And in this corner...
The third round of debate on the gay marriage issue in Massachusetts is underway in the State House today. As a follow-up to this previous post on the subject, let me re-iterate that I do support the rights of gays to marry, given the same restrictions and limitations currently placed on heterosexual couples. What I do not support are many of the actions being taken nationwide by some of the more radical pro-gay marriage politicians, legislators, and judges.
And to anyone who might wish to label me a Neocon-Bush-Apologist based on my previous posts denouncing Kerry as a pathetic, liberal panty-waist, pay attention.
I whole-heartedly disagree with amending the constitution (state or U.S.) to define marriage based on anyone's religious views. Yes, I disagree with my president, oh, the horror. This country was founded on the principle that no one, including the State, has the right to impose their religious principles on others. The idea of laws based on Judeo-Christian principles (thou shalt not steal, murder, etc.) is significantly different than the idea of laws that might be enacted based on one specific religious tenet or another.
The question I have for those vehemently opposed to gay marriage due to its contradiction with one's religious views is this: How would allowing a gay couple making a commitment to one another, in the form of a civil marriage, weaken the sworn covenant of Holy matrimony that you have created between you, your spouse, and your God? If you feel your marriage would be weakened by this being allowed, let me give you a clue. It's already pretty weak.
If you are against homosexuality based on your interpretations of the teachings of the Holy Bible, it is your inalienable right to hold those beliefs, and I will defend your right to your beliefs. I will also defend your freedom to worship whichever God you please, and to join whichever church you feel shares your views. Unlike many people we read about in the news every day, I don't necessarily label all those who are against gay marriage as hate-filled bigots. We are a diverse nation, and yes, diversity means living in the same communities as those who do not share your core beliefs.
Well, that's all for now.
And to anyone who might wish to label me a Neocon-Bush-Apologist based on my previous posts denouncing Kerry as a pathetic, liberal panty-waist, pay attention.
I whole-heartedly disagree with amending the constitution (state or U.S.) to define marriage based on anyone's religious views. Yes, I disagree with my president, oh, the horror. This country was founded on the principle that no one, including the State, has the right to impose their religious principles on others. The idea of laws based on Judeo-Christian principles (thou shalt not steal, murder, etc.) is significantly different than the idea of laws that might be enacted based on one specific religious tenet or another.
The question I have for those vehemently opposed to gay marriage due to its contradiction with one's religious views is this: How would allowing a gay couple making a commitment to one another, in the form of a civil marriage, weaken the sworn covenant of Holy matrimony that you have created between you, your spouse, and your God? If you feel your marriage would be weakened by this being allowed, let me give you a clue. It's already pretty weak.
If you are against homosexuality based on your interpretations of the teachings of the Holy Bible, it is your inalienable right to hold those beliefs, and I will defend your right to your beliefs. I will also defend your freedom to worship whichever God you please, and to join whichever church you feel shares your views. Unlike many people we read about in the news every day, I don't necessarily label all those who are against gay marriage as hate-filled bigots. We are a diverse nation, and yes, diversity means living in the same communities as those who do not share your core beliefs.
Well, that's all for now.
