Sure some do it for tax reason like many straight couples do. The truth is gay couples want to marry for exactly the same reasons as straight couples and those reasons vary from couple to couple. Tax reasons, celebrating their union, having a big party, officializing their love in front of God, they all apply to straight AND gay couples.

You don't think native tribes ever believed in some sort of higher power? I find that kinda funny.

I do not tolerate radical religions that force me to be of their religion.  Some sects of Islam want to force me to convert to their faith.  Communists force people to not live their religions. 

It must be respected if it is not hurting your rights to practice your religion. 

A religous photographer was sued and has to pay money to a same-sex couple when she denied their request to photograph their committment ceremony.

That is the government forcing someone to go along with anothers beliefs. 

Someone being fired from the marriage license place because they do not want to give licenses to same-sex couple is forcing someone to go against their beliefs.

You are right questioning whether its good to be for or against same-sex relationships is not intolerance, but the government enforcement is.

As compared to racial and sexual discrimination, which is okay?

Reminds me of when people wanted Jews to suffer more from the depression.

There's one native tribe they have found that has no higher power...

They still get married.

You're missing one key point to make this identical to my position on the issue.  Churches should be allowed to recognize any civil union they wish to as a marriage under their church...so you would literally have a "Catholic Marriage" or a "Protestant Marriage" etc...

Government has its tax status, churches get unique control over their definition of marriage, and everyone has the same rights in regards to who they spend their life with.  It is a win-win all around really.

As for this issue - I think you guys are being a bit dismissive quite frankly.  Obviously the comparison of gays to nazis is pretty damn absurd but thats not really the comparison that is being made is it? You're taking the next step beyond what is actually said to make the comparison.  All the OP really says is that branding people...for any reason....is spooky nazi type stuff....and that much is true.  The bottom line is no matter how good the reason its wrong.

If you want to point out that gays are most certainly not nazis then fine, nobody disagrees, but to say:

 just sort of makes his point and undermines your treating him like he is paranoid.  There really isn't a chance in hell it will get implemented atm obviously but the fact that the idea finds any support here at all is telling nevertheless.

Intolerance exists within the gay community as well, and frankly they could and would accomplish a lot more if they distanced themselves from those who support and/or employ thuggish tactics like this and like the house visits we saw in the aftermath of prop 8.  Those things don't help the cause at all.

1. This "professor" should learn German, as Juden just on its own was never ever written somewhere and makes no sense grammatical-wise in German. Yes, it's the correct plural form, but you simply can't use the plural form in German without a sentence if you mean yourself or others, if you don't want to state yourself to be uneducated.

2. Everybody who appreciates that some idiots compare their own opinion with the holocaust is just a dangerous fool. I feel offended by that and I can only guess how rightful offended any Jew might be.

I don't see how this is religious intolerance, it seems more to me intolerance by the religious. A marriage photographer couldn't say 'sorry, we don't do photos of black people' - why are they allowed to say 'sorry, we don't do photos of gays'?

The government has the obligation to enforce equal treatment for everybody.

So then you're for questioning whether or not it's ok to burn crosses in black people's front lawns, or deny them service at stores, but if the government makes it illegal to burn crosses in their front yard and forces you to sell pie to them in a resteraunt then the government is being intolerant of the KKK's religious positions?

A photographer can't say "I don't take pictures of gays" anymore than a store owner can say "I don't sell products to negros". If she didn't want to do it, she definitely should've come up with a better reason than "Sorry, I don't photograph queers."

The woman working at the marriage liscense place is an idiot. That is her job, if she can't do her job for religious reasons she shouldn't work there. If your religious beliefs are going to contradict your job description, get a different job. Don't complain that the job is infringing on your beliefs. Hindu's don't go work at slaughter houses and then refuse to kill cows. And if they did would you really give them sympathy for getting fired for not doing their job?

If the government has to choose between a person's equality and another person's religion, personhood trumps religion. That's why blacks have the same rights as whites even if there were plenty of religious groups that said that this was an offense to god, and their religion. If a religion is trying to supress a group's personhood, then their doctrines should not be protected by the government.

And for the love of whatever deity you choose, STOP comparing American christians to Jews in Nazi Germany. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY, one more time for emphasis NO-FUCKING-BODY will take you even remotely seriously if you try to bring Nazi's and communists into every god damned discussion, especially if you're trying to compare your rich, politically powerful, ideological, majority group to an abused, racial minority, during a time of extreme prejudice and violence. So do yourself a favor, and stop.