Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ElkGroveDan
Why? It's not *marriage* and even the president has made a distinction between "civil union" and "marriage" when calling for a Constitutional amendment.

Sour grapes from a bunch of folks who want their bigotry (in the guise of Faith) codified into law and our most sacred public document.

My position remains unaltered: Get government ENTIRELY out of the sacred which means no more "marriage" licenses for anyone. Convert to civil union contracts. Marriage, the sacred tradition, belongs in institutions of FAITH, not government. It's time we recognize the difference and the wall which ought to be between government and faith. Folks can continue to say they're married, just like they do today, if the ceremony is performed by a justice, but government should not be issuing sacramental licenses. It's perverse, unAmerican and quite nearly sacrilegious.

43 posted on 11/28/2004 10:35:58 AM PST by newzjunkey ("The rule of law has become confused with - indeed subverted by - the rule of judges." - Robert Bork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: newzjunkey
Sour grapes from a bunch of folks who want their bigotry (in the guise of Faith) codified into law and our most sacred public document.

Bigotry? Am I a bigot for despising the habits of drug addicts, alcoholics, pick pockets, and litterers? Any time people choose a lifestyle based on behavior long rejected by society, then it is appropriate to criticize them. It is even more appropriate to oppose giving special rights to them. Faith doesn't even have to enter into it.

50 posted on 11/28/2004 12:05:09 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (Santorum 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson