The really divisive issues all tend to be personal decisions, and I’m still waiting for a cogent explanation as to why the government is involved in them.

Marriage is a two part concept. One part deals with the religious beliefs of the parties involved, but the second part is a government defined partnership contract. There is no way of reconciling the parts, so there is no point in trying. The government is Constitutionally prohibited from applying religious conditions. If you haul in religion, you won’t be able to ban polygamy.

I’ve noted before on these threads the very few circumstances under which a candidate’s religion would influence my vote… negative conditions, in which a candidate appears to defy American tradition on religious grounds… and on the whole, I disapprove of voting FOR someone because of the specific religion they adhere to. Of course people can vote on any damned basis they want, but Democrats should not seek faith-based votes.

Bryan, the UUs I know share that tradition you describe of not “witnessing”; I don’t personally know of even one UU who has ever actively tried to convert someone. It just isn’t done. And while most UUs tend to be politically liberal today, there has been a strong component of old-style New England Republicans in there as well (though many of those older UUs are dying off)… and there is an almost unanimous consensus that mixing religion and politics is a bad idea.

I don’t care where people get their call to right action, as long as they hear that call. If Democrats insist on making peoples’ faiths an issue at all, some of us may have some serious thinking to do.

The mainstream Protestant tradition in which I was raised considers “witnessing” prideful and hypocritical.

i want a party and candidates that will pander to my separation-of-church-and-state beliefs.