor.

Right?

* * *

Let me know if these are your answers and if you agree with what I actually said in this comment. Then we might proceed to the implications.

And, contrary to your mischaracterization, the plaintiffs don't dictate to the Judge.

He had no choice! This was part of the plaintiff’s claim: that anti-gay animus motivated putting a referendum on the ballot. He has to determine if the plaintiff’s claim is true or false. As the US Supreme Court noted in Roemer v. Colorado, animosity toward a minority cannot be the foundation for the crafting of a law..

That's not an actual answer, Emma, it is a repeated evasion. You don't care about it. Why?