Black and white: Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. And to be honest, I don't care what you might want to do with your sister. Nobody's getting hurt, right?
To Senator Jeff Kruse Good Day Senator, I was born in Oregon just about when the State was half it's current age. I cannot recall a previous time the Attorney general has failed, and let the peoples vote default to no contest in a court challenge. This default position allows the gay community to change the meaning of the word married, just as it has changed the meaning of the word "gay". I can no longer be a gay man but I can recall being a gay young man on occasion. The same change is now taking place with the word "Married". My Wife and I were Married in the eyes of God and man about 54 years ago. But I doubt any Gay people will ever say the same thing because they do not seek the same recognition for their union. They could have had a legal Union in the eyes of man if they wanted without too much struggle, But that is not good enough, they seek to debunk the joining in the eyes of God. So now the meaning has changed in a significant way and that change is recognized by the court. I would urge you to take the State completely out of the Marriage business, issue no licenses in the State of Oregon. Leave Marriage to be administer by the Church of choice by the couples being joined in the eyes of God and man. It probably should have been that way from the beginning. This business of not allowing Gays to marry being in violation of the 14th amendment is hog wash. You have to change the meaning of marriage from being the joining of a man and woman to something else before there is and unequal protection. That mission was accomplished today and it is not a good thing. I do not wish any harm or unfairness for gays but seeing them overtly degrade the meaning of marriage leaves me a feeling of foreboding. Please consider a bill to eliminate marriage licensing by the State of Oregon. It always belonged in the hands Gods servant anyway. Regards, MarAzul
You should read up a bit. Seems you only know about the "Christian" definition of marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage People were gettin" hitched long before Christianity was born. Pagans even. My wife and I (both atheists) are celebrating our 37th anniversary in September. I've never seen a happier or stronger marriage than ours. Superlatives fail to accurately express my good fortune. I've known people who never found love, not even for a short time, and it's the saddest thing on Earth. To feel threatened by other people finding someone to share their life with and give their life meaning seems like the silliest fear imaginable. C'mon MarAzul, you've got bigger fish to fry. Sweden is considering raising their minimum wage to over $24.00 an hour!
MarAzul's letter might make a better impression if he knew English grammar and punctuation, history, theology, or political science. Oh yes, and linguistics. And the First Amendment. You know, establishment of a religion? If only a "Church" (which should not be capitalized in this context) can issue a marriage license, then only Christians can marry, as people of other faiths or no faith do not attend "church". Must be hard being a dinosaur, knowing extinction is just around the corner. Unlike true dinosaurs, no chance of evolving.
You may have a total intollerance for anyone who disagrees with you, but I respect his POV as I do yours.
I believe the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist all have the concept of marriage well in hand for the people that follow those practices. I should think I need not explain to you that a Rabbi for Jew will fill the role just as well and a priest or minister does for a Christian. I guess gays would need to invent and institution to fill the role, since the State is a poor substituted to let them ease through void. I wonder what that institution structure would look like? It will be interesting to see how these marriages shake out, marriages of convenience for the best tax break. I wonder how often they will need to change spouses to get the best tax situation? Oh well, I suppose the legislators will just eliminate all that differentiation in the code since it will no long be in place to promote families. Just Jack and Johnny joining up to get the tax break Lizzy and Fanny joining in too, for this year. That won't due, it doesn't make any sense.
Good article. Did you see this part; "In contemporary English common law, a marriage is a voluntary contract by a man and a woman" I didn't see any where in the article nor in writing associated with any religion that contradicts the idea that marriage involves anyone other than a "Man and a Woman". In the past, more than a hundred years ago, the Catholic church did perform "Unions" between same sex couples but it was not called Marriage You can look it up, I think it was during the late Roman Empire.
Why? Would you also say only a white judge can rule on civil rights? Only a male judge on women's rights? Only a rich judge on workplace issues? Only an able bodied judge on disability? Crap, pretty soon there'd be no qualified judges left.
As for MarAzul, aside from everything else he clearly does not even watch TV news. Watch the couples lining up for hours to marry a partner of 20, 30, 50 years. Marriage of convenience for taxes? Yeah, that's why they are crying with joy, because of taxes. Sure. I fail to see why I should "respect" a POV that I am an inferior human being without the rights others take for granted, "explained" by a semi literate who assumed I was male and told me I should know what do with my supposed dick. Oops - meant to edit and quoted myself instead - sorry - point still holds.
Interestingly enough, the judge who overturned Prop. 8 in California was also a homosexual (but did not make that known until after he made his decision). He retired from the bench into private practice about a month after making his ruling. :MARIS61:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government Kritocracy or Krytocracy a government ruled by judges. Certainly not following the will of the people. I guess the people are too dumb to make their own decisions?
