That because Rush and Glenn and other conservative talking heads keep pounding that bullshit into their heads as a wedge issue. They know their faithful masses are too gullible to believe otherwise.
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:46 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: interesting opinion piece on Beck and the teabagging party I have stated for quite sometime that the biggest hurdle with gay marriage is the religious institutions and the government use the same word for different reasons. Religious institutions use the word 'marriage' to describe a religious ceremony. The government uses the word 'marriage' to describe a civil contract between 2 consenting adults. A lot of opponents of gay marriage I have spoken to seem to think that because I am a proponent of gay marriage that it means that I want to force their church to allow gay couples to be married in a religious ceremony. I would be willing to bet there are quite a few opponents fo gay marriage who feel the same way. I think that government should get out of the marriage business. When I got married in a religious ceremony in a church, I had to get a 'marriage license' from the state. That 'marriage license' should be a 'civil union' license. And the guidelines for a civil union should be simple. Any 2 consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a civil union so long as both are not in a civil union with another person. If you get married in a church, you go through the religious ceremony of marriage, but need to get the civil union or contract handled through the government. To me, the biggest hurdle in gay marriage boils down to nomenclature. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is marriage in the constitution? > Don't states already recognize civil unions? Why use the name marriage > if it has no value? What you've just stated is the government is > discriminating against religion, and you're fine with it. But you're > upset the rules are different for gays. > > Most importantly, why are you telling the TP what they should stand > for. There are millions of issues they could stand for, why did you > add this one? > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That is essentially what is going on now, sans all the BS from the right. >> The government isn't recognizing religious marriages, but only the civil >> aspects of it. You can get married in your religion without the sanction of >> the state. It's perfectly legal to do so, but with the caveat, you don't >> get all the legal protections in regards to visitation, inheritance, etc >> that you do when the government sanctions the civil side. The government >> can care less what religion you are getting married in (with the exception >> of a few states, mostly in the south, who have ordination requirements to >> keep out smaller faiths and non-Christian faiths that do not ordain their >> ministers. The rest is covered by the Constitution, so the states really >> shouldn't get to decide if they are going to discriminate or not. If I >> marry a guy here in IL (for sake of argument), in accordance with the US >> constitution, ALL states must recognize the marriage as legal and binding. >> Anything less is a violation of the US Constitution. The arguments against >> allowing gay marriage are extremely lame and lack any logical thoug > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326459 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
