Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Abandons Gay Rights Bill
andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination" of the other usual suspects. Odd, given their previous accolades from the GLBT community, and their prior public support for the bill."
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary security holes in their products.
Seriously, though, this is a MAJOR issue...Microsoft withdraws its support on a subject it's been championing for years, becuse of threats from one rabidly evangelistic, gay-hating preacher??? Just what exactly does Ken Hutcherson have on Bill anyway? For the life of me, I don't understand why Bill didn't just tell him to fuck off. He should have ordered that Ken be dragged out back and shot (fun fact: it's legal for him to do that in Redmond). But no...he just caves, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the consumer market, and Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. Almost.
It's going to be interesting to see how Microsoft wriggles out of this one...although I would have much rather they called Ken's bluff...the 'boycott' would have been even more interesting to watch.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Followed by
An Apple a day keeps the bigot away?As much as I am for civil rights and gay marriage, this is inflammatory. Just because Microsoft changed their stance from pro to neutral (not against), this makes them bigoted? I don't buy that. I don't buy that at all.
This is the same kind of black and white reasoning that George W. Bush uses. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Just because someone wants to back away from the battle, doesn't mean all of a sudden that they're on the side of the religious right.
I know it's in-fashion to bash Microsoft on this site, but the fellow who wrote this article takes any sort of GBLA equality achievements with a grain of salt. Kind of like giving a donation to a charity the first time around, and being called stingy for not doing so every time.
Sure, it's disappointing that they backed off. Sure, I hope they change their mind, and I hope plenty of people call them. But to call them bigoted for turning neutral (and not against) is simply going too far.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Anyone else read this as Microsoft Abandons Gay Bill?
Windows is still gay.
That Microsoft did this actually this was fairly predictable, even though I too am a strong advocate of gay rights.
Regardless of TFA says, what I think happened is that there is a some major customer of Microsoft software is strongly anti-gay rights (like the Bush run federal government or a large corporation or a major customer who allies itself with the religious right extremists mentioned in TFA) told Microsoft that they wouldn't purchase X 10s of thousands of copies of Office if Microsoft undermined their anti-gay political policies / laws.
Microsoft wants to be known as socially responsible, but faced with a reduction of revenue, their greed took precedent and they became non-political on this issue. Of course they can't publicly admit this backroom concession.
Surely no one here would be surprised that Microsoft went for the money before social responsibility. Heck most companies would do the same thing if enough money was at stake.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
...Mac OS X as a threat (rightly, in my opinion), so they are now attacking the problem at the source.
Odds are dropping support for this bill was necessary to get support for a bill they really want passed (anti-open source, take over the world, etc.).
What bothers me is that one corporate entity seemingly has so much influence over the legislative process. Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry.
I understand the RIAA/MPAA and Copyright legislation, but Microsoft and Gay Rights? WTF?
Now, instead of "Write Your Congressman!" are we supposed to call MS Tech Support?
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
People can be right assholes about this. Having been told to my face by my manager "look, we'd really love to keep you on but I'm afraid there's no legal protection to you if we fire you over your homosexuality, so we're forced to let you go. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there's ANYTHING we can do for you."
And you thought Microsoft were the kings of doublespeak & twisted convoluted logic.
Unfortunately, legal protections can only go so far. If someone wants to fire an employee because they don't like the employee's partner, then they'll find a reason quickly enough.
Now I'll listen to the zealots ticking off the reasons "M$ is teh suxx0rz" and including "they hate fagz" as well, like most of they care.
I have to wonder why this is on the Slashdot front page, and why it's not followed by a list of companies like IBM, Novell, Sun and Red Hat and what their attitude is towards gays and lesbians.
But wait, actually I don't.
The full article can be found here:l
http://www.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/feature.htm
I'm not sure I understand how a corporations support, or lack there of, for social political issues is relevant..
I suppose this is analogous to Henry Ford's philosophy for why he paid his workers well, in some respects, but Henry Ford didn't throw his weight behind legislation and bills for workers, did he?
i think seperation of corporation from government is more important than the seperation of church and state in some respects. Who cares what bills or legislation they do or don't support. I think a company's best influence on society can be made through their own internal HR and resource practices..
i don't know, seems a bit silly to me.
okay.... i'll ask....
what the hell does a software company have to do with promoting gay rights? i don't remember any questions to that effect the last time i installed windows...
*hands up in the air..*
*rolls eyes..*
*walks away...*
Of course. They're worried about competition from lesbian linux.
The truley amazing thing about this is that MS is scared of someone. Just think about that for a second. The biggest software company in the world, with a monopoly on the desktop and office suite markets scared of someone. Anyone.
It makes one wonder if there is something rotten in Redmond.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
I take it you never saw the movie "Philadelphia" ?
Let's say you have a picture of your partner on your desk. You might be told that personal pictures are "inappropriate"... even though others have pictures of their wives or husbands on their desks. You might be passed over for promotion, get your hours cut, or fired for "poor performance" or "poor attitude."
Sure, you can be gay at work without anyone knowing... if you never talk about your personal life... and you laugh along with everyone else when someone makes a "faggot" joke... and you express the same level of admiration for this week's actress or calendar model of choice... and you never refer to your partner in any way that sounds like you aren't "just friends"...
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
You take that back! You take that back right now! How DARE you insult homosexuals like that!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Gay customers buy a lot of computers, and they tend to be cultural trend-setters or bellweathers, i.e. the people who Microsoft is trying to attract from Apple.
Also, large companies have a real interest in ensuring that their homebase becomes a culturally vibrant area which attracts professionals and creative types. Gay-friendly laws encourage cultural vibrancy and improve the hiring pool, since people won't live in cities with a reputation for intolerance. Just look at Procter & Gamble's opposition to the Ohio anti-gay constitutional amendment.
(Although, being based in Cleveland, P&G had a little more incentive than MS...)
Yeah, I know that's not the best example in the world, but I meant that to demonstrate the millions of ways this could turn into a lawyer-friendly fiasco in record time. If you extend insurance benefits to gay partners (despite their current lack of legal status), do you have to extend it to unmarried straight partners as well? Do gay couples have to file their taxes together, or can they keep the huge tax benefits of filing singly, and if the latter, isn't that discrimination against unmarried straight couples? Do religious groups have to hire gay people even if they are strongly against it? Accept gay volunteers to non-paid positions?
Honestly, either go with gay marriage (or civil unions or some other process of establishing a legal basis in a relationship) or forget these stupid halfway laws that can't possibly be fairly enforced.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Atleast people are allowed to be gay in USA. In India a court in New Delhi declared being gay a crime punishable by law.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:
(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)
Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.
All his parishoners should be ashamed.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The biggest problem with that argument is that there aren't enough people (normal or otherwise) looking to adopt kids. You might not think having a gay couple as foster parents is "normal", or even good, but you'd have a hard time convincing an informed person that growing up in an orphanage is better.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Christian-bashing was getting lonely as being the only socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country.
Guess what? Foster kids are like any other kids. What they need is what any other kid needs, they just need more of some things if they are older because they have been raised by people who didn't want them or weren't fit to have them. What makes homosexuals any less fit to provide that? What makes homosexuals abnormal? Answer: only your bigotry.
Want some supporrting evidence? Straight people have kids that grow up to be gay. I'm not talking about abused children here either. But, basically your whole thought process is predicated upon the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals, which is an inherently prejudiced concept. YOU ARE A BIGOT. YOU HAVE NO HIGH GROUND.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
100 posts in, and you still haven't given the obvious answer to this!
What does he have on Bill? Well, when the head of MS starts desperately following bizarre orders from Evangelicals, you realize he's gotta be looking for allies. My guess is, his contract is expiring soon, and he's looking for a loophole.
Now, we know Satan's contracts are even tighter than MS's, so Bill's trying to get some extra-judicial help. That's all.
--LWM
I was talking with my brother in law, who works in a car shop. Somehow the topic of VW came up, and he made an interesting comment:
We had a bit of a laugh over that - finding that one big honking exception to a stereotype can usually blow someone's bubble pretty quick.
Makes you wonder if MS doesn't realize that there's an untap market in the Gay and Lesbian community by continuing to show their support.
I guess what strikes me odd about the whole story is that for 12 years, MS has supported the Gay and Lesbian community, even winning awards for their support. They gave their support to a bill that basically says "Just like you can't discriminate against people for their gender, religion, ethnic background, or favorite M&M, you can't discriminate if they are a guy who likes to get it on with another guy, or a girl who thinks other girls are 'teh sexy'".
Then, one guy pops up, says "You know, God hates fags, and if you support this bill then we're going to tell the other Christian groups not to buy Microsoft."
As a Christian myself (yeah, not a terribly deeply practicing one - you won't see me making a birthday cake to Jesus and waiting for Him to blow out the candles on Christmas), I find the actions of Mr. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond to be incredibly offensive, bigoted, and against everything that Christ stood for. (You know, the whole thing of "Judge not unrighteously lest ye be judged", or "I am not come to treat the well, but the sick", or "Get the hell out of my face, you damned dirty ape" - no, wait, wrong religious figure - my bad).
MS can't have it both ways. Either they support the Gay and Lesbian community, and show that there are some things more important than money - and to be honest, how many ministers are going to rise up and start buying Apple's just because MS states publicly they don't give a damn if two guys are getting hot and heavy in the bedroom? 1% of all ministers? 10%?
The loss of good faith, and a reputation of aligning themselves with people of bigoted views will probably do far more damage in the long run than "holding the course" and continuing their support of House Bill 1515.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. If nothing else, if MS doesn't stand up and do the right thing, then I guess I'll be looking for that copy of iWork instead of MS Office for my next office suite upgrade.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:
The love that two men or two women feel for each other is no different than the love that a heterosexual couple experiences. There is no difference at all. None. That same warm indescribably wonderful feeling that a hetero remembers (I'm straight, so I know what it feels like) feeling on their wedding day is no different from what a gay man or a lesbian woman would feel on their wedding day. But our sick society is trying to deny that love can be experienced outside of a heterosexual relationship. It makes them so uncomfortable that they cover their ears and scream loudly, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening! I'm not listening"!
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
That's not really true. Human beings are patterned to pursue things that cause them pleasure the same as Pavlov's dogs.
My experience, many moons ago, was that I knew that I was attracted to women long before I had experienced sexual ecstacy with a woman. Which contradicts your assertion that it is all learned.
I presume that gays and lesbians, for the most part, have had pretty similar experiences.
If you look at the DSM-III, before the 4th edition, you will see homosexuality listed as a disease.
Historically, psychology and medicine in general, has a piss poor record for determining what is and isn't a disease. This is the same discipline that pushed frontal lobotomies as a valid "treatment" right up until the 60's.
Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%?
Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
The majority is not always right. The Bill of rights exists to protect the people from the government and the minorities from the majorities. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner." It is the reason for the limits on the government's power.
You see just because you are a prejudiced mental reject does not mean that if some day prejudiced mental rejects are in the minority open-minded people should be able to discriminate against them in the workplace if their religion does not get in the way of their job.
I thought we were supposed to be against companies lobbying the government to have their way? Then this is good!
Hey, that's what you get by having majorities imposing laws on minorities. Never worked and never will.
In Canada there is the Charter of Rights And Freedoms. Especially look at #15.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In Canada, the Supreme Court rules that the current marriage act discriminates against gay/lesbians on this basis (ie. don't have the same rights under the law). http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09 /scoc-gaymarriage041209.html
Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.
One of the perks of being a programmer is that, normally, coding is a refuge from thinking about this kind of crap. GCC doesn't give a fliegende kinderscheisse that I'm gay.
For a while I couldn't read the newspaper without getting a knot in my stomach, and just looking at the Opinion section can give me a headache these days without even reading it. Between what my own state is up to and the creepy backlash building up at the national level, I've decided that sticking it out in the U.S. just isn't worth it and I'm currently saving up to move to Vancouver.
Now, though, the insanity is even making its way onto the Slashdot front page. Tech companies being gay-friendly has always just been a given in the back of my mind. The fact that the biggest of them all is backing off due to outside pressure has me worried even more. I can't shake the feeling that there's something big and scary happening here in the U.S. right now, and the backlash against gay rights is only the tip of it.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.
Would that be activism, bunky?
Infuriate left and right
you're already equal to the rest of us, just like women and blacks
Not knowing what you said, you said it.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Just yesterday I was reading on Slashdot about how evil corporations were, about how they should not be allowed involvement in government or political campaigns.
But today many of the same people (I'm sure) are bitching about Microsoft's decision to stay out of this gay rights legislative battle.
Lesson learned: Corporate power is OK as long as they're fighting on my side.
Hypocrites.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
You've *got* to be kidding. Christians are one of the least-discriminated-against groups in this country. At the moment, the most-bashed group is the liberals. Fundamentalist Christians also get slammed, but *not* Christians, as a general rule.
With the fundamentalists, it isn't so much their religion that gets slammed, but the willful ignorance that goes along with it. "Intelligent design" is *not* science, no matter how many times you say them in the same sentence. Getting upset at gay couples for wanting the same recognition as non-gay couples is not socially fair, no matter how much anal sex or cunnilingus upsets your delicate sensibilities. And unfortunately, fundamentalists are one of the groups to do the most discriminating.
That's the difference. There are many Christians I hold in great esteem, and would not dare (or even want) to impugn their beliefs. I don't even believe fundamentalists are real Christians; I believe they are a cult.
But that's perhaps a kneejerk reaction to those fundamentalists who believe Mormonism, Catholicism, and Unitarianism are "just" cults.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution
Look at Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.
I am not anti gay but let me tell you a story?
My brother works for a fortune 500 company which will remain nameless. This company opened a call center in Orlando for customer ordering and customer service calls.
The call center manager found a new job and gave the 2 week notice that he was quiting. The director chose his secretary to replace him?? Not only was she not qualified to be a secretary but she got the position from banging the director on the side.
Eventually the VP of HR found out about this and written up the call center director and threatened to fire him and he also fired the secretary who was promoted to manager.
The secretary then sued because she was hispanic and discriminated agaisnt. She won 1.3 million dollars!
Now tell me how frivilious lawsuits agaisnt wrongfull termination are not out of control?
I am not saying gays and lesbians should not have equal rights. I am only saying the more laws try to help the more lawyers will use them to hurt the people they are supposed to help.
For example I have aspergers which is a mild form of autism. Many employers wont hire me because I could sue the company for wrongfull termination. In other words the Americans with dissabilities act helps me in alot of ways but hurts me in the liability obbsessed corporate world.
I could see a lesbian or gay employee rightfully terminated but using a bs case like the one stated above to try to sue Microsoft. If you have a good lawyer more than likely you will win.
Just because they have a policy to protect gay and lesbian workers does not mean they can not be sued friviously.
http://saveie6.com/
"The gay/lesbian market is a hell of a lot more computer literate than the zombies in the Religious Right" Proof? Of course not.
Again and again, the "special rights" argument. It is empty, without substance, existing only to provide seemingly-reasonable talking points for the unthinking.
To borrow from a post I and another gay man made on another website earlier this year:
Let's take one example of the "protected class" status that you claim I have. Say you and I work for the same employer, one who provides some level of health insurance coverage to employees. Is it acceptable with you if I am, in effect, forced indirectly to subsidize the insurance plan of your spouse and children because you have a "normal" family, while I am denied the opportunity to add my partner/lover or the child of my partner to my policy? Remember, you're getting your extra piece of the pie; the money to pay your family premium has to come from somewhere. Should you divorce your wife and marry another woman with children, I would indirectly contribute to their coverage as well.
When you and I retire, your wife at the time (let's say wife #4 by now, a younger woman) would likely share your retirement benefits. If you precede her in death, the benefits to her will most likely continue. My non-sharable, non-transferable benefits, however, will cease entirely upon my death, even while your widow's checks may continue for several more decades -- just another piece of the pie that she deserves, obviously, for loving a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, more than one of your ex-wives could also draw certain benefits based upon your employment record and retirement plans.
And if, before your death, you needed government assistance for nursing home care, your wife would not lose her home. If I needed the same care, however, I would be forced to liquidate my assets, including the home I may have shared with a same-sex partner for 50 years. Even if the house is in both names, I could be forced to sell my portion, effectively throwing him out on the street unless he was able to buy the house again, this time at its appreciated value. (Although it would not happen in my own family, legal wrangling by a deceased partner's biological family sometimes bankrupts the surviving partner, regardless of the safeguards they had in place.)
The notion that to be gay means that gay marriage is automatically supported is reductionist...but unsurprising.
My partner and I don't care about "marriage." What we want is to not be treated as though our ten-year committment is somehow going to ruin society if it's recognized in any way.
We just want to not be treated differently. Whether you call it marriage is up to you. Activists insisting on same-gender "marriage" vs. calling it something else are missing the point. Acting as though any progress towards equality is insufficient if the label doesn't come along is not only childish, it's unrealistic and counterproductive. Society is not going to evolve because you throw a tantrum. You have only to look at the history of the civil rights movement to learn.
It's grimly amusing to reflect on the notion that the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't worried about the ever-increasing divorce rate. But that is the classic tactic of the demagogue: conflate the issues, muddy the waters with emotionally loaded terminology, and go after the more vulnerable.
Personally, I'm tired of having to beg for crumbs from society's table and endure the abuse. Antigay prejudice (yes, PREJUDICE) is pretty much the last respectable prejudice in America (though there's still some room for anti-immigrant sentiment). And the "pro-gay-marriage" activists play right into the hands of the bigots.
Cracker Barrel got away with firing people for being gay for over a decade before they decided the adverse publicity had become too much. Several wrongful termination lawsuits got tossed out; the employees had no recourse other than to go get another job and hope that their potential new employers weren't bigoted.
- "Why did you leave your last job?"
- "Well, sir, I was fired for
A sig is a waste of bits.
Here are three reasons...
1. What the hell does marriage have to do with evolution?! Do you honestly believe that the only way people can breed is if they get married? Answer me this, Bill and Bob get married, how, in your mind, does this magically enable them to pass thier genes on - does one of them suddenly grow a uterous?!
2. Explain homosexuality in any of the other species that exhibit it. You know your argument that evolution says that homosexuality cannot exist in nature? Well, I just contradticted it.
3. Who the hell are you to tell somebody else, who you have never met, who will probably never meet you, who will have zero impact on you, who they may or may not become legally bound to with all the rights and privileges associated with that.
Look, sexuality is not a genetic thing, it's not a learned thing, it's just a specific setting on a scale for each individual.
Some of us are heavily pegged towards the hetero end, some of us towards the homo end, most of us are on the hetero side of the center, a few more on the homo side of the center and a handful of us are smack bang in the middle.
It's not something to be changed, it's just diversity in action.
I don't think anybody can seriously say that that are 100% hetero or 100% homo, our species is not built that way - we need human contact and at the end of the day it doesn't matter which gender.
As for the marriage debate - GET RID OF THE RELIGION and everything becomes simple, gay people and straight people deserve to have the same legal rights, privileges and processes available to them, marriage included.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Now tell me how frivilious lawsuits agaisnt wrongfull termination are not out of control?
They are not out of control because you told a rambling and pointless anecdote.
I rather doubt that anyone could get $1.3M from a Fortune 500 legal department simply for being hispanic. Either there was substantial evidence of discrimination, or (more likely) this chick had some very good dirt on someone up high.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
You know.. it's clear to me that America truly isn't a place of freedom anymore. It's more free than other places but this country is looking more oligarchy everyday. Wonder how long it can last until some fresh blood needs to be spilled.
I'm Christian, i'm male, i'm straight, i'm black, i'm American. I don't give a shit if two males or two females want to marry. Not my business and if god has a problem with it. Let god do the judging, i'm too busy trying to survive.
What really gets me is that regardless of religion. If you can't follow the simple commandments and rationalize them on the basis of your own ideology. How fucking faithful and true to your religion are you? "Love thy neighbhor? Yeah.. only if they aren't gay."
You fucking hypocrites, the same book you live by talks about people like you. The same book talks about praising false idols (ie: the pope). I mean, even before the new ones burial plot could sink people are already over their mourning and cheering a new pope and for what?! Religious leadership? You need a leader to talk to your god, to steer you to holiness?
You "religious" people disgust me. Stop walking around in the dark or you'll be left in the dark. How about you all take a minute and re-read the bible? Any bible, any religion. You don't have to get far to see the message.
Treat people the way you want to be treated, love thy neighbor.. You don't need a church, wherever two or more gather. I'll be there.
I mean jesus christ.. seriously.. JESUS CHRIST.. help these people.
Which country do you live in? It can't be the US, because most of it's founders were Deists, not Christians. Religious morals should not be laws, sins should not be crimes. Obviously actions harmful to another, like murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal. But there are many laws in this country that are purely Christian in origin. The anti sodomy laws, for instance. Why should it be illegal in 48 states for one consenting adult to perform oral sex on another?
I agree that the government has no business regulating marriage. They should neither ban marriage, nor enforce it. Churches should not be prevented from marrying two or more gay people, not should they force churches to marry two (or more) gay people.
The government shouldn't even be preventing bigamy. This doesn't mean I condone the practice of coercing women to marry the way some hard-line Mormons do. But marriage, and sexuality, are personal choices and what two (or more) freely consenting adults do is not the governments business.
I think I like your idea of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely. But I think you are very wrong about the separation of church and state being only one way. That leaves too much room for one religion to force it's beliefs on others. It allows an attitude of "You can whatever god you want but you have to follow my god's rules", and that's not true freedom of religion.
Don't tell me I'm a victim if a girl gives me a BJ, because I certainly don't think I'm a victim (I think I'm damn lucky). Without a victim there should be no crime.
TommyOpen Source for Open Minds