Nick <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote:

Actually, technically speaking, marriage hasn't *yet* been
defined as legally between only one man and one woman,
at least not in all of the states. That's why there was all the
hub-bub in the Massachusetts legislature recently, you see.
To put it simply, it is only a *religious* tradition that marriage
is for heterosexual couples only. In the civil, secular and
non-religious sense, marriage is simply a legal contract
between two consenting adult individuals that provides
certain legal rights upon said individuals, such as hospital
visitation rights and other such benefits. So, since what
homosexuals are trying to obtain is secular, non-religious
marriage and the rights that come with it, it would seem the
simplest course would be for our secular government to allow
it, since matters of church and state are to be entirely separate,
of course. If independent churches/temples/mosques/etc.
refuse to acknowledge such secular gay marriages, that is
perfectly within their rights, but they have no right to dictate
what the secular law of our country may or may not allow.

In other words, I feel that there should be secular marriage,
which is open to all and which is where the important legal
rights originate, as well as religious marriage, which is only
ceremonial in nature and which can be withheld from certain
couples at the personal discretion of the church/temple/
mosque/etc. This would allow gays to marry and would
preserve the traditional, ceremonial and religious marriage
from any unwanted changes. Please read and consider
this before replying. Thank you.

_____________________________
It would appear to me that the weakness in your argument
resides in the fact that almost all our laws find their base in our
Judeo/Christian heritage, and marriage is no exception. The religious
tradition which dictates that only men can marry women is so
intertwined with marriage as an institution so as to have effectively
secularized that requirement.

Similarly, laws against lying under oath, polygamy, incest,
bestiality, going nude in public, ...

...urinating in public view, swearing in public...

...and a whole host of others have their foundation wholly in
religion and cannot be otherwise argued.

This is especially true of public decency laws. Is this in itself
an argument to abolish them, or to exempt those who say the
hell with them?

Nobody even attempts to make a secular case for these
types of laws, ...

...but neither do they attack them because they're religiously based.
Why, then, single out marriage for this class of argument? Might not
one just as easily make a similar case and ask, "Well, I'm not
religious and should thus be allowed to (insert the behavior)." As for
the civil rights aspect, one can make every bit as strong a case for
marrying ten women, or their mother, father, sister or brother as they
can for same sex marriage.

And when those actions come before the courts, as they
inevitably will, a principle will have been established here
which will bite us all in the ***** big time.

Further, I can not think of a law governing human conduct
in our culture which doesn't have its basis in the Ten Command-
ments in one way or another. Not one.

And as I pointed out, we don't abolish, or ameliorate, their
application merely on that basis alone. And when you suggest this new
form of state-sanctioned civil ceremony as an acceptable alternative,
my reply to that is there isn't a thing the government gets its paws
into that it doesn't ultimately control with an iron fist.

What would happen here is the state would soon tell those
marrying in religious ceremonies that these are not legal unions
recognized by the state.

I guarantee that would happen, and also that those pushing in this
direction with homosexual, civil unions are biding their time on that
one as well. It's the next logical step from their point of view.