Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Marriage and Amendments

This is exactly why this country doesn't need an amendment banning two members of the same sex getting married. Pay close attention...

"Marriage" is, basically, a religious sacrament. "Marriage," since the beginning of time, has been two people coming together in the "eyes of the Lord," who or whatever that may be. You CAN be "married" and not pay joint taxes. The government doesn't recognize it until you've got a piece of paper stating as such. Exception possibly given to the law of some state(s) that says if you introduce someone as your wife three times, then the law says she's your wife. That's nothing more than a very antiquated and old law that has no place in today's society.

Additionally, you CAN be "married," but not necessarily in the eyes of God. That's where Civil Unions come in. People, who most likely love each other, coming together in the eyes of the law. And don't our laws (and shouldn't our morals too) say that no one is to be discriminated against because of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, creed, religion, etc? So, in the eyes of the law, homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" into Civil Unions.

Now, the problem comes in for gays when their religion doesn't accept their sexual preferences. And, unfortunately, religions can discriminated in such a way. I don't like that, but, well, it's true. Of course, that probably has ALOT to do with why there's approximately 500 bajillion different religions in the world. A group felt discriminated, so they started a new religion by tweaking the dogma in order to be accepted. And right about now, the world is just about screaming for the "First Assembly of God's Gay Order of The Sacraments" Church. (Bonus points if you picked up on that)

So, why shouldn't gays and lesbians be allowed into Civil Unions? The entire word, "Civil Union," has no religious connotation. Simply put, this is NOT an issue that the government should be deciding...

No comments: