I'll answer it only if we agree that we've moved beyond the "equal rights" phase and on the "popular will" phase.
Coel But popular will does not categorically define what is best for society. Our country's history is full of examples. I think popular will is moot. It is a matter of justifiable rights restriction. This is JM's point, of course you see. You're welcome, in advance.
Different question really, but at what point do we start to consider roommates to be a common law (married) couple? Might be worth your while to make sure any roommate you choose is rich.
Alas, what looked rich in my white trash youth is not so much now. But the rule is generationallly transitive: hope the kids marry rich.
JohnnyM, To quote Richard M. Daley (or paraphrase), "Divorce is a threat to marriage, not gay's marrying." I believe that there are all types of sexual and relational sins. Homosexuality is one. Pre marital sex is one. Infidelity is one. Pornography is one..... Which one harms marriage most? The point is that they all do. They all deny and are less than what God defines marriage and right relationship as. You are asking me something akin to... which is worse... excrament in your food or dead bugs? Can I say both are not things I want in my food? BigWill, The State doesn't 'deputise' clergy at least in Texas. Any adult in Texas can sign a marriage license. Even as an ordained clergy person, I have no special authourity from the state of Texas to perform a wedding. I sign the marriage certificate when I perform a wedding, but you could do the same thing legally in Texas. In that way, Texas does seperate the legal and religious aspects of marriage to a degree maybe some states don't. Also, if as Coel says, this is a matter of the will of the majority and not a legal 'rights't matter, then I would suggest that whatever the majority says would be the law. I thought this is what is being fought for in CA. Which is why I continue to not pay the entire thing much interest. I think it would be more important for clergy in CA to strengthen the marriages of those in their congregations than busy themselves with this stuff. If the majority of Californians who voted want marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman, then that should be law.
Perham, Marriage is not a sacrament in any protestant demonination that I know of. I am not totally sure of the Episcopalians or Lutherans, but don't think it is. alden, If you will go back to what I said earlier.. it is NOT a denial of rights. The rights are the same. Your problem seems to be with the definition. You want the defintion to be between any two people who love each other. The fact is ANY single gay man can marry any single woman, same for any straight man. Their rights are the same based on definition. I am NOT trying to make a fairness, or morality argument in saying that, but it is legally correct.
JohnnyM, I invite you to look at my posts on this matter before you state that I am 'going after' this issue or if I have ever tried to demonise or be ugly on this matter.
Sorry I didn't mean to suggest you are personally attacking gay people. My mistake, as you have clearly stated your "leaning ambivalence" on the issue. What I really meant is that anti-gay-marriage groups are attacking a lesser threat because the greater threat would actually affect them, and they just won't have that.
The federal government should not be involved in marriage at all. Marriage should not be regulated, subsidized, taxed, or forbidden.
The States may regulate marriage but perhaps even they ought not. There are already general limitations on minors' power to form contractual relationships or consent to sex. People already have multiple social and sexual partners, but marriage law appears to pretend otherwise. Most marriages end in divorce; using tax law to encourage marriages that might not otherwise occur appears to be a recipe for increasing the number of eventual divorces. Futhermore, anyone who has been in a long-term relationship knows that no tax break will truly sustain forever the social bond to one (s)he has grown to resent. Vast numbers of children already grow up in nontraditional families, and marriage law is doing little to stem it. There is historical and biblical precedent for multiple marriage. I am happy in monogamy, but what my neighbors want to do is not really for me to say.
First, the gay marriage issue is not about equal rights. We'reTexas makes a case that the court could come in and decide, on the basis of substantive due process, that an as yet un-recognized right does exist. Maybe, maybe not. Such a move would be highly contested and of questionable legality. Nevertheless, until such a thing happens, there is no Constitutionally respected right that exists for some but is denied to others. That seems, at this point, a simple statement of reality, even if some can't see it. With that said, I will tell you why I believe that gay marriage should not be allowed: I oppose the idea of our government giving validation to sinful activity.
