... now, if the Supremes and our government would only take the same philosophical approach to the other 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 aspects of our lives they must legislate down to the nth degree upon.
I think marriage needed defending but only from the Christian viewpoint; and that can't stand, sadly, in America anymore. People deserve to do what they want; that's what's called freedom. I just don't know if MARRIAGE was the word. And, of course, most 'rights' were available , anyway. Plus, gay friends of mine have never wanted to marry ...and they themselves say this is all about pushing the gay agenda. Still.......this is a right and it needs to be guarded. I'll draw the line when our gov't demands that Christian or Jewish clergy MUST marry two men. it's the clery's right to say "stuff it.. go somewhere else."
Z - I'll be marching right beside you if clergy were ever pressured to perform ceremonies, but if I'm not mistaken, clergy are already protected from such an act by meeting the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. More than happy to be corrected on this, since I'm certainly no lawyer.
But I am happy that you share my Constitutional position, if we may disagree a bit on the philosophical side.
Many of the rights, privileges and protections have existed under the banner of civil union...but these varied by state, and were' almost never completely on par with marriage.
I've ranted a bit more on the reaction from our devout political leaders in my just published post.
... now, if the Supremes and our government would only take the same philosophical approach to the other 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 aspects of our lives they must legislate down to the nth degree upon.
ReplyDeleteAmen Brother.....
DeleteI think marriage needed defending but only from the Christian viewpoint; and that can't stand, sadly, in America anymore.
ReplyDeletePeople deserve to do what they want; that's what's called freedom. I just don't know if MARRIAGE was the word. And, of course, most 'rights' were available , anyway.
Plus, gay friends of mine have never wanted to marry ...and they themselves say this is all about pushing the gay agenda.
Still.......this is a right and it needs to be guarded.
I'll draw the line when our gov't demands that Christian or Jewish clergy MUST marry two men. it's the clery's right to say "stuff it.. go somewhere else."
Z - I'll be marching right beside you if clergy were ever pressured to perform ceremonies, but if I'm not mistaken, clergy are already protected from such an act by meeting the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. More than happy to be corrected on this, since I'm certainly no lawyer.
DeleteBut I am happy that you share my Constitutional position, if we may disagree a bit on the philosophical side.
Many of the rights, privileges and protections have existed under the banner of civil union...but these varied by state, and were' almost never completely on par with marriage.
I've ranted a bit more on the reaction from our devout political leaders in my just published post.