[lbo-talk] Gay marriage

[John Thornton]

Bill Bartlett wrote:
> I never really understood what the problem was with civil unions 
> anyhow. It appears these are the same in law as a religious marriage. 
> So the only distinction is that the religious element of marriage is 
> taken away?
>
> What's the big deal? Forcing religions to accept gay marriage would 
> amount to government interference in religious doctrine wouldn't it?
>
> Personally I don't hold with any kind of marriage, never did like the 
> idea that the sanction of either church or state ought be necessary 
> for a private relationship. But I appreciate that many disagree, are 
> eager for the approval of the state, or their church. They have a 
> point about the state, insofar as the legalities that accrue to 
> married people, but I just don't see what the point is of demanding 
> the church approve something.
>
> Let the churches become more irrelevant. What on earth is the point of 
> demanding they stay relevant to modern relationships? Isn't that a 
> cause long lost? Who cares if a church won't "bless' your relationship 
> because it is contrary to their doctrine? If you want the relationship 
> despite it being contrary to the doctrine of your church, you have 
> already broken with their doctrine. And all a church has is its 
> doctrine, you can't break with that doctrine and insist you are still 
> a member of that church in any meaningful way.
>
> Can you? It seems irrational to me.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas

I'm married and no church had anything to do with it.
Church and marriage are not related in the US.
Since there is no other method to confer the legal rights of marriage 
other than marriage in the US it isn't any "eagerness for the approval 
of the state" that drives people to marry.
It is no different than getting a drivers license or business license.
Since marriage is state recognized, not religious, denying anyone the 
right to marriage based on race, religious affiliation or sexual 
orientation is unconstitutional.
It really is a simple as that. I can't deny gays and lesbians a business 
license or drivers license because of their sexual orientation so why a 
marriage license?
I fail to see anything irrational about it since many marriage rights 
cannot be contracted any other way.

John Thornton