02-25-2004, 11:38 PM
Hi,
If marriage still meant a man and a woman together to generate and raise a family, then the anti gay "marriage" people would have a leg to stand on. But with "marriage" defining such things as tax table, house loans, insurance coverage, eligibility for adoption, etc., I think the the problem lies with what the institution means in today's society. The modern baggage attached has greatly overcome any traditional meaning.
Rather than making a move one way or the other on gay marriage, perhaps getting their collective nose out of marriage completely would be a better move by government. Let the financial and legal matters that have accrued to marriage become a part of a civil contract that any people can enter into. Let the "man and woman joined under god's eye" remain the concern of religion. Quit using the unexamined bias of Judeo-Cristian superstition as the basis for civil law.
But that would require politicians and a populace that learned something beyond their mother's knee. You know, the results of a good (non-existent) education system.
Oh, and yes, the issue is of immense importance -- but only because it is an election year and Shrub needs a distraction badly.
--Pete
If marriage still meant a man and a woman together to generate and raise a family, then the anti gay "marriage" people would have a leg to stand on. But with "marriage" defining such things as tax table, house loans, insurance coverage, eligibility for adoption, etc., I think the the problem lies with what the institution means in today's society. The modern baggage attached has greatly overcome any traditional meaning.
Rather than making a move one way or the other on gay marriage, perhaps getting their collective nose out of marriage completely would be a better move by government. Let the financial and legal matters that have accrued to marriage become a part of a civil contract that any people can enter into. Let the "man and woman joined under god's eye" remain the concern of religion. Quit using the unexamined bias of Judeo-Cristian superstition as the basis for civil law.
But that would require politicians and a populace that learned something beyond their mother's knee. You know, the results of a good (non-existent) education system.
Oh, and yes, the issue is of immense importance -- but only because it is an election year and Shrub needs a distraction badly.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?