posted
A few years ago a constitutional ban on ssm passed here in Kansas with flying colors. It is an abhorrent law, which not only bans gay marriage, but denies civil unions.
I'm going to echo those who say that government has no business defining marriage at all. They can handle inheritance, alimony, child custody, etc. without having to marry anyone. Personally, I got married in a church. The union has religious significance for me. All I did with the government was file paperwork.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I do recall someone saying once that all "legal marriages" should be civil unions, and that "marriage" should be a non-legal term used by churches or whatever other groups want to use it based on their personal beliefs (I'm pretty sure this is what you were just advocating). I agree very much with this idea.
That's an increasingly popular idea, and I think it makes sense.
The ironic thing about it, in my opinion, is that it's most frequently espoused by the secular, socially progressive crowd, and dismissed by religious conservatives.
If I were a religious conservative, I wouldn't be nearly as upset with the government changing the definition of marriage as with them defining and administring it in the first place. The fact that some Elvis impersonator on the Las Vegas strip thinks he can sanctify your union in the eyes of God Almighty in exchange for $50 would be more offensive to me than gay people cohabitating.
I think if the government can decide who gets married, they should also be able to decide who gets baptized, and set up coin-op holy water vending machines in strip malls and movie theaters for the purpose.
Anyone who finds that idea offensive, but still wants to quibble over who the government will and won't marry, is fighting the wrong battle. IMHO.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: No. Lisa is confused.
No, Rivka. Lisa is not confused. Lisa deliberately attribed the quote to OSC because Sam was deliberately channelling OSC. If you recall, Scott said exactly those things in a recent article he wrote.
I guess it wasn't for the irony-challenged.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
