> institution. I have
> been in a marriage where neither party was active in any
> church.
Well -- in practical terms it isn't always very religious no... But
the institution of marriage as a philosophical or social construct has
its roots in our religions. The fact that it's become a practicaly
secular event in recent history doesn't change the history. Any given
individual or pair or group of individuals may or may not place any
religious significance on it, independent of its history. But because
a great many people still do place that religious significance on
marriage, and they have centuries of history to back that up, it's
tough to call marriage a secular institution without creating some
distinction between a secular marriage and a religious/symbolic
marriage. Further, so say "it's a secular institution" and then
produce laws based on that idea infringes on the rights of others to
have their religious beliefs held in the same regard as others'
religious beliefs. This is for 2 reasons -- the first being that any
current marriage law can almost certainly be traced back to a
religious origin, and the 2nd being that any new marriage law made
today will almost undoubtedly be born from if not incidentally fall
in-line with some religious belief. So it's impossible imo to have
laws regarding marriage without it being legalized religious
descrimination.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
