Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination?  OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly.  If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?

It doesn't.

Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.

In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/

Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.

Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."

In my opinion, of course.

-- 
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"