[risk]

There are plenty of secular reasons not to redefine the word "marriage." We don't need to build a theocracy to fight the people who would tear down our republic. Until the tyranny of the minority became politically correct, it would have been unthinkable to have men marrying men or women marrying women, let alone manufacturing children for these "unions."

Those would would tear up the definition of our democratic society for the lusts and predilections of a few are the real threats to the social fabric. We don't need anything new, we just need to ostracize the anarchists hiding behind their false (and rarely held) ideals, and berate them for their depravity and their lack of judgment.

This is equally a secular issue as well as a religious one. Anyone who says that it's the issue of separating church from state that prevents us from dealing with it are part of that tyranny of the minority.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It's not about a theocracy. It would still endorse freedom of religion. If you're an atheist who believes in moral community standards (not necessarily legislated, but not outlawed by government either) and the right of the people to make their own laws, then join up. It's just a back to the basics idea. It's not about legislating Christianity. I would be firmly against that. But religious expression would not be banned and labeled coercive, even in the public square.

[Frapster]

Those would would tear up the definition of our democratic society for the lusts and predilections of a few are the real threats to the social fabric. We don't need anything new, we just need to ostracize the anarchists hiding behind their false (and rarely held) ideals, and berate them for their depravity and their lack of judgment.

Depravity? In a secular system you cannot use such words. A depraved act is defined in context of moral absolutes. In the absence of moral absolutes a depraved act becomes an 'unacceptable' act and that of course can be redefined over time.

I personally think seceding is just the kind of thing to make things worse - not better.

[johnb838]

We need to try some simple civil disobedience. In Redwood California, for example, the ACLU has managed to cow the city government into removing the cross from the city seal. Now, why can't every automobile owner in the city place a sticker of the OLD seal on their automobile. And why couldn't the seal be placed anonymously all over the place? Put so many up that it doesn't matter what the CITY has on their seal, or what the ACLU wants, it's swamped by what the people want.

And in Alabama, why can't the citizens post signs with the Ten Commandments everywhere around and within the courthouse. Why couldn't they have chained themselves to the monument?

There are plenty of things that could be done. For myself, I'm going to the Rally for America on Monday, and I'm bringing my checkbook.

[TradicalRC]

This is equally a secular issue as well as a religious one. Anyone who says that it's the issue of separating church from state that prevents us from dealing with it are part of that tyranny of the minority.

Sorry to burst your secular bubble but the problem IS secularism. That fact that you even use a phrase like "separation of church and state" which is not in the Constitution just shows how well the libs have succeeded in framing the debate. To paraphrase Nixon: "We are all secularists now."