[PLUG-TALK] Defense of marriage...
Michael M. Moore
michael at writemoore.net
Fri Feb 27 19:36:04 UTC 2009
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.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list