It's going to take a few days for everyone to stop breathing fire and actually think about this. To listen to the Mayor of San Francisco, you'd think he was Martin Luther King reincarnated.
If you can't legally define marriage at all, how do you exclude anyone or any combination of people from the concept? Not one person has been able to answer this question for me without resorting to invoking limits that are no less arbitrary than the male-female one.
Marriage as something between a man and a woman is as old as the species, far older than Christianity, or any of the other current religions. There is a hell of a lot more human cultural history for polygamy than there is for marrying the same sex, yet I am not able to find a lot of people who support gay marriage who also support polygamy.
While the ideal would be to have this handled on a state-by-state basis, how does one deal with a marriage that's only legal in some states? A good analogy might be found by researching the various minimum ages for marriage in various states. If you marry someone who's legal in one state, what happens when you go somewhere where the age limit is higher? I don't know the answer, I'm no lawyer, but this would be a good precedent for a state-by-state gay marriage situation.
The complete disregard of state law here in California is a problem. The continuing habit of judges to say "screw the law, I know better" is getting to be an issue in itself.
This is not going to even get out of Congress in one piece. Bush has made his moral point, and there it stands. He'll lose some votes, maybe gain some. I wish he'd have fought as hard against the crippling of the First Amendment where political campaigns are concerned.
And the liberals who are screaming about the government telling us how to live don't seem to mind the government telling us how to live in hundreds of other ways. Guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Current Events » in reply to Those Christians again -
re: Those Christians
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
