Perhaps the archbishop could be this very saint? Saint Salvatore, the saint of unfounded percecution and hate.

If societies don't "tug" at threads, they don't grow and progress. The end of slavery, civil rights for minorities, equal rights for women, tolerance for Jews, child protection laws and so much more are all the result of tugging at threads.

A society is not some steady-state entity that came into existence fully formed and unchanging. It is a living creature that evolves and adapts. A society that doesn't change is dead or soon will be. Considering the challenges that American society has met over the past century, same-sex marriage barely registers on the radar.

A bunch of bs that ignores this threads destructiveness.Oh and our society is changing.It'll be led by a transgender anchor baby some day.YAY! Yes,we're changing this country in so many GOOD ways,eh?

Please explain how same-sex marriage is "destructive"? Opponents all claim that same-sex marriage is detrimental, but they never explain why. If you can't explain it, your claims are irrelevant.

When it comes to disturbing the status quo, universal sufferage and the invention of the birth-control pill both had far greater impacts on our society (especially if you were a male WASP who was used to being in charge), but we adapted and improved. Unlike many people, I am not afraid of the future.

left you mean

I'm sorry that you don't think that it is news. Many of us, however, believe that it is important to know what is going on in the world.

scripture was written by people and is always interpreted by people and the core message of your religion is tolerance and love, which is a message I can easily agree with it's the one the God and Goddess always give to humans. LOVE is one of the most precious things in the univerese I don't see how telling two adults that their form of love is wrong does anyone any good.

what is being ignored here is the overwhelming majority of Americans reject same sex marriage.

WRONG. A majority of Americans actually support gay marriage:

A majority of Americans — 54% — say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, while 42% are opposed, according to a CNN/ORC International Survey released Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/majority-americans-support-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-poll-101314711.html

But that really doesn't matter, since we are not a country of majority rule, and civil rights cannot be voted on.

Perhaps your perception is influenced by your environment. If you really believe that propaganda, try living in other areas of the country - not SFO. Unless there are a majority of unwed couples living together without marriage in this country, which I doubt, the percentage in favor of formal marriage for same sex couples is probably much lower.

Erin - Your 54% aren't going to go to bat for you. They lack passion for the issue. It is ICKY to them for obvious reasons. Chief Justice Berger said it best ---

"To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."^[

For these relationships to take place in privacy (out of sight and out of mind - heck, Judge Blackstone called them, "infamous crime against nature", "worse than rape", and "a crime not fit to be named") is bad enough for many, but to endorse these relationship and give them dignity with the word "marriage" is repulsive to many - thus your resistence.

Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots. 478 U. S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men...The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character. Far from possessing "ancient roots," ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code...The Nation's laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.

Casey,supra, at 851--which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education--and Romer v. Evans,517 U. S. 620, 624--which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals--cast Bowers' holding into even more doubt...In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case's reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.

Bowers' rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in BowersJusticeStevens concluded that (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003)

And yet again I remind you that you don't own the word "marriage". If you don't approve of same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Erin - Your 54% aren't going to go to bat for you. They lack passion for the issue.

Of course they lack passion. They're not being whipped into a frenzy by lies and misinformation, as the far right does. As a result, they're far less likely to visit the polls. The right-wing, on the other hand, has found the issue to be an effective way to improve the turnout for their side. If they hadn't hit on same-sex marriage, they would have invented something else.

How does love ever doom anyone? Seriously? Love and tollerance are always tools of good, hate and bigotry always tools of evil. it's through love and understanding that we as humans can reach the god and goddess hatred and bigotry drive you in the opposite direction.

And yet it is the stupid, hateful things you conservaturds say that helps the cause of same-sex marriage.

Is conservaturd a stupid and hateful thing to say?

I say the same about the right wing and forcing your values and your ideas of tradition on the rest of us. Personally any time someone mentions tradition in a political discussion I tune them out as tradition has nothing to do with anything.

Erin seems very comfortable calling names and being sarcastic but let her ox get gored and she is the first to fire back and scream discrimination.

Because the catholic church meddles in secular affairs, such as civil marriage. The next time that a church speaks out on legislation that doesn't impact its operations (such as civil marriage), it should lose its tax-exempt status.