On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>  It was
> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".

Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.

Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my 
relationship with my wife.  Pretending that it does would be my choice.

That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example, clergy, 
to marry people when that union goes against the religious beliefs.

But that gets really dicey too, but that does fall within the bounds of 
the religious institution.  From a secular standpoint, if two people want 
to get married, let them.

Let's do this:  Everyone's "marriage" in the eyes of the law is a "civil 
union".  Those who want to be "married" can do so in the religious 
institution of their choice.  And the rights that couple gets to things 
like property, hospital visitation, next of kin status, etc - ie, 
anything rooted in *law* - that's granted by the civil union.  Anything 
granted in the "religious" realm (for example, the right to claim a unity 
that lasts for all eternity into the afterlife, Mormon "family sealings" 
adn the like) all fall in the realm of the religious institution that 
performs the ceremony.

Problem solved.

Jim

Post a reply to this message