In the upcoming election gay marriage has been an enormous issue. The candidates are clearly divided but some do support civil unions. What then is the difference on these two terms?
marriage: the social
institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to
live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies,
etc.
civil union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.
The definitions illustrate that the only difference is one is a religious ceremony and the other is a civil one. It is apparent that the homosexual community is pushing for the term marriage. Why so then can't they have that term? Does religion own that term? No, it isn't possible to own or patent a word so where is the opposition?
Opinions please.
A man and a woman will be considered married if they have a marriage license. They don't have to be married by any religious institution to be considered married. So religious sects don't have a monopoly on marriage.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
You might find the following links of interest:
http://www.ccgaction.org/index.php?q=family/protectmarriage/principles/M...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stern17-2008jun17,0...
...who cares what "religious communities are saying" about the issue of marriage? I mean, c'mon...what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is so hard for folks to understand? Religiously based opinions about who "should" or "should not" be allowed to marry are irrelevant. The fundamental rights of citizens are not in any way, shape or form contingent upon approval of any religious sect...period.
TTFN,
Blakcout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
The founding fathers DID NOT find the issue of religion irrelevant; quite the contrary. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees a "free EXERCISE of religion". We as Americans are free to practice whatever religion we choose or to not practice any religion at all. For many people, their religious faith warrants that they not only believe in but PRACTICE the principles/tenets of their faith.
If we want to avoid fascism, tyranny, anarchy, factionality, and despotism...we need to learn how to sacrifice, respect one another, coexist, accommodate, and compromise. For far too long we have created zero-sum methodologies and institutions. It is time & it's possible to create modes of living & governance that are win-win. To grant some people rights whilst trampling on the rights of others is the EXACT opposite of what America is about. Consequently, WE SHOULD ALL CARE.
America stands at the precipice of history. The urgency of now insists that WE engage each other and collaborate like never before. A new era of inclusiveness & cooperation is upon us. Those who adhere to the oppositional ways of the past will be overcome and swept away by the tides of CHANGE.
:-h
When it came to establishing a Rule of Law that would apply to ALL of our citizens, they most certainly did consider religion to be irrelevant. That is why they prohibited the legislature from passing laws that took such things into consideration. In the words of our second President...
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history...It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." ~ John Adams
You ARE free to exercise YOUR religion. You are NOT free, however, to use the Law to force other people to abide by YOUR religious opinions.
Your opinion of what we "should" be doing is equally irrelevant, and there can be no compromise when it comes to the basic rights of our citizens. If I have to sacrifice my basic rights in order to accomdate your opinion, that is not a "win-win" situation. As another of our founding fathers expressed...
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." ~ Thomas Jefferson
So long as your religious opinions are not injurious to me, then I have no qualms with your beliefs. However, when those beliefs attempt to tread onto rights of others, those opinions violate the Law and may legitimately be restrained.
It saddens me that so many young people today have no sense of the rugged individualism upon which this country was truly founded. There is something to be said for working together towards common goals, but there is also something to be said for "you mind your business, and I'll mind mine."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.