RSSA Setback In Redefining Marriage
J.J. Jackson* | February 4, 2007
Those who want to make marriage mean something other than it has for years were dealt a setback.
LANSING, Mich. — Michigan’s ban on gay marriage also blocks public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers, the state Court of Appeals ruled Friday.A three-judge panel cited the language of a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment making the union between a man and woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”
“The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan,” wrote Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra.
Again, I will restate my positions on this. First, I do not like direct democracy. It leads to tyranny of the majority. Secondly, marriage as a religious institution should NOT be defined by the state. Thirdly, I do not accept the premise that marriage is solely about love and commitment and that two gay men or two lesbian women who want to marry is the same thing as a man and a woman being married.
If a church wants to start condoning gay marriages (an oxymoron I know) then they should be allowed. They will also suffer if their membership decides to go elsewhere to worship.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
Comments
4 Responses to “A Setback In Redefining Marriage”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
“First, I do not like direct democracy. It leads to tyranny of the majority. Secondly, marriage as a religious institution should NOT be defined by the state. Thirdly, I do not accept the premise that marriage is solely about love and commitment and that two gay men or two lesbian women who want to marry is the same thing as a man and a woman being married.”
Interesting. Perhaps my position, as a lefty, is similar to yours. I wanted to throw it by you.
I think marriage is a religious institution, and thereby should fall under the first amendment, and the state should not have anything to do with it. The state has nothing to do with the sacrament of “baptism”, why should it have anything to do with marriage?
However, I think that “civil unions”, could be recognized by the state, for social, demographic, tax, etc purposes. That is, I think it is largely a contractual relationship, which two people engage in, mostly for the purposes of sharing assets. Whatever reason the two engage in this contractual relationship (for love, family, children, etc.) doesn’t matter. Marriage as a “contractual relationship” is pretty much how marriage was understood in the Enlightenment, the very intellectual age of this nation’s founding.
So, states could recognize civil unions, and individuals (and/or churches) can call them “marriages” and have ceremonies in whatever church they so choose; but the designation “marriage” simply refers to a religiously recognized relationship. To call this contractual relationship “marriage” necessarily gives it a religious tone, which is outside the domain of the state. Basically, the state should stay out of marriages all together.
I have no problem with gay civil unions, and a contractual state recognized “civil union” should not be defined by race, gender, etc. The Constitution isn’t about guaranteeing the “right use of words” (it is not a dictionary) such as “marriage”, its about protecting the rights of the people from the tyranny of the state. To insert “marriage” into the constitution is to insert religion into it.
So what do you think?
Marriage is, actually, nothing but legal act today, so why worry about it?
“Marriage is, actually, nothing but legal act today, so why worry about it?”
That might be a valid argument IF your assumption was correct. But last time I looked marriage was still a highly coveted and widely practiced religous cerimony/designation. Which renders your basic premise invalid.
Hello, nice site look this:
http://christian-meaning-of-names.leproso.info
http://cash-register.leproso.info
http://celebrity-sedu-hair-styles.leproso.info
http://baby-boy.korunte.info
http://june-carter-cash.leproso.info
http://online-games.leproso.info
http://cash-register.leproso.info
http://business-cards.korunte.info
http://foreign-currency.leproso.info
http://high-school.korunte.info
End ^) See you