Brian Hanf wrote:
I agree with you except you missed the mark on the 1stWM: If marriage is only legal for instances of heterosexuals wanting to partner, then the state imposes a religious notion on the citizens, thus breaching the separation of church and state. So one can hardly leave the first amendment out, since it's a very good amendment. My position is that allowing only heterosexual couples to marry violates the first amendment big time.
amendment: .... How does a marriage license relate to an establishment
of religion? You don’t have to join, be a member of, or even have a
religion to get married.
Unless there is a religion that marries GLBT couplesM: One apparently still has to have a license in order to marry. For the legitimate purposes of the state, people would have to apply for a joint household or something to signal a change in status. To date, a civil marriage requires a justice of the peace; however, the state allows churches/synagogues/mosques/temples to substitute for the JP. This, too, breaches the separation.
that requires them to get a license from their
“country/state” for the religious union to be made
complete your not prohibiting the exercise of
religion.
WizardMarks, Central
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
