Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________ Great post Guy. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen
>>> "Guy Western" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/22/2004 1:50:10 PM >>> Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________ Since federal and state constitutions in America abandoned the system of ecclesiastical courts instituted under the system of English common law and established a civil marriage parallel with the sacramental marriage offered by religions, there have been many, many categories of individuals who are prohibited from marriage in the church and who are still eligible to be married by the state. Yet, the existence of a parallel civil marriage that unites any number of people who are otherwise ineligible for marriage in the church has never been seen as a threat to the sanctity, or any other form of degradation, of the religious institution of marriage--that is, until now. No attempt to tinker with the democratic equal protections of federal or state constitutions can, or will, do anything to protect, or weaken, the religious institution of marriage under our system of church/state separation founded on religious freedom. The tinker language contemplated in the proposed amendment to limit marriage to a union of a man and a woman would not prevent a homosexual man from marrying a lesbian woman and adopting children. What the supporters of the proposed amendment really want, cannot be gained without resorting to discriminatory language, so let's call it what it is (although I know this isn't easy for anyone in the present Age of Circumlocution)--an attempt to regress to institutional discrimination against a minority group. Since the abolition of eccelsiastical courts, the state cannot force the church to recognize a marriage which the church considers immoral, and the church cannot force the state to discriminate as to whom it deems eligible for the privileges of civil marriage. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. I think the St. Paul City Council would be serving the citizens of St. Paul very well to say so, and I praise Dave Thune for the courage to sponsor a resolution to that effect and, thereby, making this discussion possible - Guy Western the West Side _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
