On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:48 PM, <---------@---------.---> wrote:
> I challenge an assertion you make.
>
> Odds are that if legislation grants legal status to gay "marriages" then those refusing to perform those marriages on ethical/moral/religious/"law of Nature" grounds could indeed have legal action brought against them. Such legal standing is precisely what that camp is vying for - in many arenas.

a judge is as far as I know more or less required to marry anyone with
a license showing that they meet the requirements.. a priest or a
rabbi or whoever is not (I don't believe) bound by law to perform a
marriage, otherwise Pastor King of Adrian Church of God could be sued
for not marrying a couple where the man is a Mormon and the woman is a
Pentecostal - that happened (thankfully) to me. I will not be suing
him or being angry with him at all. I thanked him for saving my
posterior from a Really Dumb Mistake... like a Tall Building Jumping
From A Window class screwup [SPLAT!].

>
> ----- then a point or two to ponder -------
>
> The family - meaning a married Mom & Dad and their natural or adopted children IS the fundamental unit of society. So what happens then IF we redefine what a family is? Does this not cause a GREAT deal of confusion among the young who contend with much confusion already?
>
> Personally while I don't believe we should make legislation that would make homosexuality a punishable crime I also don't believe we should redefine what a family or a marriage is to include something so grossly against the laws of Nature - let alone the law of God.

I don't think it's ever been officially written down and codified in
secular society like not killing people or vandalism.. so any attempt
to define it is to (re)define it. I don't think public law should
define it. churches and cultures are free to define it as a norm. but
a law that has the intention of discrimination is one law closer to
George Orwell's Animal Farm or 1984. It is best not to go down that
slippery slope. Pretty soon people will be witch hunted because they
are gay, or not allowed to get married because they are mixed race.

Human beings are very powerful creatures in that we don't have to
follow many of the laws of nature. We can be or not be married and
have a family. We can self terminate. We can kill eachother for no
reason whatsoever, or commit random and senseless acts of beautiful
kindness. We can debate the meaning of our own existence, and that
meaning can change at a moments notice.

Free agency is a wonderful gift. And a terrible curse. And a grave
responsibility. The actions of one individual have potential to affect
the future of all humankind. Religion is a great tempering agent and
guide for the use of this powerful tool.. but it is not a law of the
land in America. Yet.

If I were a religious leader I would probably have to pass on
officiating these ceremonies, and forward a couple to someone else
with my blessings and best wishes.. honestly the thought of having to
make this decision hurts my head.

as a judge, my criteria would be to uphold and interpret the law as is
my power and job description. If the couple meets the requirements, I
would perform my duties honorably.

>
> While they frame this in terms of "civil rights" and "being a family" to reach out emotionally to the vast majority that find homosexuality the perversion it is --- my advice is "follow the money" because that is going to point out all sorts of things the emotional appeal is designed to blind you to.

very fair.. the same can also be said for the religious lobby or any
emotional self-defining way of life/thinking. I think that all people
with ulterior motives will get their due.

I think that the people in power who want this amendment stand to
benefit as well considering that if a gay person dies, any estate is
taxable, but if a married person dies, the estate goes to the spouse
without going through probate or any inheritance taxes. gay marriage
would increase the number of married inheritance transactions and
decrease $$$ for bridges to nowhere and other assorted pork (oo).

ultimately, an amendment of this type is the seeds of the American taliban.