Election Thread

[Urza-DSF]

Marriage, for the believer, is a holy union by God of a man and a woman, where spiritually the two become one. To religious people, it is a sacred spiritual bonding recognized by the church, and then secularly described as a contract and licensed by the state. The latter part being rooted in the tradition of law, property, and the protection of the "estate" and inheritance by the surviving family. Note that the church's role, and the ceremony, just as with baptism, are just a way to recognize a spiritual transformation.

And then, with homosexuality, there is that problem of the act being described scripturally as an abomination. This is why even within individual churches confronting this issue means invalidating portions of scripture, which is tantamount to contravening the founding fathers of Christianity. When you tell your believers that the Bible is the book of truth, then its hard to go back and use white out on the parts you don't like anymore.

My recommendation would be to do nothing to marriage. Leave it as the mish mash of tangled traditions that it has become. The state has no problems if they create their own things, call it civil union, then license it and recognize it in the states purview to be equal to marriage. Marriage can remain untainted for the religious, and civil unions can exist for everyone else. Messing with marriage is to religious people the same as declaring that baptisms will now only be done in bars from 11 to midnight, but with beer instead of holy water.

I think you've got it a bit backwards here: the christian notion of marriage should not be tied to the state *period*. The fact that there is something other than a contract (note here, contract: something that can only be agreed upon by consenting adults) declaring all of those arrangements for inheritance and whatnot. I don't care what religion you or anyone else belongs to, archaic ritual has no place in what is suppost to be a fair governing body.