Replies

This writer has a Biblical take on morality and homosexuality, and uses the "unrestrained liberty being bad" argument to deny liberty to homosexuals.

I agree that the writer has used the wrong reason to arrive at the correct conclusion.

"Gay Marriage" is not about rights. It is about money. If you look at the original push by Gay Rights activists, it was all bout being able to cash in on the benefits that married couples have, but single people don't All those innumerable things that our great nanny state put into law to encourage people to become married. Insurance benefits, military housing benefits, tax benefits, Socialist Insecurity benefits, medical benefits, membership benefits, and all the other innumerable things that THE STATE used to help lure people into marriage.

The one thing that made any sense of all this was the oft stated purpose to insure that "the children" were cared for and raised to maturity.

Now Gay couples want in on the money tree. They already can make all the civil contracts they want for protection of their significant other and to transfer property after death, but they are not satisfied with that. They insist that they loot the public treasury of the resources that were meant to protect children.

What we should have is separation of marriage and State. Let the Churches marry anyone they choose, but have the state only enforce civil contracts between consenting adults with full knowledge or what they are signing beforehand.

"What we should have is separation of marriage and State. Let the Churches marry anyone they choose, but have the state only enforce civil contracts between consenting adults with full knowledge or what they are signing beforehand."

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am a pastor and State legislator. I have been saying for some time that marriage is an ecclesiastical institution shanghied by the State. Divorce, for example, is nothing more than a breach of contract suit between parties and has no place in the Church. Is not civil marriage, then, a contract between parties?

We cannot have it both ways. If the State insists on being secular, it cannot be heard to enforce religious sacraments. There ought, indeed, to be separation of marriage and State.

Pastors willingly consent to using their positions to act as agents of the State in filing papers with City Clerks for marital contracts. There is no doubt in my mind but that the State is violating the establishment clause by sanctioning a church-blessed marriage. Perhaps there ought to be two separate and distinct marital conditions - one before God and the other a contractual one with the State. Interesting.

Actually, my wife and I were "married" in a religious ceremony and some months later filed the paperwork for the civil contract. We have two anniversaries, but we celebrate only the first. We were on vacation when the paperwork was filed and had to find out later when that was.

The way that is done is to ask a pastor to perform a wedding ceremony without the civil marriage license. The wedding, then, is of a certainty before God and demands a higher level of commitment than I have noticed when folks are merely "Tying the knot," so to speak.

Thank you.