Perhaps the new state motto will be "Festive Before Fiduciary" Having joked that, I have to say that I do not agree with a ban on Same Sex Marriages. I believe that such a ban is Personally conservative, but not Politically conservative. I do not want, nor do I believe it is in the realm of Government to dictate what is a sacrament and what is not; this is the jurisdiction of the clergy and their respective churches. I also do not like the idea of the Government dictating to religion what it must recognize (bigamy aside). The separation of Church and State, I believe, is intended on preventing just such Government meddling in Church doctrine, not the other way around. I realize this last statement is justification for the ban, but I have another approach discussed later. The label "same sex marriage" in and of itself sets this apart from traditional marriage. It is different. But the constitution identifies certain unalienable rights, among which are life, LIBERTY, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPINESS. These last two items indicate to me that the ban is unconstitutional, despite the many arguments of Henny Youngman and others that Marriage is the converse of the pursuit of happiness. Same sex unions will not open the door to underage or interspecies marriage as the ground rules for “consenting adult” and being able to “voice” that consent preclude these abominations and infringements from occurring; with the possible exception to Wilbur and Mr. Ed. My solution is to have the States get out of the marriage business altogether. I want States to issue Civil Union Licenses, indicating the exclusive and legal partnership of two parties. I want the Clergy to issue Marriage Certificates. Back in time, couples had to go through two ceremonies to get married, one legal and one religious. We have become accustomed to a single service and I see no need to change that or conflict with separation with Church and State. Clergy may be deputized to perform the function of the state and insure that a Civil Union License gets issued with every Marriage Certificate. Couples that are joined in a civil ceremony are in Civil Union; couples that are joined in the church are in a marriage. The sanctity of marriage is preserved, rights are not infringed, the distinction between divorce and annulment is clear, and the government can tax more people at the higher married/civil union rate that straights have enjoyed low these many years. As to my personal situation, if my wife wants to be married to me, we will have to do it over in a church; till then, she just has to be civil to me. CHRIS F.
1 Comments:
Perhaps the new state motto will be "Festive Before Fiduciary"
Having joked that, I have to say that I do not agree with a ban on Same Sex Marriages.
I believe that such a ban is Personally conservative, but not Politically conservative. I do not want, nor do I believe it is in the realm of Government to dictate what is a sacrament and what is not; this is the jurisdiction of the clergy and their respective churches. I also do not like the idea of the Government dictating to religion what it must recognize (bigamy aside). The separation of Church and State, I believe, is intended on preventing just such Government meddling in Church doctrine, not the other way around. I realize this last statement is justification for the ban, but I have another approach discussed later.
The label "same sex marriage" in and of itself sets this apart from traditional marriage. It is different. But the constitution identifies certain unalienable rights, among which are life, LIBERTY, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPINESS. These last two items indicate to me that the ban is unconstitutional, despite the many arguments of Henny Youngman and others that Marriage is the converse of the pursuit of happiness. Same sex unions will not open the door to underage or interspecies marriage as the ground rules for “consenting adult” and being able to “voice” that consent preclude these abominations and infringements from occurring; with the possible exception to Wilbur and Mr. Ed.
My solution is to have the States get out of the marriage business altogether. I want States to issue Civil Union Licenses, indicating the exclusive and legal partnership of two parties. I want the Clergy to issue Marriage Certificates. Back in time, couples had to go through two ceremonies to get married, one legal and one religious. We have become accustomed to a single service and I see no need to change that or conflict with separation with Church and State. Clergy may be deputized to perform the function of the state and insure that a Civil Union License gets issued with every Marriage Certificate.
Couples that are joined in a civil ceremony are in Civil Union; couples that are joined in the church are in a marriage. The sanctity of marriage is preserved, rights are not infringed, the distinction between divorce and annulment is clear, and the government can tax more people at the higher married/civil union rate that straights have enjoyed low these many years. As to my personal situation, if my wife wants to be married to me, we will have to do it over in a church; till then, she just has to be civil to me.
CHRIS F.
6:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home