   Bush speaks out against gay marraige ruling
Clickyquote:Today''s ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage. He''s responding to a case in Massachusetts:  Clicky2
  Here''s my little vision of the future I had the other day while staring at mushroom crumbs:The question of government involvement in marriage issues gets raised to the point of a very high court. Marriage is decided to be a religious institution, and therefore the government can have no part at all in defining marriage. So marriage is thrown out the window. But people still need to form "unions" for tax and insurance and whatever else reasons, so the government broadends the "civil union" to mean between anyone, as it is basically now just a "business relationship," including siblings and parent-children. The whole "marriage" thing becomes purely symbolic, and as now it is completely unregulated any two people or things can declare that they are married.In other words, the government won''t let me declare my computer as a dependent on my income tax even though we''re married. ;  I think the government should just drop the term marriage in favor of civil unions (as the mass supreme court suggested).  The jesus freaks can''t be pissed off the gay people are not "married."  The equal protections clause of the constitution is satisfied because everyone has access to the "civil union," and you do not run a foul of Brown vs The Board of Education because there is no "separate but equal" issue  (not that I am convinced sure that a change purely in semantics necessarily consitutes inherant bias).  I will be happy because removal of marriage from the government is a nice nod to secularism (and will undoubtedly piss off the religious right), and all these newly "married" (or unioned) couples will get hit with the "marriage" (or union) tax penalty, thereby lowering my share of the overall tax burden. ;  It''s amazing how eager he is to link laws to church. Theocracy. ;  I find it funny how Bush is always so quick to start ranting about how this country should be more Christian, when he himself does not follow the teachings of Christ.Jesus was an even larger pacifist than Ghandi, if anyone even cares. He would have been the largest anti-war supporter in this country, had he been alive today. No doubt he would be labelled a hippy communist beatnik and ridiculed for it. Kind of sad, really.Any Christian who supports pre-emptive wars without justification is not a Christian at all. I really wish George W Bush should stop trying to interpret God in his own fucked up way, and stop forcing his interpretations on us. ;quote:Original post by Cedric  It''s amazing how eager he is to link laws to church. Theocracy.   No kidding. The President of the United States does not get to declare what is sacred, and his statement is so clearly in violation of the separation of church and state it''s not even funny in a pessimistic "ha-ha our country sure is screwed" way.   "Baby-killer is a bad word though. Notice how as soon as you say it, you think negative things." - Peon;quote:Original post by Mithrandir  No doubt he would be labelled a hippy communist beatnik and ridiculed for it. Kind of sad, really.Are you comparing yourself to Jesus in some strange way?;  what kind of bullcrap is this anyway? who are the christians to claim the marriage as their own? it was there before them, and in the mayority of countries people marry without even having heard of christianity. just because the christians invented their own set of customs to go with it its now suddenly theirs to decide who can marry who? i can totally understand it if a priest doesnt want to perform a gay marriage, but to the state there should be no difference whatsoever. ;  There are a lot of times when people claim the First Amendment is being violated for infringing on the separation of church and state, and often they''re technically wrong, but this time it really does violate that amendment, plain and simple. The admendment specifically says no laws shall be created to favor a particular religion; the laws should be secular. Displaying the 10 Commandments was not a violation of this (though I was against it) but banning the marriage of gays certainly is. I fear for this country.   ~CGameProgrammer( ); -- Post screenshots of your projects. 100+ posts already in the archives. ;  The whole idea of marriage having anything to do with the law is IMHO ridiculous.The reason it exists is to give a tax credit to groups of people who potentially have children to take care of, with the understanding that they will ensure the child''s welfare comes first, in order to ease the financial burden of the task.Somewhere along the line, due to the lingering influence of Christianity in the US (and Canada), the requirement that a "group" consist of two people of opposite sex got added, and the requirement of there actually being children got removed (well, you get additional tax credit for dependants, but you get tax credit just for being married, too). It certainly has nothing to do with adding any kind of legal binding to a relationship, since adultery and divorce are entirely legal.Eventually, concessions got made - you get credit for adopted children, you get credit as a single parent for dependants, etc. - as government realized that fitting everyone into a 50s-style "big happy family" mold simply was not going to work. Yet, we still cling to this idea of legal "marriage", even as we debate extending the offering to homosexual unions - stripping the concept of its religious backing, which is pretty much all it had left.So it comes as no surprise that I say I am against gay marriage. Oh, it was   a surprise? I should hasten to add that I''m against straight   marriage too. My point is - the concept has outlived its usefulness and it''s time to move on.Of course, for the time being, I''m not against working within the system to expose its faults. I''ve said in the past that, though I''m quite straight myself, I would consider legal marriage (now that, being that I''m in Ontario, it is   legal) to another (straight) man, just to stick it to The Man, as it were. (Of course, I realize the humour in that choice of wording. I''m also not against poking fun at myself.  ) 