Gay Marriage

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Indeed, but laws must be based promoting the common good, not simply in religious conviction, personal animus, or traditional prejudice.

And there are many in society that feel that the "common good" is to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

You're the one claiming that marriage originated with religion. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

Etymology

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Interesting that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother.

The government already does dictate the ins***ution of marriage. The government allows equal access to marriage to divorced couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows equal access to interracial couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows inter-religious marriages, even if your religion disapproves.

But, all these marriage ultimately are defined by a husband and wife in which offspring are a possibility as a result of intercourse. Not so with ****sexuality.

To compare any of that to rape is extremely offensive.

It is how I see it. I see the government as raping the church of an ins***ution begun by it. Unless you can show otherwise...

They did.

"Chicago—Catholic Charities announced Monday that it was ending its legal battle over Illinois' civil unions law and no longer was providing state-funded services."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...tions-20111115

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.

(...) The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and M***achusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us...vail.html?_r=1

Even your own article admits as much:



If they reject government funds, they have the right to discriminate. I think it's unfortunate, of course, but they're within their rights to do so.

And goes with it that more children will be helped by gay marriages when in fact, in reality, more children are hurt by it.

You're welcome to believe that. Reality disagrees with you.

You are speaking to a Mormon, remember..where the state came in and said that a marriage was between one man and one woman? Hence, the state does make it its right to define marriage. Or do you think that polygamists were being discriminated against as well?

According to your religious beliefs, and the laws of some locations. In other locations that is not so.

And people are welcome to go where the laws comform to what they want in a society.

Marriage is a civil arrangement that confers some 1000+ rights and benefits to opposite-sex couples that it denies to same-sex couples. That is pretty much a textbook definition of discrimination. Nobody is "redefining" anything.

It did not start as a "civil arrangement"--it started as a religious arrangement. The rights came as laws to protect women and the offspring that may occur from a marriage. I do not disagree with "civil unions" in which gay couples can have those same protections.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
- U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

Actually, the congress can undo the courts by creating a law.


Congress can check the power of the Supreme Court through the process of Cons***utional Amendment. While the Supreme Court can rule that a particular law is uncons***utional, it cannot rule that the Cons***ution itself is uncons***utional. If the Congress (and 3/4 of the state legislatures) approve a cons***utional amendment, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Cons***ution.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_C...#ixzz1jaV9pl8J

Even the Supreme Court has a check and a balance.