[PLUG-TALK] The trouble with different browsers...

[Mark Turner]

On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Michael Robinson
<plug_1 at robinson-west.com> wrote:
> As far as the Congress shall not respect religion comment, that isn't
> in the Constitution.  Congress shall not impose a national religion
> and it shall not interfere with Christianity or any other establishment
> of religion for the sake of those who aren't religious at all.
> Separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of state from
> church.  There isn't a state existing over here that has authority over
> everything that is in the arena of God and religion over there.  The
> state should not be in the business of deciding what marriage is,
> marriage is a religious institution.  Render to Caesar what is Caesar's
> and to God what is God's.


I don't mean to poke holes in your thought on the subject, but the
first amendment to the US Constitution does in fact state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In addition to the first amendment there have been numerous supreme
court cases upholding the separation of church and state. So I would
say that the government needs to stay completely OUT of any religious
action including Marriage.

If you practice a religion it will most likely have some sort of
definition of a union between a man and women. One of the great things
about this country is that people are not forced to be Christian,
Muslim, Buddhist, or any other religion.. nor are they required to be
a member of ANY religion. Trying to define "marriage" in the
"christian" sense completely ignores that fact that our nation is full
of many religions and the constitution protects each and every one.

If you love someone, and want to spend the rest of your existence with
that person I have absolutely NO issues with that no matter what sex,
race, religion or non-religion you or they are. If a gay couple gets
married it does not affect my life in the slightest bit. They will
have the same issues, arguments, joys and sorrows that any "regular"
couple will. To not give someone the chance to experience those things
because they don't fit your comfortable idea of a couple should be a
crime, and should probably be an opinion you keep to yourself. You
don't tell your neighbor his wife is ugly, why would you tell him he
shouldn't marry someone?

The only right stance is "No marriage for anyone until everyone has
the right to marry". To argue that is to ignore common sense, and in
its place you put your own selfish insecure thoughts and fears. It
this ignorant small-world view of things that holds us back and causes
nothing by violence and hate.

If they sate uses the term "marriage" in laws then their definition of
"marriage" needs to encompass any and all versions of marriage and not
just one sect. Period.

-Mark