Jayzus, our president is confused. Apparently he never got the memo on separation of church and state.

How can you knowingly continue to define marriage as something “sacred”, and then say it is the government’s obligation to protect it by defining it? Marriage as a religious contract “under the eyes of god” is something the churches have no problem circumscribing for themselves, and most define it as being between a man and a woman. Which we may not like or agree with, but is perfectly within their right to do.

Marriage as a legal and social contract, upon which the government has decided to confer certain rights and benefits, is a whole different animal. because you cannot then deny those rights to a certain group of citizens, based solely on sex or sexual orientation.

The federal government can (and does, to date) leave it up to the states to decide what the requirements for a legal marriage are, what state benefits are bestowed, and what particular arrangements it makes to ensure that people are not discriminated against. thus the civil unions in vermont. You can’t do that and then turn around and say “we don’t like your definition, so we’ll alter the constitution to nullify your definition, tell you how to apply your state laws, and uphold our anglo-judeo-christian religious beliefs”.

he’s dangerously mixing religious morals and federal laws. and what irks me most is that he doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the two (aside: yes i know he also does this on the issue of abortion, however that’s a bit murkier because of the science involved, so one can argue that there is room for debate, even if he *is* only debating from his moral viewpoint). “civil unions”, “domestic partnerships” already exist in many states, and if they confer the same benefits, what does it matter what it is called? they are, for most legal intents and purposes a “marriage”, so for that matter, why not just call *all* contractually binding civil partnerships “civil unions”, and leave the religious “marriage” to the churches to sort out?

hmmm, wonder how his “man and woman” definition applies to, say, a transgendered person?? love to see the pols arguing that one out on capitol hill…

in any case, here’s the mass supreme court brief on proposed “civil unions” as an alternative. some pertinent excerpts:

“Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status… The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal… [emphasis mine] Neither may the government, under the guise of protecting “traditional” values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, “as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach,” forbids… The bill’s absolute prohibition of the use of the word “marriage” by “spouses” who are the same sex is more than semantic. The dissimilitude between the terms “civil marriage” and “civil union” is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status… The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples.”

restores some of my faith in our government. god bless the mass. supreme court justices.

Like this post

Unlike