The definition of Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. Period. You cannot change definitions. Just because you want to completely switch a definition's meaning (eg. Amylase is the enzyme that breaks down starch. To: Catalase and amylase are the enzymes that break down starch.) will NOT make your new definition right. There is nobody stopping gay people from loving their partners. It is obvious and great that a woman can truly love another woman (and man a man), HOWEVER, they cannot share in the SACRAMENT (ever heard of that word?) of marriage. It is utilized and only celebrated by a man and woman and shall not be diluted by those of the same sex. Furthermore, marriage is solely based on religion, which is separate from government. Hereby you have no case.
Clint, Nice post. Love you much. Miss you tons! Still working on coming to visit - I got a job (bartending and catering at a high-end tavern on the river, it's a beautiful place) and am starting to save up! It might just be me now that the democrats are going to tax dad up the ass and he wont be able to send the whole fam. Hope you figure that heating system out!!
November 22, 2008 8:20 PM
First, Clint has told me awesome things about you. I (still)look forward to meeting you.
You say: "Furthermore, marriage is solely based on religion, which is separate from government. Hereby you have no case."
I ask: Read below, what do any of these benefits have to do with religion? These are all benefits bestowed upon a married couple by their government.
I cut and paste: The following material was provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is used by permission. The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans;
- joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
- and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
Me again: Also, why is this issue continually brought to the polls through ballot initiatives and legislative rulings? The issue is being decided through only governmental-avenues. This issue has everything to do with our legislative government. If the issue is "solely based on religion" I would think it be bothersome that Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc. were allowed to vote on the topic.
And yes, I've heard of Sacrament. If that were the only benefit/celebration of marriage, I wouldn't even want it.