Saturday, December 04, 2004

United Methodists defrock lesbian minister

The Washington Times - Pottstown, PA - December 3

This is a good example of an acceptable forum for dissent against homosexuality. This isn't. Neither is this nor this.

I'm taking this opportunity to mention my feelings on the whole gay marriage issue. I think the forum for discussing the divine limits of marriage is the social hall - again, not the front steps of our state capitals, or even our nation's capital for that matter. Marriage is a religious sacrament no different from Communion or Baptism in the eyes of the Church; a vow of mutual devotion between two people made before the eyes of God - Priest and all. The idea of legislating marriage is no less laffable in my eyes than a state law prohibiting gays from receiving Communion. How about a constitutional amendment prohibiting Arabs from coming in contact with Holy Water. These are issues for the Church to confront - not the government. How have gay marriage laws found their way onto state ballots across the country? I can't even imagine.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

First Amendment - US Constitution

Marriage isn't an example of the exercise of religion? Wouldn't a legislative ban on gay marriage prohibit gays from practicing religion? I think we need to make a clean cut between marriage and the idea of civil union for legal purposes. When you get married in the eyes of God, you should also have to register the union in the eyes of the State in a separate motion. Leave gay marriage to the Church to ban - You can be certain most will, but for all civil purposes, why shouldn't two men, two women, or a man and a woman consent to share their legal rights free from persecution - what part of the Constitution distinguishes a man's vote from a woman's, again? Two people, two votes. Holy matrimony, civil unity.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

as long as these "civil unions" share the same rights as
a marriage i have no problem with having homosexuals being together. Being "married" is a matter of semantics.

Because i am too drunk and lazy to respond to the previous post....that is a nice drawing on your wall :-)
and your taste in music has expanded exponentially since
ive known you...which is always a good thing

YITB

Anonymous said...

i jsut posted a long comment on this post and it appears to not have worked...either way...you gotta check out jaga jazzist man...shits hot im telling you


YITB

AdamNation said...

That's the idea, anyway (equal rights) I wonder what it felt like to disagree with slavery, the 3/5 clause and all that jazz back in the day... I guess kinda like it feels to disagree with banning gay marriage today... crazy bastards.

AdamNation said...

(Re: the music thing) Ya taught me everything I know.... well... most of it ;-)

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with everything you said. Now if we could just get someone in politics to listen and understand. But I guess that's what you're trying to do, eh?
Keep up the good work
Michelle

Anonymous said...

Another reason it is not a good idea to make it a constitutional amendment is because of the other religions in the nation. Wicca does not have anything against gays being priests or priestesses in that religion. Christianity is not the only religion in the country.