What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusine… - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
5 Comments
- thefluxster, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3I propose that marriage was not originally intended simply as a legal contract. It has been around longer than law itself, regardless of which culture you take as an example. The reasons we have for wanting to protect it for what it truly was intended as go much deeper than a simple civil rights discussion. Modern ideas and political pressures should not be used to trample under a religious rite, which, to many, represents far more than a method of obtaining civil rights. It is a covenant. A sacred three-way covenant in which only a man, woman and God can enter into. That the state additionally recognizes it and affords benefits to it as contract between two people was convenient at a point in history but is showing its age in our changing social climate.
Redefining marriage to include discriminated individuals or groups does not eliminate the discrimination. It simply gives it a new name.
What Prop 8 does is open the way to change existing discriminating legislature (laws giving benefits to married couples) without defacing the institution of marriage. You don't change the included list of people in a discriminatory law to include your group; you change the law and the definition of that group stands separately. The laws regarding segregation didn't get changed to say, "Blacks are now White and therefore are given rights." Saying that homosexual couples should be included in the definition of marriage is the same argument.
People deserve equality from the state on both sides of the issue. Supporters of Prop 8 believe marriage is a religious institution and not just a contract recognized by the state between two consenting adults. As a religious rite, it deserves full protection from the state. The same is true of other religious rites, be they whatever they may be.
ProtectMarriage.com:
"...Prop. 8 will not “rob” anyone of anything. Gay couples in domestic partnerships have and will continue to have the same legal rights as married spouses. We’re not here to stop anyone from expressing their commitment or responsibility to another. We’re simply here to protect the definition of marriage ... - a union between a man and a woman."
Civil Unions and the rights thereof are a totally separate discussion - one which you'd find me and my church on the same side as homosexual couples. - SadMartigan, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Finally a few arguments that actually make sense. The examples from Massachusetts are what may change my mind on this issue. Otherwise: I don't think government has a role in determining what marriage is. I believe that it should be left to religions to do 'marriage' Couples wanting to enter into a legal contract with each other, and have legal, financial, civil benefits and responsibilities shared, should do just that: have a contract - that's what laws are there for.
- sirriedelot, on 10/20/2008, -0/+0What its gay marriage proponents want to see happen is not equal rights, they already have it. Want is demanded is government's "stamp of approval" on a certain kinds of relationships that society doesn't value like it does traditional marriage. The official validation will do nothing but enforce an ideological viewpoint contrary to most families through school and church regulation. The most impressionable members of society, children, will be mislead by what they see as official sanction for a lifestyle that would be destructive to our current family/marriage norm.
- svetzy, on 10/09/2008, -0/+0Excellent comment, I wholeheartedly agree -- thanks!
- aingefan, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0Critical in wys most underestemate
