--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
Bill, you are assuming that marriage is solely a religious institution. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the civil act performed by the government. Two different animals, entirely.
Technically, religion should have no role in this argument at all. But because so many people have merged their religious act in with the civil act and lost the boundaries, it is almost impossible to separate the two in debate, which is most unfortunate.
Civil marriage actions are acts of the state. Even "godless" countries like the former Soviet Union had a form of civil marriage.
If we could ever get this through to people, there would hardly be a debate.
- Deborah