& finally married. But, but, but, what will this do to my marriage? I will tell you the truth: absolutely nothing. Congratulations to Ms. Martin & Ms. Lyon. Many happy returns & many years of married bliss. We are making progress, albeit slowly, in this land of the free, sort of.
I have long thought that a reasonable compromise would be to leave marriage to churches and contracts to government (civil unions). Now it seems that organized gaydom needs to poke someone in the eye and organized righties want to have their eye poked. So I will just be a spectator.
I think that if a church or clergy- woman wants to perform same sex marriages, there should be absolutely no government interference in the ceremony. If a church or clergywoman won't do the ceremony, OK by me, as long as the persons can still be married by a justice of the peace or whomever. There ought to be no second class marriage, i.e., civil unions. What's really sad is that those most rabidly against same sex marriage find heterosexuals so special, that they & only they can show love through a religious or civil ceremony & be married.
Some clarification. My point was that the religious part (marriage) should be in the domain of churches and that the civil part (contracts) should be left to the government (separation of church and state?). I also am convinced that a large number of pro and anti gay marriage advocates just want to fight.
One more thing, there are many members of traditional marriages that would prefer a civil union (ha ha).
Yes, I see & understand. I didn't mean to start an argument. Your idea is my idea, now that I think about it. Leaving in the church's hands means exactly that - some will perform the marriages, some won't. It seems, as usual, that it was my misunderstanding, not your post. Thanks. Once again we agree & I think we ought to rule the world, or at least the Town of A*****d.
Post a Comment