|
I think where it comes to marriage, politicians who support these "defense of marriage" acts are caught in the worst hipocrisy. They claim that recognizing gay marriage would "threaten the institution of marriage," but I just don't see it. If you're defining marriage religiously, then you've got a church v. State issue - the State is only recognizing religiously defined guidelines for marriage. If you define marriage simply as a union recognized by the State (for example, a heterosexual couple married by a j of the p) then the State has basically said that relgious definition of marriage is not necessary for the State to recognize and honor it. Why should we not, then, extend the same legal privileges to homosexual couples? If it's religous marriage they're talking about (as opposed to civil unions) that's a religous issue up to the congregations. But I can't see any reason why denying civil marriage/civil unions to a certain class of people is seen as an attack against marriage. It's only an attack against a particularly narrow-minded conception of religiously-defined "family values."
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|