The “best” argument against proposition 8 is that it discriminates based on sexual orientation. The definition of marriage started out as the marriage between a male husband and a female wife. Now we want to change it to be the union of two consenting adults.

But that’s discriminatory as well. What if someone wants to marry a sheep or a car? I believe it was in England that a woman was married to a dolphin. In fact, Here’s the article. The wedding is not officially recognized but the fact that it isn’t shows that the state is discriminating. The dolphin has no rights to begin with so denying it the right to marry her is perfectly fine. However, she should have the right to marry whoever or whatever she likes if we’re going to say that discriminating based on sexual orientation is wrong. Back in the days of slaves it would be like saying a free person cannot marry a slave. A slave could be denied the “right” to marry a free person but if a free person choses to marry a slave they have the “right” to do so. A person without rights can benefit from the rights of those who have them.

But it’s not even just animals. Laws in various states prohibit marrying close relatives and siblings. That’s discriminatory. How can the state tell people who they are allowed to love and marry if they both consent?

The fact of the matter is, unless you remove all restrictions on marriage, it is by definition discriminatory. Proposition 8 is not about getting rid of discrimination, it’s about moving the line. If gay marriage were allowed, the definition of marriage would discriminate against fewer people. But it would still be discriminatory.

One of the “lies” that the Mormon church was putting out was that they would lose their tax exempt status if they didn’t marry gays in their church. The people who believe it is a lie have a short memory. Prior to the 1970’s the church forbid blacks from holding the priesthood. In the late 1970’s the church started allowing blacks to hold the priesthood. The church claims it had nothing to do with the possibility of losing its tax-excempt status.

However there is another example

In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Bob Jones no longer qualified for tax-exempt status because of [its] segregationist policy, so the school changed it. Blacks could be accepted if they were married to other blacks, or if they promised not to date or marry outside their race… By the time of the Supreme Court case, a decade later, the number of blacks attending the school was less than a dozen, making the ratio of whites to blacks about 550 to one.

From the vantage point of the Solicitor General’s office, the legal issue in the Bob Jones case was routine. It was a tax question.

There is a historical precident of the government punishing a religious organizating for discrimination even when that discrimination is related to religious beliefs.

So yes it is perfectly reasonable for churches to fear the beliefs of others being forced on them.

Another example is polygamy. It’s illegal and groups are threatened by the federal government for practicing it. The loophole is that it’s not illegal to have mistresses. In Colorado City the men have one wife according to the state. The rest of the “wives” are only recognized as such by the church. The state has no record of it.

That again is discrimination and an example of federal/state law intefering with the beliefs of others.

Those who call the Mormon’s liars for saying that the church will be forced to marry gays are ignorant of history. “will be forced” may be a little strong but they definitly “could be forced.”

So it’s no surprise that religious people are voting their principles because the may be forced to act contrary to their principles if they don’t.