Replies

If you mean that the traditional institution of marriage has some social utility, and that the state has a vested interest in promoting that institution for that reason, then I agree with you. However, that comes dangerously close to the argument the queers are using to expand the definition of marriage. Since all society benefits from marriage, why not expand it to include ALL citizens?

Religion is the only bulwark against advancing homosexual marriage as anything but a secular institution.

Thank you for your fascinating post. It's funny: I had been thinking that your argument (post #63, below) came "dangerously" close to that of the same-sex marriage proponents, to wit: since the state cares not for the spiritual dimension, it might as well sanction gay marriage.

I guess no hetrosexual athiests are married then right? -Lone Voice in the hinterlands

"Married" in what sense? If they're atheists, they probably didn't opt for a church wedding. So that means they're married for the state's purposes, the very situation we've been discussing here. I repeat, the state does not require any spiritual dimension to endorse a relationship, nor should it. But the resulting union is a "marriage" in the same sense that a contract between me and my mechanic is. -IronJack

This is one of the drawbacks of Internet communication. I'm afraid I'm not understanding the thrust of your posts. I'm assuming much of the subtlety gets lost in the written word. But frankly, I don't think we disagree on much, if anything.

I think the state should concern itself only with business relationships, and that marriage is only partly a business relationship. To the degree marriage is religious, the state can neither restrict nor endorse it.

I guess the question comes down to this: in whose eyes is it more important that you be married? The state's or the Church's? If the one refuses to concede the relationship sanctioned by the other -- if you're forced to choose between God and Caesar -- which do you choose?

In the long run, I think the answer is to legislatively define marriage as a union between man and woman, but to remove any and all (secular) obstacles from unions between same-sex couples. Then, whatever the homos choose to do, they can't call it "marriage," at least not in the legal sense.

The thing is, this whole skirmish is simply the prelude to the next homosexual battle: adoption of children.

As I've said, it's a great wedge issue for the Left. And it's got much more mileage in it before it's exhausted.