I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.

To begin with, gays in the military. In the 1970s, I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under. The risk of losing not just their careers but their dignity and even their rights as veterans.

Leonard Matlovich would be so proud today. His case didn't change a great deal, but it proved something profound. Gay people could serve honorably and be a credit to the Armed Forces.

It was during the Obama administration that Congress repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," paving the way for the Pentagon to certify open service.

And now, gay marriage. I'm overjoyed that two men can marry and build a relationship that society can no longer tear apart.

Kudos to all who made it possible. I'll admit, I still have some concern that the secular use of the word "marriage" might someday conflict with the church's definition and perhaps lead to lawsuits that test the boundaries of religious freedom.

stare decises => stare decisis

I had to look it up...
"Stare decisis" is a Latin legal term meaning "to stand by things decided." It's the doctrine that courts should generally follow precedent " in other words, respect past rulings instead of overturning them.

Db,

My wife is one of the most well read, educated people I've ever known.

Reads constantly smart stuff. Currents events, spent years doing all sorts of research and she's never seen "stare decisis".

Not much into legal terminology.

Clown,

If you're going to accuse me of saying things, at least get it right. Understand what I mean.

What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons. Not the gays but the product and service they wanted.

What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians. Me included.

A gay marriage in a secular setting is different.

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Leave churches alone and not sue for discrimination or believe gay couples have any rights in churches that do not believe gays can marry with the same religious meaning.

My concern is the eventual law suit brought by a gay couple claiming those churches are discriminating against them when the issue is the type of ceremony, not gay people.

The courts got it wrong with the bakers and I am concerned the courts will get it wrong again.

How's that. Is that clearer now.