Bleh

[Burtsplurt]

I'd imagine his views on atheists are pretty similar to his father's, i.e. "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." If anything, George W. seems to be worse. He doesn't appear too keen on secularism.

I don't like the way he refers to "the people" when, essentially, he's just voicing his own views. When he uses that phrase, it seems to imply that homosexuals aren't people.

[Peegee]

"The people" refers to the citizentry. Judges are imposing legalised homosexual marriages on both non-homosexual people (they have to accept it as legal) and homosexual people (they have to accept it as legal). It's not implying anything negative as far as I can tell.

Objectively speaking there seems to be a progression towards accepting homosexuality, and if that is truly the case, then there doesn't seem to be a reason to think that it shouldn't be "legalised". Homosexuals are humans the last time I checked (which I haven't), and if humans can be married under law, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's just been conventional to have a male and female marry.

Incidentally is it okay for a homosexual male and homosexual female to marry each other in whichever states disallowing homosexual marriages?