that's a problem for the churches, but not a problem for the state.

The problem for the State is that the measure won't be supported by the people unless their concerns are met. Meddling with the meaning of marriage requires a popular mandate and if it's not achieved the State will have to stay with status quo - as we saw in California.

km

Religious institutions are making a very compelling argument that "marriage" is a religious phenomenon. If that's the case, then H. Habilis is correct to suggest that the state has absolutely no business in certifying marriages, period. The state is not in the business of sacramentalizing anything--maybe in England, where her majesty is a pretty nice girl and heads the C of E that might be possible, but not in the US. My marriage was celebrated in Cambridge, MA, city hall, by some government flunky, and had no imprint of any church official at all. So if marriage is a sacramental union, then I guess my wife and I aren't married.

Bingo! That is your fear. It could not be more obvious.

However, it is unfounded. The quality of life in the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage have not wrecked the quality of life for anybody. Day-to-day events carry on as usual and it has been over 5 years in some countries.

Ever feel like you're shoveling sand against the tide?

Anyway, back to Olberman's plea... the delivery was a bit over the top maybe, but entirely in keeping with the man's modus operandi. And I agree that it was authentic in its impassioned message. Good on him. Shame he had to throw in that sad qualifier about I'm not gay and don't know anyone within my extended family and a radius of ten million miles, as those kinds of mixed messages can have a rather disconcerting effect on the ostensible main thrust of his commentary.

I agree with him, in any case. The spirit of it is sound. That said, I agree with Yoyo's contention that the state has no business in sacramentalizing anything by and in the name of the public. Let it be civil unions (ignoring gender and orientation) and the churches can tie themselves up in knots trying to decide what's a marriage and what's blasphemy; the kind of absurd posturing involved with that activity should keep them busy for a few centuries anyway.

I live by the ocean so that is a very apropos analogy.

Will get back to you with an answer as soon as I wend my way through all the hysterical straight people whose quality of life has been wrecked by the tens of thousands of gay marriages in my country.

LOL!! See ya in about five minutes.

Good luck with that! Over in my neck of the woods, the sky has fallen several times now and people are still digging their way out of all those crashed clouds.

Why is everyone shouting 'Bingo!' when they haven't even got a full house?


That's just where you're wrong. Were it true that the meaning of 'marriage' made no difference to the quality of life then there's no reason why the gay fraternity should feel bad about being denied it. My argument is not that they don't feel bad but that since the majority would also feel bad a compromise has to be reached.

The quality of life clearly includes feelings of self-esteem and pride in your society and if voters were not to feel bad about the change in California they wouldn't have voted against the measure would they?

Where such a change has already occurred there's no evidence whatsoever that everyone is unaffected by it but your argument would be demolished if there were evidence to the contrary. So here is someone <--- who's on record as objecting to such a change in Spain.

km