The Constitution assures all citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....all men are created equal (under the law) and have this right. By denying marriage, nay, changing laws so as specifically to deny marriage, to a group of people merely because the religious majority, or anyone else, does not agree with their lifestyle, the government is engaging in discrimination--like making black people sit at the back of the bus, or not allowing women to vote because they're female.

Gays aren't asking for MORE rights, just EQUAL rights, and that includes the right to marry the person they love, just like a straight, and including all of the legal perks that go with that piece of paper.

What goes on in someone's bedroom between them and another consenting adult isn't my business, your business, or the government's business. Denying rights due to lifestyle is denying someone liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in re the Constitution, and thus is violating their civil rights.

I mean, what does it matter who sleeps with whom, so long as it doesn't negatively affect YOUR ("your" in the general sense) life? Gays being able to legally marry doesn't change the price of tea from China. It won't make me lose my job. It affects me ZERO. It's purely a religious objection, and religion has no place in politics.

Churches wanna get into politics, then they should be taxed just like everyone else. Otherwise, keep the preaching and bigotry in the pulpit.


Sidhe

The Justice, Judge, clergy, etc. are part of the paperwork. Don't they sign the license?

No, they issue the Certificate of Marriage that makes you eligible for the bennies. I don't know if they keep the license on file or send it back to the County. :)

OK, I had the terminology messed up. They sign the certificate. In any case, all you need for the benefits of a civil marriage is paperwork, which you can get without clergy. And a church can give a religious marriage without filing any paperwork, and you won't get the legal benefits. Or you could do both. The systems are separate already.

Yes, you made a mistake and must be punished. I sentence you to marriage. No,..wait,......that's too harsh,.....just flogging and hard labor. :lol:

The objection is religious, though. There are a lot of benefits you get being married that you don't get with a civil union. Gays are being denied these benefits merely on the basis of sexual orientation. Wasn't that long ago when gender and color were used to deny rights to people, as well.

My point is that religion, along with its moral objections to individuals' private lifestyles, (which, incidentally, affect no one) should not be used as a basis for laws. Religious laws are always persecutory to those who don't follow the religion, at least as far as I've seen.


Sidhe

Correct. Including gays in civil marriage would have no effect on religious marriage. Religions would still have the right to deny them, and the gays would get their civil rights. Winners all round.

Yes, yes, I know many disparage the source, but I saw this here first.

Heh. Idiot.

Idiot? Maybe he's a idiot but he called this one right. Rawls acted like they called him a fudge packing, cocksucking, faggot, or something. The man is out of control and I don't want him determining what is permissable behavior. We already have too many laws against offending the sensibilities of the politically correct. :mad:

Rawls is an idiot, too. Crampton compounded it by, instead of treating him as such, pretending he was part of a conspiracy to take away our right to use the word.