>DSR wrote:
> >
>> lesbians in Oklahoma filing suit in a state, which is
>> remarkably like Texas and where the ground for gay marriage is about
>> as breakable as the rock hard ground of the Dust Bowl days is quite
>> another.
>
>But what if a group of them do it anyhow? Then what do you do?
Well personally I'm agin it, but then I'm against heterosexual marriage as well, so that isn't surprising.
Here's the thing though, it is perfectly reasonable to oppose gay marriage, without necessarily being against heterosexual marriage. After all, marriage is a religious ritual and if we believe in the separation of church and state then surely that has to cut both both ways? To insist that the state has a right to dictate to religious organisations that they must marry people contrary to the doctrines of their religion is just as outrageous a breach of the separation of church and state as it is for the church to insist that the state impose its religious doctrines on non-believers.
It is one thing for the church to argue that I ought undergo their ancient marriage rituals, they are entitled to their opinion. But it would be quite outrageous for them to insist that the state should impose their beliefs on others.
It follows however that the religious are also entitled to act according to their conscience. Their marriage customs should not be interfered with by the state. If a religious organisation wants to include gays in their rituals, fine. If not, then that's entirely their business. To demand that gays have equal rights to a religious marriage ritual, contrary to the tenets of the actual religion, is simply preposterous. The state has no right to unilaterally amend the tenets of religious organisations, that simply isn't compatible with the separation of church and state.
So what to do? Easy. Tell gays to go start their own religion.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas