great and thoughtful summary. would be nice if we could approach this issue with
both sides coming together. sadly courts don't generally work that way.
There's a winner and a loser and neither side is ever fully satisfied until
they've ground the face of their enemy into the mud.
Mathew states a very nice sentiment but I detect a bias in his thinking. To
remove all pain we all need to accept that gay people are born the way they are
born. If that is the case then calling them sinners is supreme hypocrisy,
similar to me being blamed for "Adam's transgression". Once you can
get beyond the fact that being gay is not a lifestyle choice then it is easy to
want everyone to have equal protection and the chance to live a chaste, virtuous
life within the bonds of matrimony.
The love, the commitment, the religious significance, the shared property...none
of these need be exclusive to heterosexual couples. This article is an
endorsement of same sex marriage.
Kinda boggles the mind to think that a small fraction of people clam to be gay,
and less than a fraction of those who are gay stay together. Why wast the time
and money on this issue.
In his closing comment, MS states, "..the debate should focus on a legal
status based upon sexual orientation, while preserving traditional marriage,
households and families.""A" legal status? He's
obviously not advocating equality through marriage yet still seems to be in
opposition to the position Elder Lance B. Wickman, Church General Counsel in an
interview he gave along side of Elder Dallin H. Oaks on the Church's
Newsroom site. Elder Wickman rejected offering legal rights that are associated
with traditional marriage.Is MS opposing Elder Wickman's
position?MS seems to be arguing for the status quo and therefore his
idea about removing pain from the debate is baseless since the pain same-sex
couples feel due to being denied the rights and protections offered
traditionally married couples is still there. Their angst from being treated as
2nd class citizens is likewise present.MS seems to be calling for
civility, but the end result is the same.
It would be nice if we could "take the pain" out of the issue. Sadly,
Matthew leaves us with the pain intact. It's very hard to look at two
people who love each other and say, "Sorry, even though you're both
Americans, we can't let you have equal rights with the rest of us."
*'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times
- 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency,
creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney
documents.' And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive,
Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice
Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.
They were together for 18 years.
*’Catholic charities ends Illinois adoption civil unions dispute’
– By Sophia Tareen – AP – Published by the DSNews –
11/15/11 ‘The group had wished to continue its state
contracts, while also referring unmarried couples who want to be adoptive or
foster parents to other agencies, citing principles of religious liberty and
freedom of conscience. The state of Illinois had said that longstanding
practice is discriminatory, a violation of the new law, which allows unmarried
couples — gay or straight — to legally enter into civil
unions.’ **i.e. the catholic ‘charity’ advocated
ONLY for civil unions...and THEN cited gay couples were not
‘married’ to deny adoption AFTER they had advocated AGAINST gay
Stop the pain? From our own Deseret news: *'Boy,
15, reprimanded for backing traditional family in school paper' - By Joshua
Bolding, Deseret News - 01/27/12'He (Wegner) also quoted
scriptures like Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to DEATH...' – article
What about religions who want to perform and recognize same-sex marriages? How
does that fit into the arguments made in this editorial?And what
does the sexualization of children have to do with this? Are we now allowing
Victoria's Secret to advertise in schools? How does Billy
having two mommies and Sarah having two daddies and Mark having one mommy and
Julie living with her mommy but visiting her daddy and other mommy on weekends
sexualize kids more than Robert living with his mommy and daddy? And how does
preventing Billy's mommies and Sarah's daddies from marrying solve
that? Wouldn't having them be married make it easier?
Props to Sanders for attempting bridge building on a difficult issue. Let me
try to open the dialogue further.The components of marriage,
religious and legal, are not necessarily separate. Some Christian churches
perform marriages for same sex couples based on their reading of the biblical
call to justice. In US law, the two are separate - a church can legally refuse
to perform a wedding which violates is doctrinal teachings.Sanders
observes that religious persons are deeply torn because they want to be
peacemakers and yet adhere to what they perceive to be unchanging standards.
Are they maintaining those standards for themselves of asking other people to
adhere to their standards?He implicitly defines being gay as a flaw.
Is that an accurate assumption? He also seems to see it as nothing more tahn
behavior. Is that accurate or is it part of a person's identity?He portrays same sex marriage as a danger to children and preventing it as
protecting children. Is that valid assumption? Straight couples marrying is
not seen as sexual. Whey is allowing gay couples to marry
"hypersexualizing"? Some children will grow up to be gay. Isn't
opposing same sex marriage harmful to them?
@George --"a small fraction of people clam to be gay, and less
than a fraction of those who are gay stay together. Why wast the time and money
on this issue."When Washington State legalized gay marriages,
more than 800 gay couples were married IN ONE DAY.When California
legalized gay marriages, 18,000 gay couples were married in the THREE MONTHS
that it was legal to do so.In 2008, A public policy center at UCLA
estimated that, if gay marriages were legalized again, more than **100,000** gay
marriages would take place in that state within the next THREE YEARS.When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, more than 6000 gay couples married
in the FIRST YEAR.When Iowa legalized gay marriage, more than 2000
gay couples were married in the FIRST YEAR.Yup -- there are plenty
of gay couples interested in getting married.In addition -- in
states where gay marriages are legal, and in other countries with gay marriages,
the gay divorce rate is about the same as the straight divorce rate. Remember
that roughly 50% of all STRAIGHT marriages end in divorce. That's not a
high standard for the gay couples to meet!
from the article -- Legal status.Marriage is many things, at
its most basic being a symbol of love and commitment, but it's largely a
legal status with privileges of joint property, decision-making and inheritance.
It has societal stature and acceptance as an institution and is seen as a
demonstrative of stable, adult behavior.Religious status....========== The Supreme Court doesn't make judgements
based on matters of Religion.The interpret the Constitutionality of
Man-made Laws. Score - 1 gay marriage, 0 to those opposed.Meanwhile -- What about those religions who support, recognize and even
perform Gay marriags?It's a myopic, steretypic, bias that assumes ALL
religion and ALL religous folks oppose gay marriage.
@george of the jungleProbably about 3-4% of the US population is gay
or lesbian (Wikipedia).About 1.7% of the US population is Mormon
(Wikipedia).According to your way of thinking, the Mormon population
is too small to deserve the civil rights that other religions have. I would
prefer to be more careful making arguments based on the size of the affected
population.Civil rights are civil rights. It doesn't matter
how small the population is, all groups deserve to be treated equally in the
eyes of the law. One of the beauties of the Bill of Rights is that it states
that certain rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Eventually,
I think the right to marry the person you love will be recognized as one that
cannot be removed by the tyranny of the majority.
I remember when Conservative kept telling us -- We're all for
"equal" rights, We're just against "special"
rights.OK - It's time to walk the talk.
Matthew;Why should the government promote your religious views over
those of any other religion? Why shouldn't the government
grant FULL EQUALITY to GLBT Americans?The word marriage means a lot
of things, one of which is family. GLBT couples are family too. Sorry, but at
heart, the entire debate hinges on bigoted ideas. You may not feel like a bigot
but when your actions are those of a bigot, how else should your actions be
termed? Fierce opposition to equality is bigotry pure and simple - no matter
how deeply felt your personal views.
This article is thoughtfully written and I can agree with much of it. The author
is far more candid than many who frame the debate around discredited notions
that gay parents are bad parents or that same sex marriages somehow infringe on
the rights of opposite sex couples. Where I disagree is that
marriage is an inherently religious institution that cannot be separated from
its civil meaning. In fact we have done just that for centuries.Mormons require much more to have a "temple marriage" than the civil
law requires. When the civil meaning of marriage was changed to allow
interracial marriage, it did not require the Mormons or other religions to
change their requirements for solemnizing a union. The same thing is true in the
states that allow gay marriage.We can take the pain out of the gay
marriage debate by accepting and respecting that separation of Church and State.
My partner and I have been together over 14 years. We own a home
together.We run a small business together.But we're not
allowed to get married.My brother has been divorced and
remarried.My sister has been divorced and remarried.My father and
mother are divorced and both remarried.Several of my neighbors have been
divorced and remarried.But I can't marry the person I've
been with for over 14 years even once.Don't you just love it?
I'm so tired of this "let's wait and see" mentality with those
opposed to marriage-equality.Just sign for this article on the front
page of the DesertNews for this article (although not in the article itself)
says, "A right delayed is a right denied."It's little
comfort to know future generations will enjoy a right that the current
generation is denied.
""Sorry, even though you're both Americans, we can't let you
have equal rights with the rest of us.""This canard needs to
be laid to rest. Every man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the
right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality.Those who use this phrase want something different. They want to change the
marriage contract to be about sexual attraction. But it's never been about
sexual attraction. The state is indifferent to sexual attraction. They
don't attempt to assess the sexual attraction of those who apply for a
Ranch Hand:[But I can't marry the person I've been with for over
14 years even once.Don't you just love it?]A
greater irony is that I know of many gay and straight people who get married to
a person of the opposite sex purely to help them get
employment/residency/citizenship in this country, some of them even get paid to
do it, and then promptly divorce once the process is done.So here in
America, marriage to bypass immigration, and profit from it, is legal, but
marriage based on love and commitment is not.
My religion forbids me from:smoking,drinking, gambling,pornography, buying on Sunday, Piercing my ears,
wearing Tank-tops, Watching Monday Night Football, working on
Sunday, or participating in an abortion (except in the cases of rape,
incest, life/health of the woman, viability of the fetus, ect.).All
perfectly legal, under the law.I don't need the rest of
American Society to obey and follow my religous beliefs, I chose to obey
those additional restrictions, without feeling any need to pass legal
legislation and force everyone else to do likewise.Why should gay
marriage be any different?
Speaking about canards....PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UTEvery
man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the right to marry a man.
That is absolute and unequivocal equality.Those who use this phrase
want something different. They want to change the marriage contract to be about
sexual attraction. But it's never been about sexual attraction. ================== Agreed - sort of, at least that part about
"never been about sexual attraction".Marriage is about
Love.A profoundly deep, enduring committment of friendship that knows no
bounds.It's about sharing and caring. It's about -
hopes, dreams, laughs, tears, struggles, successes, highs, lows, sharing lives
together, not ever having to be alone.To those of you who keep
defining marriage strictly by sex - YOU are the one's dragging it's
true meaning through the gutter.To you, I say - Thanks for
NOTHING!I hope the courts see to it that all mankind - regardless of
race, sex, age, color, religion, orientation, ect. - can all be allowed the same
opportunity of being as happily married, as I have been.Tear down
the wall...[Pink Floyd]
@Pops --"Every woman has the right to marry a man. That is
absolute and unequivocal equality.**Every person has the right to
marry another person of the same race. That is absolute and unequivocal
"Why should gay marriage be any different?"My religion
forbids:MurderTheftAssaultRapeKidnappingSlanderLibelAll perfectly illegal, under the law, for the
same reason that gay unions should not be recognized as equivalent to marriage -
it's about the preservation of society. The problem with creating a thing
called "gay marriage" is that the victims are future children, whom few
are willing to protect and defend. They are the future of civilization.
@Pops"Every man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the
right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality."And in 1960 every white man had the right to marry a white woman and every
black man had the right to marry a black woman. That's equal too but we
still declared it nonsense nonetheless.
The behavior of homosexuality never has been and never will be equal to that of
heterosexuality. If the understanding of that statement is not obvious to you
then I'm not sure much else will help you in this discussion.Someone said marriage is about love. Actually, the state doesn't care who
you choose to love but they do care about how children are brought into this
world and the best place for them to be raised. That is with their mother and
father. It is the standard. Just because some in society choose not to adhere to
that standard does't mean the standard should be lowered.If it
is all about love, then 2 guys and a girl, or 3 girls and a guy, or 1st cousins
or fill in the blank, should all be allowed to be married. No exceptions if it
is just about love. But that's not the case. The argument is for those who
engage in homosexuality to have their behavior accepted as normal by society
when biology and anatomy 101 tell them it isn't.Homosexuality
as marriage is not a civil right.
@Pops;"My religion forbids...:"--- Whatever your
religion forbids is totally irrelevant in the context of civil law. The First
Amendment guarantees that whatever you believe, you're free to believe, but
you are NOT free to force others to live by the dogmas of your version of
religion."The problem with creating a thing called "gay
marriage" is that the victims are future children, whom few are willing to
protect and defend. They are the future of civilization."--- You
clearly don't care about the future of the children currently being raised
by same-sex couples. I guess they just don't matter.@Charles;Having children is not a requirement for marriage.Marriage is a civil right. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter.
the feds have no business with this...just let each state decide and be done
with it. Enough already!!!
@RanchHand,"But I can't marry the person I've been
with for over 14 years even once."Who is preventing you from
performing your own private marriage?
@Pagan:"And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of
attorney and emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the
bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond."I think she is pulling
our collective legs. Who was it that kept her from the bedside of a dying
friend? She doesn't say. With the legal documents she had prepared there
must surely have been one that said she had a right to be there. In any event,
all she had to do was to ask the person or persons in charge to let her be there
to say good-bye. "They were together for 18 years."Eighteen years is certainly long enough to prepare the necessary papers that
would have allowed her to attend.
@The Skeptical Chymist:"Civil rights are civil rights."Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of the
opposite sex. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under
the law?"It doesn't matter how small the population is, all
groups deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law."Would that include small groups such as polygamists and pedophilians?"One of the beauties of the Bill of Rights is that it states that
certain rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority."The Bill of Rights says nothing about marriage.@RanchHand:"My partner and I have been together over 14 years... But I can't
marry the person I've been with for over 14 years even once."Sounds like getting married is a sure-fire way to guarantee divorce. Is that
what you seek?@Open Minded Mormon:"It's about sharing
and caring. It's about - hopes, dreams, laughs, tears, struggles,
successes, highs, lows, sharing lives together, not ever having to be
alone."Ain't it the truth. That's what polygamists
keep insisting. And those who would engage in pedophilia as well.
@Summer;What good does that do? Even if I go up to Washington to
marry, I'll be legally single the moment I cross the state line on the way
@Ranch:"Marriage is a civil right. Gay, straight, it doesn't
matter."Are you saying polygamists can marry? Even to underage
females? There's a person serving an extended jail sentence who would like
you to press that point on his behalf.Any marriage other than the
traditional man/women would open the Pandora's box to all combinations of
marriages including polygamy, sister/sister, brother/brother/ brother/sister,
father/daughter, aunt/cousin, you name it. If you're insistent on same-sex
marriages you should be equally insistent on dozens of other marriage
combinations.@RanchHand:"But I can't marry the person
I've been with for over 14 years even once."Just think...
if you don't marry you'll have no worries re divorce.Besides, you don't have to be married to live together and shack up.
@Alfred;Polygamists are already allowed to legally marry at least
the first person of their choice.
@Mr. Bean and Alfred --"Are you saying polygamists can
marry?"Of course not. One more time:Some people are
already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The
distinction is based solely on gender. That is called "gender
discrimination". Gender discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore,
marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.
contrast: NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to
commit incest. NOBODY is allowed to commit bestiality. Therefore, there is no
discrimination. These laws ARE constitutional.
in re bestiality and children: neither children nor animals are capable of
giving informed consent. Consent is a fundamental component of all contract law.
It can not be removed from our legal system. Therefore, children and animals
will never be eligible for signing marriage contracts.
Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay marriage, polygamy has very practical
dangers. Women have always had less power in society than men; therefore, it is
easy to take advantage of/subjugate/abuse women in polygamous relationships --
as we have seen repeatedly with the polygamous sects in court. Gay marriages
have no such proven, concrete dangers.
@Mr. Bean --I missed this one in my earlier post:"Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of the
opposite sex. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under
the law?"**Everyone has the right to marry... provided they
choose someone of their own race. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be
discriminatory under the law?**Sound familiar?"Protected groups" are minority and/or oppressed groups that either
can not change themselves -- e.g. because of race, gender, age, disability, or
orientation -- or groups that share unbendable beliefs that are fundamental to
their religion. 'Polygamists are not born -- nobody is born
married, and you're not actually a "polygamist" until you're
married -- and they are not biologically different from anyone else. So the only
excuse they could have for being a "protected group" is religion. And
courts in both the US and Canada have already proven that they can easily tell
the difference between gay marriages and polygamy. For instance, just recently
British Columbia's Supreme Court reaffirmed that Canada's ban on
polygamy is constitutional -- because of the known dangers to women and children
that often go along with that practice.
The gender discrimination nonsense again? Both genders are restricted to
marrying the opposite gender (the one through which they could procreate with)
so both genders are treated equally. All the arguments here have been posted
hundreds of times and, as usual, those for changing the definition out-number
those for keeping it 2 to 1, despite this newspaper being in an area where
traditional marriage is supported 2 to 1. We get it, many of you are frustrated
and vent in the comments section every time the DN has an article that even
mentions those with same gender attraction.The Supreme Court is
looking at this the right way. Marriage to another of the same gender is
different than the marriage that has gone on since recorded history. We have
thirteen years of history of a countries experimenting with it - way to short to
know what it will do to families, the building block of society. Civil unions
provide the neccesary rights. No changes should be made to the definition of
traditional marriage until we have decades more information.
What if someone wants to marry 3 women they love, and perhaps bring another man
and a teenage boy into the marriage?If this is about being able to
marry whoever we love, who and how many can we marry???
I would like to know the position of those favoring Gay Marriage on Polygamy and
Polyandry. Is there ANYONE who should not be allowed to marry?
@NormalGuy --"Both genders are restricted to marrying the
opposite gender so both genders are treated equally."**Both
races are restricted to marrying members of their own race, so both races are
treated equally.**Sound familiar? That one got thrown
out by Loving v. Virginia, way back in 1967.@eastcoastcoug --"I would like to know the position of those favoring Gay Marriage on
Polygamy and Polyandry."This question has already been answered
many times. Just look through some of these comment threads for details on why
gay marriage is not at all the same thing as polygamy.And,
incidentally, the courts are quite able to tell the difference between the two.
Just recently, the Supreme Court of British Columbia reconfirmed the
constitutionality of Canada's ban on polygamy. In their decision, their
chief justice wrote (in part), that "women in polygamous relationships faced
higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more
prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more
likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and
often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."
@amazondocLoving vs Virginia indicated that a minority group was
being targeted. Since men and women are found in equal supply neither side can
complain that they are being unfairly restricted to who they could marry when
compared with opposite sex - completely different than the complaint raise by
blacks in the case you mention. Additionally, interface marriages has been
allowed in other countries for hundreds of years prior to Loving vs Virginia,
giving the court the precedent needed to overturn the law. Gay marriage has no
It is simple.Marriage is a religious institution, a union between a
man and a woman, or however any given church wants to define it for their
purposes. Civil Union is any relationship the Civic Authorities, or
government, defines it to be, and it is the only union recognized as a legal
union subject to tax advantages, or any other legal privileges bestowed on such
a union. Marriage is not a recognized legal union, and the word
'marriage' never appears in the legal document or laws anywhere. Problem solved.
@NormalGuy --"Loving vs Virginia indicated that a minority group
was being targeted. "Women make up 50% of the population, yet
gender discrimination has been a well-established legal principle for years.The Supreme Court has already drawn parallels between Loving and gay
marriage. I'll side with their legal expertise over yours. ;-)"Gay marriage has no such precedent."Actually, it does.
Did you know that at least two Roman **emperors** married men? Same-sex unions
actually have a long history in many cultures. One good book on them is
"Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe", by historian John Boswell.On a related note: recall one of the traditional heterosexual marriage
vows. Specifically the one that goes "whither thou goest, I will go; and
where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my
God". Do you remember who originally said that in the Bible?Ruth said it -- to **Naomi**. Yup, These traditional wedding vows were
originally spoken by one woman. To another woman. In the Bible.@4word --In this context, marriage is actually a civil contract.
The Supreme Court is not hearing cases about religious rites, I promise you.
@amazondocHmm, do I believe you, or do I look at the reality of how
many churches are being sued over this issue? I believe reality instead of
you.You say all they are considering is a civil contract. Well then
let's call it a civil contract, not a marriage.Marriage is a
religious institution, was a religious institution before the USofA existed. The
concept of separation of church and state would dictate that the state yield the
regulation of marriage back to the churches, and call legal relationships
something that represents what they are, like civil unions or civil contracts.
Then those relationships can be defined by the state, because they are a
creation of the state.This is the win/win solution. It preserves the
integrity of the churches and it protects the legal rights of everyone. No
one's rights are infringed.Why is this not an acceptable
@4word --"Hmm, do I believe you, or do I look at the reality of
how many churches are being sued over this issue?"You don't
have to believe me. You just have to acknowledge the Constitutional principle of
the separation of church and state.Really and honestly and truly,
the Supreme Court is not going to involve itself in the internal workings of
churches. They are there to support the Constitution and the laws passed under
that constitution. And the millions of American citizens who have been married
down at the clerks' offices over the years will be relieved to know that
their marriages really are legally valid, even without the benefit of a church
involved."call legal relationships something that represents
what they are, like civil unions or civil contracts."That would
be fine, **if** everyone who got married in a church without signing a civil
contract (the marriage license) would be willing to give up all of their
government-related marriage benefits -- you know, like inheritance, tax
benefits, Social Security spousal benefits, that sort of thing. How well do you
think that will go over with John Q. Public? ;-)
amazondoc"You just have to acknowledge the Constitutional
principle of the separation of church and state."This is exactly
the principle I seek to have upheld."That would be fine, **if**
everyone who got married in a church without signing a civil contract (the
marriage license)..."To get married at a church you must bring a
marriage license, or the minister won't marry you, so this is a mute point.
Changing the name does not make any existing contracts null and
void, nor did I suggest that any should be nullified. We just legally refer to
them as Civil Partnerships, or Unions, or Contracts, and not call them Marriages
or partner Baptisms, or any other sacred religious rite name.Again I
ask, Why is this not an acceptable solution?
@4word --"To get married at a church you must bring a marriage
license, or the minister won't marry you"RIGHT. Because
"marriage" is a civil contract -- which is what I've been saying
all along. ;-) "We just legally refer to them as Civil
Partnerships, or Unions, or Contracts, and not call them Marriages or partner
Baptisms, or any other sacred religious rite name."I you're
going to get rid of the term "marriage" altogether, then go ahead and
give that a shot.But if you mean that you want to call heterosexual
unions "marriages" and call homosexual unions something else, then that
won't work. This country already proved, decades ago, that separate is not
equal. If two things are called something different, then they ARE something
different. And homosexual couples deserve the SAME legal rights as every other
citizen, not some second-class imitation.
amazondocNot interested in talking in circles.From my
first post (caps added), "Marriage is a religious institution, a union
between a man and a woman, or HOWEVER ANY GIVEN CHURCH WANTS TO DEFINE IT for
their purposes."But clearly you aren't really reading what
I wrote, or you are purposefully twisting it, as the end of your last post
shows. Simple Churches perform marriages by their own
definition. (to gain the government's benefits, they would need the civil
union license from gov't in addition to the marriage, just as it is now)Government licenses civil unions of a non-religious name, by the
government's definition.This is the win/win solution. It
preserves the integrity of the churches and it protects the legal rights of
everyone. No one's rights are infringed.amazondoc can't
give a good reason why this solution wouldn't work. Anyone else
want to try? You're on your own. This is my last post.
All of this discussion is intended for one side to convince the other that sin
should be left alone or acknowledged by our government. Well I for one do not
wish to give in to people that deny what my God says as being truth. Nor do I
care if they believe the way I do. Our government continues to slaughter the
values that our constitution was founded on day by day.Our christian beliefs are
being laughed at by those that don't share our values. Loving the sinner
has nothing to do with condoning the sin !
@4word --"Churches perform marriages by their own definition.
(to gain the government's benefits, they would need the civil union license
from gov't in addition to the marriage, just as it is now)"But 4word, this is **exactly** what I was saying in previous posts. I said:"That would be fine, **if** everyone who got married in a church
without signing a civil contract (the marriage license) would be willing to give
up all of their government-related marriage benefits"That's
**exactly** the same thing you're saying now.There's a
huge problem with trying this approach, though. Specifically, millions of people
have already been married in this country in civil ceremonies, without the
benefit of any church ceremonies. Do you really think that all those millions of
people will agree to suddenly start calling their marriages something else, just
because they didn't go into a church? That ain't gonna happen.