Skip to main content

View Diary: WaPo publishes paean to ignorance and bigotry (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The groom summed it pretty well. (9+ / 0-)
    “People have a right to be together — that’s fine. I just believe marriage is religious, and I want to keep my religious things sacred. I don’t know if that’s mean or not, but I don’t want my religious beliefs to be diluted — not by heterosexuals or homosexuals. I don’t know, is that controversial?”
    I guess it's not so special if just anyone can do it.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:19:34 AM PDT

    •  I agree with him. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      That's why marriage shouldn't have any civil standing.  It's the most grotesque social engineering.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:26:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are excellent reasons for it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yellowdog, jayden, DBunn

        It's not "social engineering" any more than laws that govern other contractual relations. It creates rules that foster stability in the relationship knowing that there are expectations that will shape the contours of the relationship and that society will offer a mechanism to safeguard the relationship and also to ensure that each party can rely on those expectations. A marriage relationship necessarily involves a social context and commitment that is far more complex than an employee/employer or landlord/tenant or buyer/seller, so the rules need to be broader in scope and longer-lasting.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

        by FischFry on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:48:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Say what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sceptical observer

        If you have any question as to whether marriage is a legal contract, try getting divorced some time. Marriage is first and foremost a legal agreement. If you also want to tack on some sort of religious significance... well isn't that special!

        This is what the whole argument over marriage vs civil partnerships is all about. Marriage confers on the parties a whole bunch of rights and privileges not afforded to domestic partners. The case recently decided by SCOTUS, United States v Windsor, was about tax privileges given to married couples and not allowed for a same sex marriage that was not recognized by the State of New York.

        You've got it exactly backwards. Marriage has no use whatsoever except for civil standing. If your argument is that those privileges should not be given to anyone... well that's a different issue. But, as long as someone is getting those benies, then everyone should.

        In their eyes there's something lacking; what they need's a damn good whacking.

        by Mad City 67 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:39:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  His argument is absurd (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CajunBoyLgb, cfm, sceptical observer

      Even if marriage WERE religious, presuming as he appears to do that ALL religions object to same-sex marriage is simply incorrect; there are religious denominations that sanctify same-sex marriages. Therefore he is implicitly complaining that HIS religion is being denigrated when the beliefs of OTHERS' religions are given equal recognition under the law.

      In any case, it is equally fallacious to assert that marriage is inherently religious in nature. It isn't.

      •  And Besides... (4+ / 0-)

        Last time I checked, ATHEISTS can marry.

        And anyone can get married in a NON-RELIGIOUS ceremony at City Hall.

        Hell, in Europe you pretty much HAVE TO get married in the civil ceremony, separately from the "Princess Perfect the Christian Love Ideal"-themed costume party that lazy-minded Americans think is a "marriage".

        No, kids, that's a WEDDING.

        Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT. It has ALWAYS been a CIVIL CONTRACT. Civil marriage predates religious involvement by CENTURIES.

        The government has EVERY right to regulate CIVIL CONTRACTS. Religions can sanctify the wedding ceremony/ceremonies of their congregations-- but they CANNOT execute marriage licenses without express written permission of the state in which they operate; the state then (temporarily) confers upon them the sufficient notary duties necessary to execute the license.

        As long as atheists can marry, the churches can just shut their fucking pieholes about the "sanctity of Christian marriage". I say: Yank the notary powers from ALL churches. Make people get hitched in City Hall like they do in most other countries. THEN it's legal. As it should be.

        By the way: Given the track record of devout Christians in marriage, I give the marriage of these poor ignorant Alabamans about two years. Tops. Sorry to be cynical, but....

        -8.75,-8.00. Equal rights for ALL. Nothing less. RIGHT. NOW.

        by CajunBoyLgb on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site