1 Judge Overrides Will of the People

[olde north church]

Marriage is a sacrament for the people who believe that it is a sacrament, and no one who believes that marriage is a sacrament will enter into a same-sex marriage.

Marriage was a sacrament when it was A) for life, and B) entered into it in a Church. A Civil Magistrate lack the ability to enter people into a Holy Union, but we call civil unions "marriages".

It stopped being one when a segment of the people decided that one should be allowed multiple marriages in a life time, and when a divorce became easier to obtain than a bankruptcy.

People today marry less, divorce more when they do and those who do bother to marry do so multiple times, as if marriage was no different than changing jobs.

Soon more babies will be born out of wedlock than out of a marriage, and marriage has been the prize to be won in TV shows.

So you should spend time condemning those who, having the ability to marry, have nearly destroyed the sacrament of marriage more so than attacking those who never having had the ability to actually marry at all, are now being blamed for the destruction of the institution.

It's hypocritical to demand that others abide by a sacrament that by and large we don't pay any attention to.

The slippery slope that found us here was set into motion by us.

Let me back track for a second, if I may.  The origin was a Sacrament.  The secular is basically a business contract.  The "power vested" is acknowledgement of the secular power. 
This is where it gets difficult.  With the "separation of Church and State", the Feds have no power, or shouldn't have any power to inflict it's nose into religious business.  Then again, there should be a Church ceremony without legal implications, without the "power vested in me" phrase.  A couple could have the choice to get married correctly in a ceremony but then shoot down to the Justice of the Peace to make the government happy.

[olde north church]

Let me back track for a second, if I may.  The origin was a Sacrament.  The secular is basically a business contract.  The "power vested" is acknowledgement of the secular power. 
This is where it gets difficult.  With the "separation of Church and State", the Feds have no power, or shouldn't have any power to inflict it's nose into religious business.  Then again, there should be a Church ceremony without legal implications, without the "power vested in me" phrase.  A couple could have the choice to get married correctly in a ceremony but then shoot down to the Justice of the Peace to make the government happy.

Take it one step further, have churches stop performing wedding ceremonies for anybody.  Straight, homosexual, group or bestial.  The perform those that fit religiously in secret.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let me back track for a second, if I may.  The origin was a Sacrament.  The secular is basically a business contract.  The "power vested" is acknowledgement of the secular power. 
This is where it gets difficult.  With the "separation of Church and State", the Feds have no power, or shouldn't have any power to inflict it's nose into religious business.  Then again, there should be a Church ceremony without legal implications, without the "power vested in me" phrase.  A couple could have the choice to get married correctly in a ceremony but then shoot down to the Justice of the Peace to make the government happy.

I've been married more than once.

My first marriage was conducted by a member of the clergy in the House of God.

Consecrating the union in the eyes of God was an optional step which turn my state-licensed civil union into a marriage.

There is no conflict (in my eyes anyway) with having members of the clergy act a civil witnesses to a union, because no one is obligated to use them to enter into a marriage.

P.S. I'm dropping out of this debate right now. I think I am going to climb up on my soapbox and take this up in my blog.

Keep an eye out for the topic in The Last Wire.

[olde north church]

I've been married more than once.

My first marriage was conducted by a member of the clergy in the House of God.

Consecrating the union in the eyes of God was an optional step which turn my state-licensed civil union into a marriage.

There is no conflict (in my eyes anyway) with having members of the clergy act a civil witnesses to a union, because no one is obligated to use them to enter into a marriage.

P.S. I'm dropping out of this debate right now. I think I am going to climb up on my soapbox and take this up in my blog.

Keep an eye out for the topic in The Last Wire.

Very good!

[MACVSOG68]

So, what is your exact objection to the idea of same-sex marriage?

Thought I would let you and ONC get the religious aspect out of the way.  I'm not a very religious person so that argument isn't in my arsenal.

My basic argument isn't against gay marriage as much as I believe it to be a state issue.  A good discussion of this is found in:

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

Hope I got the link right.  Anyway this was an 8th Circuit Court ruling relative to Nebraska's constitutional ban on gay marriage.  Part of the argument was that the issue was similar to Loving, and the court ruled that Loving involved a "suspect classification" that directly involved the 14th Amendment.  The court then talked about the slippery slope, writing in effect that states can set all sorts of parameters on marriage including age, relationships, health issues, etc.  Therefore in their opinion sexual orientation is no different.

When Massachusetts first recognized gay marriage, I defended that (on FR) on the basis that marriage and family law are state issues.  I still believe that.  So it's not my opposition to gay marriage, but rather my support for states rights...and of course the slippery slope argument. BTW, on FR I argued against the constitutional ban on gay marriage that was being considered in 2006.

If and when the USSC settles the issue, I will respect the decision.