[PLUG-TALK] Defense of marriage...

[Michael M. Moore]

Michael Robinson wrote:
> 
> Separation of church and state 
> means that that which is of a religious nature, marriage for 
> example, should not be defined by secular government.

That, at least, is something we can agree on.  Marriage ought to be a 
purely religious function, not licensed or endorsed by the state.  Those 
who care about such things are free to marry in whatever church or 
religious organization to which they feel attached, including but not 
limited to Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Unitarian, etc. churches, Jewish, 
Muslim, Buddhist temples, and so on.  There are plenty of Christian, 
Jewish, and other religious groups that will cater to all comers, 
without the bigotry and exclusionary behavior exhibited by other 
religious groups.

The whole network of state-bestowed special rights currently attached to 
what we call "marriage" in secular government should be abolished or 
reattached to civil-union contracts, which is really the only type of 
arrangement the state should be in the business of endorsing.  The state 
can decide for itself, without interference from competing and mutually 
exclusive interpretations of what various mythological entities 
supposedly want, what and who qualifies as and for a civil-union, under 
the guidelines set by the U.S. Constitution, which requires equal 
treatment under the law and strict scrutiny for exclusionary treatment. 
  Have evidence that polygamous arrangements have deleterious effects 
the state wants to exclude?  It better be solid and unimpeachable.  Same 
for incestuous unions, intergenerational unions, childless unions, 
unions intended to produce six or more children, gay and lesbian unions, 
or any other unions two or more adults may want to enter into.  Does the 
state have a compelling interest in denying civil-union status to any of 
these and does that interest pass Constitutional muster?  Those are the 
only questions the state should be asking and answering, not whether a 
union fits with a Catholic ideology, a Unitarian ideology, a Reformed vs 
Orthodox Jewish ideology, or whatnot.  Let those groups decide what they 
believe in, or don't believe in, and leave the state out it -- and leave 
them out of the state.  That's what "separation of church and state" means.

I'm delighted, Mr. Robinson, that in a tome's worth of posts that would 
put most Linux man pages and Tolstoy to shame, you have finally managed 
to come up with one sentence that makes sense.  Keep trying: 800 posts 
from now you might come up with another one.

Michael M.