Weird ruling. It's basically saying, we don't want to overturn the vote because of what that would look like, but we're sure the majority will vote it the other way very soon.
I heard a very interesting point of view on this ruling last night on Beck. It surprised me, and I hope its true.
Beck asked the guest (who's a law professor at Pepperdine) "Why is the Government in the business of marriage anyway?"
"Good quesion", I thought.
The guest answered this way:
"Basically so they know who to tax and so they know where property goes when someone dies, along with a few other things." Then he went on to state that this ruling is interesting in that the state is upholding the definition of marriage but it also letting the interim gay marriages stand. To him this means one thing:
The state is about to get out of the marriage business.
If the government only deals in "civil unions", then it can get out of the mess with the word "marriage". Marriage would then be left to whatever church you happen to believe in, or apply to on line.
The state would not recognize marriage at all, as that would be a purely religious ceremony. The state would only recognize civil unions, which already applies to all sexual orientations.
The state would no longer supply marriage certificates, but only civil union certificates.
If you want to feel that you are "married" then you do that on your own, however you feel it should be done.
I hope that government get's out of the marriage business, but for me marriage isn't about property. Maybe for the government it is, but not for me. It is about children and families. It is an institution that we as civilized people need to embrace again and the idea that gay marriage is under the same definition as regular marriage I think clouds the issue. I feel that marriage is very important, but I don't feel the same about gay marriage. Marriage is commitment and it sets an example for the children on how to be responsible and what commitment means. It is something that society should hold above all other unions.
With that said, the idea that gays form unions in our country also shows how we feel about people's individual freedoms and is also a very important lesson, but for me the two are very different and it needs to be clear how different they are.
3 comments:
Weird ruling. It's basically saying, we don't want to overturn the vote because of what that would look like, but we're sure the majority will vote it the other way very soon.
I heard a very interesting point of view on this ruling last night on Beck. It surprised me, and I hope its true.
Beck asked the guest (who's a law professor at Pepperdine) "Why is the Government in the business of marriage anyway?"
"Good quesion", I thought.
The guest answered this way:
"Basically so they know who to tax and so they know where property goes when someone dies, along with a few other things." Then he went on to state that this ruling is interesting in that the state is upholding the definition of marriage but it also letting the interim gay marriages stand. To him this means one thing:
The state is about to get out of the marriage business.
If the government only deals in "civil unions", then it can get out of the mess with the word "marriage". Marriage would then be left to whatever church you happen to believe in, or apply to on line.
The state would not recognize marriage at all, as that would be a purely religious ceremony. The state would only recognize civil unions, which already applies to all sexual orientations.
The state would no longer supply marriage certificates, but only civil union certificates.
If you want to feel that you are "married" then you do that on your own, however you feel it should be done.
I hope that government get's out of the marriage business, but for me marriage isn't about property. Maybe for the government it is, but not for me. It is about children and families. It is an institution that we as civilized people need to embrace again and the idea that gay marriage is under the same definition as regular marriage I think clouds the issue. I feel that marriage is very important, but I don't feel the same about gay marriage. Marriage is commitment and it sets an example for the children on how to be responsible and what commitment means. It is something that society should hold above all other unions.
With that said, the idea that gays form unions in our country also shows how we feel about people's individual freedoms and is also a very important lesson, but for me the two are very different and it needs to be clear how different they are.
Post a Comment