When we say “up the Irish,” that isn’t what we mean.
June 26, 2003
Anyone else getting the impression Justice O’Connor is voting by coin toss?
Anyway, to the meat:
bq. Reading his dissent from the bench, a signal of particularly strong disagreement, Scalia said that the ruling “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation,” and would pave the way for “judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada.”
Well, amen and hallelujah, it’s about damn time. Why we need to base our laws on a Judeo-Christian framework is really beyond me. And that’s all this was — attempting to legislate adherance to religious strictures. It’s time that kind of stuff stopped.
Likewise, it’s time we decided (like Canada) whether marriage is a function of the state or a function of the church. If marriage is a holy sacrement, the government has no business “protecting” marriage by persecuting homosexuals. In fact, the government has no business giving married people benefits for being married. On the other hand, if marriage is a secular legal contract, the state has no business restricting people’s ability to make that contract based on religious concepts of morality.
Ah, but (for many people) it’s both, right? A legal contract and a holy sacrement. Well, then, do what they do in Germany. Get officially married by the state, then get officially married by the church. I mean, if the Baptists don’t want to recongnize homosexual union, they don’t have to — in their own church. I don’t see anything in the Canadian law that says churches have to recognize state unions.
It’s not like there isn’t precidence. Here in America, some churches don’t recognize legal divorces and remarriages if they themselves didn’t grant them.
Why church doctrine has to be the law of the land is beyond me.
Finally, let’s all breathe a sigh of relief that the law was overturned on due process, not equal protection, grounds. That overturns laws against heterosexual sodomy here in Virginia, where sodomy is defined as anything but “man on top, get it over with quick.”
It probably has something to say about Virginia’s fornication laws as well.
Posted in Archived Unsorted
content rss
June 26th, 2003 at 3:57 pm
EXCELLENT commentary. I need to get elected quickly so I can get your nomination for Supreme Court in…
June 26th, 2003 at 4:07 pm
Your point about marriage being either a religious sacrament or a legal contract is well made. It would seem to violate equal protection and separation of church and state to allow only heterosexual couples to marry because that is what most of the Judeo-Christian religious denominations think should be done. The government has no business consulting religious doctrine for legal policy.
June 27th, 2003 at 11:03 am
Excellent point.
Although…if we are taking the Judeo-Christian morality out of the law altogether, that means that the next step (after resolving the whole same sex marriage thing) is to begin allowing group marriages. Why should only two people be allowed to share that legal bond? If ten people want to be a family, I can think of no possible “state” reason to disallow it, only religious ones.
Could you imagine being an only child with ten parents? Talk about a great Christmas!
June 27th, 2003 at 1:45 pm
>>>Could you imagine being an only child with ten parents? Talk about a great Christmas!
And when one parent says, “No”, there’s a much better chance at finding another parent who’ll say, “Yes”.
However, PTA meetings and Open Houses would be awfully confusing…
And how would people introduce them?
“Hi, I’d like to meet Mr. and Mr. and Mr. and Mr. and Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. Smith.”