if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
The Rights of Marriage
by Hal_10000
I don’t usually agree with Glenn Greenwald, but he makes a good point:
The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into “marriage.” It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between “marriage” (as a religious institution) and “civil unions” (as a secular institution)—i.e., that California law could leave the definition of “marriage” to religious institutions and only offer and recognize “civil unions” for legal purposes—provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining “marriage” for religious purposes.
This is an important point that is lost in the argument. Freedom of Conscience works both ways. If a church refuses to allow same-sex marriage, no law should ever force them to.
Comments
It would actually be pretty easy to find, or if not, to set up a church that would marry gay couples.
Regardless of the legal aspects behind the decision, it’s an excellent compromise and it does result in equal treatment for everyone.
It would actually be pretty easy to find, or if not, to set up a church that would marry gay couples.
The Episcopal Church, for example.
Regardless of the legal aspects behind the decision, it’s an excellent compromise and it does result in equal treatment for everyone.
No, it does not.
There is no correlation between the religious definition of marriage and the legal issues under debate. Like it or not ‘marriage’ is a legal term as well as a religious term. Does the Census ask if you are civil unioned or if you’re married? Do you get a civil union license or a marriage license? Etc, etc. THIS is what these cases are all about, not religious marriage.
This is where marriage needs to be relegated to a church not a governmental term.
Civil unions for everyone, heterosexual and gay, and then let those find churches that support their particular belief or situation so they can sign that special piece of paper.
Everyone has the same rights...everyone can get their piece of paper. But, as dwex said, marriage has to mean the same for everyone as a governmental term or no longer be a governmental term.
Next entry: A Cup O' T
Previous entry: Change We Might Believe In
As I said in the other thread - in what context has anyone ever proposed such a thing?