Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • jquinones8812_854

    November 8, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    I am sorry, I just don’t buy it.

    I understand your argument; and in fact, I don’t really dispute many of the facts as you  portray them.

    My point is, so what if we have to redefine these rules?  It would not be the first time.  It would make lawmakers work; so what.

    I never said it was an easy proposal.  But I do think it is the right one.  I just don’t think the government should be in the business of using religious defintions such as marriage.

    As for civil laws and such, you could easily pass a law that dictates that whomever you choose as your partner designate would serve equally as the previously defined husband/wife.  As for spouses testifying against each other, that is a state by state thing; some states, a person can be forced to testify against his/her spouse.

    And for politicians defining marriage as a religious exercise; that is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.  Is there some other defintion of marriage that I am missing?  It is a religious definition.  Only the Christian church has defined marriage; between 1 man and 1 woman; you can define marriage any way you want, outside of the religious construct.  The reason that we don’t accept polygamy is not legal; it is purely religious.  There are nations around the world that accept polygamy.  I would argue that the government using marriage in its legal definitions, in and of itself, trespasses the church/state divide; and is one of the reasons I would ask to remove the definition all together.

    Anyway, I understand your point.  It is a far reaching proposal, and would entail more than just eliminating the defintion of marriage.  But I still think it is the right move.