im smiling that you asked that mark, because I found myself in some serious hot water over the abortion issue with my conservative friends this past election. not because I agree WITH abortion, but because Id rather leave it alone as opposed to get involved in the legal abortion debate. I was publicly vilified as a Bleeding Heart Liberal Pro-Choicer, all because I said in an open debate that while I do not agree with abortion as a whole on religious grounds, I understand the very precise decision of the legislature to allow a young girl to obtain an abortion without parental consent.

this is what I said (please note that it was written to a singularly Christian audience, and so the rhetoric and tone below was not intended for anyone other than people who agreed with its basic premise - sharing it here is not intended to air an abortion debate or to offend, but merely to shed light on the tone of the debate within a select (multicultural I might add) christian community):
This statement above apparently rocked my friends far and near, and I had people all over america - midwest, east, south, west - accusing me of (and I quote) a "moral lapse."

To be fair to them, their great problem is over partial birth abortion, which I, too, feel is pretty sick. I agreed with them that it was wrong and hoped they won the day on that issue, but I wasnt willing to vote Republican in order to accomplish that goal. Why? Because I, and large score of very conservative "christians" still felt there was a more paramount morality within the Democratic Party idealogy. And if some moral beliefs we had (abortion, gay marriage) lost ground as a result of some Democratic Ideals, we still felt very strongly that in the advancement of Republican Ideals we would also suffer moral losses, so the choice was not between Good and Evil as some of our Really Right friends suggest, but rather between a choice of Evils, or conversely a choice of Goods.

The question became not whether moral losses would be suffered, but which. And what I think most people do not understand is that the "which" of it is all is really the only reason many black conservatives are still Democrat.

Without getting into the minutia of the arguments, I share the above to underscore the fact that there is an entire philosophical argument currently raging in some religious communities over whose concept of morality will win the day: Democratic concepts or Republican concepts. My conscience allowed me to vote Democrat in spite of the Democratic support of partial-birth abortion; theirs did not. The above paragraphs should have explained to everyone why blacks in California could both vote for Obama, and against Gay Marriage.

With that context, I'll try to answer your question.

1. I havent really shared a real argument for/against gay marriage. I've only attempted to clarify the starting point and framework for application of the argument against gay marriage. It is from this point that one can take off the gloves and get down to brass tacks on the issues themselves.

2. You could attempt to apply this exact framework for discussion to the abortion issue. I dont, because I dont feel its as applicable, because:

a. For religion, abortion is just as morally wrong, but its effect is not as utterly pervasive. To me, its effect isnt as utterly pervasive because I may feel society is declining because women are having abortions, but I seriously doubt that allowing a woman to abort even a child at full term is going to affect the decision of another woman in another household. For Gay Marriage, however, for reasons I have already stated in prior posts, some see it as a threat to the future longevity and existence of the institution of marriage for everyone. (*I should mention here that as stated above, conservative democrats are in the minority on this view.)

b. Since its not as utterly pervasive - to me, it is one of those chosen "moral losses." Not happy to lose on that point, but there are more important things to fight for. (*The note under 2a applies here as well.)

c. As the parentheticals have suggested, another person might determine that abortion is a paramount moral issue.

Really, the general thought you could extrapolate from the Gay Marriage argument to this one is that the Abortion argument is still obviously up for debate, because it is also being aired in the court of public opinion (although from a much weaker position for conservatives).

You know I feel really bad that you even have to ask that mark. I hope by now that I have conveyed that I do think the Constitution protects people from religion.

Question:
Do you suggest that religious people seek to impose their will upon others, regardless of what the Constitution says, or in direct contradiction of the Constitution?

Imposition of Will
While I do think there is truth in that argument, I also think that it is extremely simplistic and somewhat hypocritical at base. From a bird's eye view, every voting individual seeks to impose their will, each time they vote - merely by making a decision for one thing over another.

Interpretation
Clearly we all "interpret" the world differently - even the Constitution, because if we didnt, we wouldnt have what we call "liberal" and "conservative" Supreme Court Justices, who I guarantee you each believe in their own right that their interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one.

Society not a Piece of Paper
It's 3am over this way and my screen is starting to blur, so I'm definitely not clicking on all cylinders over here, but I do hope that somewhere in the above posts I have clearly expressed that this is less about 'the Constitution" as a document, and more about the fact that society as a whole gives it its power.

For example: we can debate the current language of the Constitution til we are blue in the face, and you can cite me precedent out the wazoo. Then Congress can turn around, convene, and amend the Constitution based on public sentiment, and completely undo or destroy some long held principle or precedent. An imposition of majority public will on all of society.

For example: we can stack the Supreme Court full of conservative or liberal judges for so long that the decisions coming from them are bent one way or the other (this is what we do now), to interpret law the way we want it done. An imposition of presidential(? thus party? thus a cross segment of american?) will on all of society.

All we are is a society that has agreed to be bound and live by a set of ever-changing rules. Emphasis on the phrase "ever-changing." Those rules are under constant scrutiny and re-evaluation: first in public opinion, then in legislature, and finally in the courts (or back to the drawing board, if congress wants to supersede the court).

Everyone loves the discourse and disagreement when they have something they want to disagree with, or a law or concept they want to impose upon others (e.g. legalize marijuana). But when its their turn to lose precious ground on a prized issue, it is very insincere to then cry foul and suggest that the political or legislative process is broken, that others are cheating it somehow.

__________________
something witty goes here......