Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>But why does it matter if some gay people feel that they do not want gay marriages? There are lots and lots of straight people who do not believe in hetero marriage. <<< EXCELLENT POINT!
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I mean that up there ^^^ wasn't me, that was said by someone else, Dabob I think. As for who I am, I am both DVC_Pongo and Chris in Atlanta etc... Oh nevermind.
Originally Posted By hopemax I've posted this before, but marriage hasn't always been a religious thing in America. The colonists at Plymouth, which was a highly religious group, considered marriage to be a civil ceremony. Marriages were not performed by the church elders but by the colony magistrate. So that makes the idea of civil MARRIAGE as the way to go, as traditionally American as revolution!
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Why not go the opposite direction? Make all the state issued licenses "permission for civil union", and include in the small print something about the "marriage" part being a religious or personal issue, not a state one.>> That’s what I said. Let religionists keep the word (i.e., the M-word), but make such whatever replaced it is equitable in the eyes of the law. The word is irrelevant. It’s the equal protection that matters. Frankly, it’s repugnant to me that we’ve fused a religious ordinance and a civil law in the first place. 1) The government should have no place in dictating who should be able to undergo an relgious ordinance. 2) Religion should not be the arbiter of who is entitled to civil law. Fusing the two in antithetical to everything this nation was founded on.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<As for who I am, I am both DVC_Pongo and Chris in Atlanta etc...>> I just think one is your evil alter-ego. But which is which? Hmmmm…
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo LOL that would be DVC_dad for sure... > Muuhahaha.... But alas, Mr. Hyde is gone forever. Of course in the story, Dr, Jekyll is gone too if memory serves, so I don't think that is a good example.
