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

Brandon Sommerville 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 is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering into a
commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage. If
there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple feel they
are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
establishment that has long been in place.

Ed