|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Serious question for those against gay marriage. | by Snate | 2009-04-15 12:37:15 |
|
M'kay, let's look at some different arguments... | by jdelphiki | 2009-04-15 14:49:49 |
|
I was not married in a church. Do *I* threaten the | by Divinar | 2009-04-15 17:07:33 |
| No idea... |
by jdelphiki |
2009-04-15 18:32:38 |
They're not my ideals.
But if I had to *continue* guessing, I'd say that it's more the notion of opening marriage into including something other than the pattern (i.e. hubby/wife) that they believe has been the "status quo" over time and history.
My personal feelings on this subject is to take it the opposite direction. I don't believe the government ought to be in the business of sanctioning a religious ceremony. Its ownership over the religious "marriage" (per the license and having religious clergy being able to make the deed "official") cuts both ways. Those folks who are arguing for constitutional amendments to say marriage is "man and wife" could find a point in time when the tables are turned and they are forbidden by government fiat (or Volvo or Volkswagen) to marry or to marry in the church.
The simple answer to me is to take the church out of it completely...from the government's standpoint. The government can pass laws defining the legal boundaries of a civil union...shared benefits between partners, tax breaks: all the parts that the government needs to be involved with. That way, folks who want their civil union sanctioned by the church into "marriage" can do so at their own discretion. And the folks who want their civil union sanctioned by circus clowns and chainsaw-wielding maniacs are free to do so as well. ;) But they can't expect the government to recognize such as a civil union until the partners have done the proper paperwork, etc. that the law would spell out.
I mean, we always talk about separation of church and state, but in this case, it sometimes seems like one side wants the church and government to remain involved in sanctioning marriage so that they can elbow their religious morality further into the government and the other side wants church and government to remain involved because it seriously p4's off the religious folken. Perhaps that's unfair to both sides of the issue, but it seems to me that this is a *perfect* case for separating church from state and a perfect area for mutual compromise.
But that's just my perspective. YMMV, of course. ;) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
