It looks like civil servants in Maryland are keen on enforcing the law rather than re-inventing it.
Until the law changes, however, clerks said there will be no wedding bells for in their courthouses for gays.What a novel concept!"We can't perform a wedding unless it's a man and a woman, it's the law," said Montgomery Circuit Clerk Molly Q. Ruhl. "And I'm here to follow the law."
Apparently your bigotry is so strong that you ignore the law while proclaiming its praises!
The Federal Constitution does not allow discrimination for religious means, and thus, all violations of religious rights are unconstitutional.
I find it funny that you think its "enforcing the law" when it is in line with your hatred (And propensity for violence, for what does the law do but use a gun to accomplish your goals?)
But in doing so, you make a hypocrite of yourself and undermine every principle you claim to believe. (Unless, of course, you're an admitted fascist.)
Just like socialists everywhere, you worship the state, and you look to the state to control your life, and everyone else's lives.
Pathetic.
DG: Hm.
Bigotry? Against whom? Who brought religion into anything? I've made irreligious arguements against civil unions and gay marriages.
What hatred are you talking about? As the cliche goes, I've got gay friends. I don't hate them. I just think it would be bad for society to allow them to get married, by whatever name you call it.
I certainly don't undermine every principle I claim to believe in, because one of those principles is the belief that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.
I don't look to the state to control anything. There's a decent argument to be made that the state shouldn't distribute marriage benefits to anyone, and I'm certainly open to that argument. But, seeing as how such a change is politically impossible, I'm pragmatic.
DG:
1) How does law forbidding gay marriage constitute a "religious violation," pray tell?
2) How does allowing people in a system of representative government to freely choose to enforce and codify laws relating to marriage mean the state is "control[ling] your life"?
Perhaps you were just in a bad mood when you posted your comment, but the immediate use of the words hatred and violence are telling. We ought to be able to have a rational and civil discussion. I (nor, I think Michael) would immediately condemn you as full of hatred for your position.
Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue
1) How does law forbidding gay marriage constitute a "religious violation," pray tell?
I'm not sure that there is a religion that advocates specifically gay marriage, but I can't imagine it would be too hard for someone to invent one and make it so (actually, I guess some sects of Christianity are already moving that way). Regarding the broader argument of religious discrimination against certain marriages, the US has issues with Mormons or Muslims marrying multiple wives. (Sorry, if you want to move to America, you'll have to decide which of your wives you're really married to!) It's pretty easy to see religious discrimination there.
That being said, I think all religions (religous belief=Belief without Reason), are a subversion of Reason, and we would be better off without any religion. (I am however, fully committed to the idea that individuals can get their values and morals from whatever haphazard system they choose, or are born into.)
Most of the arguments MW made about civil unions can also be made about hetero marriages--couples COULD actually get married for the convenience, the legal protection, etc. However, I don't think most people would bother, for the same reason hetero couples don't (or rarely) abuse the marriage contract.
I think we ought to be consistent in our society about marriage benefits--either it's good for hetero, gay, and multiple spouse marriages; or we stop giving privilidges to a select subset of the population (hetero marriages).
Terry: Just take a look at the success of atheistic societies to refute your belief that religion isn't useful.
As for male/female marriages have problems similar to those I described about civil unions: sure! But! The vast majority of criminal behavior is perpetrated by males, that's just a fact. Heterosexual marriage isn't widely abused because the mate pool is binarily partitioned.
There is, as Iv'e said, a decent argument to be made that marriage benefits in all forms are bad policy. I'm not convinced though. It makes philisophical sense, especially to a libertarian, but as with many libertarian ideas I don't think it would work well in practice.
Well, I decided to look into something new. Since marriage is a religious institution, founded by the church. Than everything that the government does with respect to a marriage is illegal.
I suggest we oppose all marriage, and all rights, privileges and recognition given to any marriage be revoked.
Suggestion -- look for money that the government gives to any organization that in any way uses the money for specific purposes of contributing to marriages and apply for that money. If you are denied money on the basis that you are single, and not married. SUE! :) Yes, try to find a way to sue! Because quite literally as stated in the constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ... which obviously, if there is some law that allows the government to spend money on marriage and that is a requirment... it is unconstitutional.
I am only going to start promoting this new idea is that... if we cannot be equal by being granted the same privileges... than NO ONE should!