My corner of Hyde Park
Bush says he wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage. His aim is neither preserving sacredness nor marriage. The Spears marriage and Little White Chapel, and his response tell the truth about that. Sacred refers to a religious belief. Some gay marriages have been conducted by churches, and thereby have been sanctified.
That leaves the question of a threat. The Ganges is sacred, but not to Christians, which shows that sacred is a religious relationship between people and what they hold sacred, regardless of other's beliefs.
The opposition to giving gays the same LEGAL status they enjoy, claim that it is God's Law that marriage be between a man and a woman, just as the bible was quoted to support slavery two hundred years ago. We opposed the Taliban's preservation of what they believed was sacred. Only religion can sanctify. This is why we must seperate government from religion.
The marriage contract is a civil agreement, a contract, subject to the governing by the people. Why should gays be spared the joys of alimony and divorce court, as well as the rights granted joined couples to help the society at large (inheritance, medical care)? Civil law that provides for a marriage contract, and
God's law, pertaints to them, their church, and their God. The state deals not in God's law, but man's law, and what is at question is the standing of a marriage contract. Consider: a Catholic Priest may legally marry; it is the church that objects.
Bush is using this to motivate the religious right to help force their beliefs on the rest of America, which I find a profane action.
Copyright © 2004
; All rights reserved.