Posted by Paul U at someuser.relianceinsurance.com on February 19, 2004 at 11:49:48:
In Reply to: Here's a great article... posted by Ralphy ™ on February 19, 2004 at 11:25:44:
Before I start... I am not nor have I ever had a problem with gay relationships/ people / values of gays.
As a fairly non-religious person I have to throw my 2 cents in. or in this case 2 dollars.
The term gay marriage is not only an oxymoron but not right even as a separation from the church. You cannot marry a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Although I am not opposed to civil unions that would aquire SOME benefits that married couples receive.
The basis of marriage comes from - in all areas of the world - religion. The only reason the state/country is even involved is because it was a way to make money. IE - marriage licenses were not necessary until this century. When you wanted to get married you went to your church and were wed, as man and woman.
As a matter of fact the defition of matrimony is "The union of man and woman as husband and wife; the nuptial state; marriage; wedlock."
Even though we live in an evolutionary society this is a bond that is sacred, has withstood thousands of years in Judaism and Catholocism, and should not be changed by the state. I would say other religions also but I am unsure of their beginnings.
As far as the separation of Church and State... I think it is a novel idea with admirable attempt... As for the judge that is "marrying" these couples
Remember the men who drafted the constitution were a bunch of WASP men who didn't want to pay their taxes "taxation without representation" - When was the last time you were really represented in the government. I know as a white middle class working guy, I am not represented well at all. I think I am going to incorporate myself, then get heard.
As for the judge who is performing these "ceremonies". He should be treated the same as the judge who wouldn't take the nativity scene out of the front of his office. Remove him for BREAKING THE LAW.