If it can be justified through non-religious means, then the law itself can be described as not being religiously motivated. Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. And it's not through lack of trying, just look at any of the recent court cases.

> There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs.

Sure there is. You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution.

> But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't.

The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.

Yes it can. Someone against gay marriage may make a point that marriage is a framework for raising children and that children have the right to parents of both genders, for example. You may feel that it shouldn't be justified that way, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be justified that way by others.

> You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution.

Morality is enforced on others all the time, frequently in the US. Sometimes it's more religiously informed, other times less so. Most people are religious, and hence most people's morality is informed by their religion.

> The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.

Gay marriage may be black and white in 2050, but it isn't now for most people - that's why they voted against it. Women's suffrage is a black and white issue now, but it certainly wasn't at the time.

They are significant changes with how we, as a society, live, and while you may not struggle with it, other people may - especially older people, that doesn't mean they should be punished.

Eich has convictions that are typical of his age and religious viewpoints. I don't agree, but I do understand and he is allowed to have those viewpoints.

Note: since this post has the HN 'controversial' flag set, I can't reply readily - this post took a few hours to be able to send, so this will be my last post in the thread.

Thanks for being pleasant, even if we disagree.

There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.

You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely.

However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.

Under the US constitution, this is blatantly false. See, for example, the First through Fourth Amendments, which place restrictions on what sorts of laws can be created.