Monday, February 23, 2004
A GOOD DEFINITION...
This is the best example of a definition I can live with...with one small detail to include.
I got this from a listener on James Island...
"...Allright, you want a potential definition of marriage, I will suggest one: Two, and not more than two, consenting adult human beings of legal age, and not related to each other by blood. Together in a legally recognized union of love and commitment.
Does that cover all the bases for you? Not many people are going to want to marry their fathers, their baby sisters, or their pet hamsters, but if you are afraid that line would try to be crossed, I have remedied that possibility for you by covering all of that in my definition.
I'm not going to berate you or try to change your opinion on this matter, let me just suggest that allowing gay people to get married is not going to be end the world; and if you don't agree with these relationships on a personal or religious basis, I respect that. Maybe some personal reflection on this matter would help you to decide why this matter is so important to you, and why the sanctity of marriage is really at risk..."
My response:
Good one...not bad.
Still can't live with it, though. It's not anything against gays...I just have a problem with our Court system finding rights and privileges in our Constitution that aren't there (while curiously eroding the ones that are there).
In the specific case of gay marriage, many states have laws against it...or already defining "marriage" for their respective states...by finding a "right" in the Constitution, ALL states are subject to a ruling in another state (Mass) thanks to the full faith and credit clause. In your example, you're creating a law -- not a right. The Mass. Supreme Court says they found a right to gay marriage in the Constitution...they chose not to define it themselves -- forcing the legislature to define it by law.
BUT, I would agree to let your definition stand up in a Constitutional Amendment process. Ratify it in the House, Senate, then 2/3rds of the states...if it passes, fine...I'm cool with it. Let the people decide...the way the Founding Fathers intended. That's been my point from the beginning. (end excerpt)
It was a good try...but I wonder why people are so opposed to using the Constitutional process? Because they know what the result will be, and they can't live with what democracy provides. That is key to understanding this whole issue.
Besides, this isn't about discrimination to begin with...as a "straight" person, I can't marry another man. Neither can homosexuals...
What's the problem?
This is the best example of a definition I can live with...with one small detail to include.
I got this from a listener on James Island...
"...Allright, you want a potential definition of marriage, I will suggest one: Two, and not more than two, consenting adult human beings of legal age, and not related to each other by blood. Together in a legally recognized union of love and commitment.
Does that cover all the bases for you? Not many people are going to want to marry their fathers, their baby sisters, or their pet hamsters, but if you are afraid that line would try to be crossed, I have remedied that possibility for you by covering all of that in my definition.
I'm not going to berate you or try to change your opinion on this matter, let me just suggest that allowing gay people to get married is not going to be end the world; and if you don't agree with these relationships on a personal or religious basis, I respect that. Maybe some personal reflection on this matter would help you to decide why this matter is so important to you, and why the sanctity of marriage is really at risk..."
My response:
Good one...not bad.
Still can't live with it, though. It's not anything against gays...I just have a problem with our Court system finding rights and privileges in our Constitution that aren't there (while curiously eroding the ones that are there).
In the specific case of gay marriage, many states have laws against it...or already defining "marriage" for their respective states...by finding a "right" in the Constitution, ALL states are subject to a ruling in another state (Mass) thanks to the full faith and credit clause. In your example, you're creating a law -- not a right. The Mass. Supreme Court says they found a right to gay marriage in the Constitution...they chose not to define it themselves -- forcing the legislature to define it by law.
BUT, I would agree to let your definition stand up in a Constitutional Amendment process. Ratify it in the House, Senate, then 2/3rds of the states...if it passes, fine...I'm cool with it. Let the people decide...the way the Founding Fathers intended. That's been my point from the beginning. (end excerpt)
It was a good try...but I wonder why people are so opposed to using the Constitutional process? Because they know what the result will be, and they can't live with what democracy provides. That is key to understanding this whole issue.
Besides, this isn't about discrimination to begin with...as a "straight" person, I can't marry another man. Neither can homosexuals...
What's the problem?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
