Morgan Evans ([info]jediphilosopher) wrote,

And Back

Yes, I'm back to updating this, after stopping for a long time, much longer than I had planned, for various reasons. But I'm back now. And now for two thoughts of the day.

First, this year is the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, or so I am told. With this in mind, allow me to say something possibly controversial:

There are no "Black Rights." There are no "Women's Rights." There are no "Gay Rights."

Nor are there "White Rights," "Men's Rights," or "Straight Rights."

There are only Human Rights. We may have some cosmetic differences, but we are all Children of God, and to suggest one group of us has a different type of rights than another group is wrong. No strides have been made in "Women's Rights," in "Black Rights," or what have you. Instead, strides have been made in Human Rights -- for now we deny those rights to less people. As long as some are denied the rights granted to all, then the rights of all are lessened. We are One Body, what we do to the least of these, we do to all humankind.


My second thought:

It seems most people object to Gay Marriage on religious grounds. This, of course, would suggest that most people believe that Marriage is a religious issue. I quite agree with them, it is!

That is why we cannot make a law against it -- it is a religious issue! And the US constitution prohibits us from making laws against the free practice of any religion. A law in favor of Gay Marriage CANNOT compel any Church to accept it. If the Church does not endorse the marriage, it is not a valid marriage!

But it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for a Church to marry those whom it believes it is right to marry (unless it is somehow harmful). Marriage should be the exclusive domain of the Church, not the State.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 2 comments

[info]thegameiam

October 2 2005, 14:47:04 UTC 6 years ago

welcome back! When I saw the news about the deaths at the jambouree, I got concerned...

I am not aware of any laws which say that a Church can't marry any two individuals - only that such unions would not be recognized by the State. I think the current fight is not about religious unions, rather about State recognition of them.

We could entirely do away with the secular concept of marriage, but that hasn't been so good for the countries which don't have it...

[info]mayamaia

October 3 2005, 04:25:38 UTC 6 years ago

Of course, there are all the legal advantages to marriage, and because of those, it is a State issue as well. And those in power feel that they can't just stand by and let it happen. Blah.

Personally, I feel there ought to be two titles: the marriage is in the church, the domestic union is legal. That way, gay marriage could have the legal advantages without threatening the religious right.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…