On 05-Jan-09 23:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

you know my position in this: this law is void as there does not exist a 
full proof definition of what a man or a woman is. Perhaps one of those 
more difficult cases could challenge the law.

> 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.

The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the 
same right to refuse.

> 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.

Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states 
and countries?

Post a reply to this message