of marriage. That is why Shrub and his minions are screaming for a
constitutional amendment.
If a clear legal definition existed that could stand up under
constitutional scrutiny , an amendment would be unnecessary. Some states
have defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. Most constitutional
scholars do not think those statues will prevail. They fall under the same
class of violations under the 14th amendment that killed the state laws
against interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
Gay people work the same hours, do the same jobs, pay the same taxes and
insurance premiums, as straights. Why should they be denied the same
protection of law and the same benefits?
What gays want is the same economic status that straights have. The
entire argument, at its root, is about money. The government and corporate
America have a vested interest in seeing that economic status denied.
My personal stance is that the sacrament of marriage should be severed from
government oversight. The license should be issued for a civil union of
any two consenting adults. Each church could decide for themselves to whom
the sacrament of marriage will be given. This should apply to all
marriages, not just gay marriages.
At 03:45 PM 6/7/04, Monique wrote:
>I got it from the same place that says what a dog is....
>
>
>:)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:32 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Conversation Topic - Abortion
>
>Where is it written in US law that "The legal union of a man
>and woman as husband and wife. " is the definition of marriage. Is that
>a factual statement?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
