Feb
02
Why does the religious right think they alone can define the word “marriage”?
By
Do they own the word? On what basis (other than religion) do they claim ownership of the institution?
Do they not know that the US is not a theocracy?
Do they own the word? On what basis (other than religion) do they claim ownership of the institution?
Do they not know that the US is not a theocracy?
31 Comments
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I don’t believe any such thing. I believe the word was defined a few thousand years ago. Why does the heathen left think they should be allowed to redefine it?
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I am a Christian and I do not care if you marry your boyfriend…feel better…
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Invalid premise. Marriage already had a definition. States have voted on it and gone with whatever their state law requires. The religious right isn’t your enemy here, it’s Americans.
Elway, DOMA occurred under Clinton and Clinton signed it. lol Marriage is a state’s rights issue, DOMA simply meant the full faith and credit clause wouldn’t protect gay marriage in states where it is repugnant to public policy. I think it was redundant, since states already have the right to refuse to recognize marriage repugnant to public policy. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good tear-jerker.
Face facts, libs. Before you can get gay marriage, you’ve got to get gays Constitutionally protected as a separate class. Never fear, I hear it’s hidden in some hate crime legislation being worked on.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
actually that definition is in the bible.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I live in a free secular nation christian right cannot dictate me on what should i do or whom should i marry
Constitution of US protects with against them
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 pm
I’m Christian, conservative, and vote in favor of gay rights.
Thanks for stereotyping me though, instead of asking a respectful question.
Psst – why don’t you check on the number of first-time voters in California who voted against marriage. Here’s a hint – they weren’t Republicans.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:14 am
Get a Civil Union if you like to kiss boys….I don’t care.
And no we’re not a theocracy, but we were founded on Judeo-Christian values.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:31 am
Did you know that no laws get enacted by one group “alone,” but by a majority vote? Laws defining who may marry one another have been made by state legislatures since the beginning. Those laws were enacted by a majority vote — in all probability, a vote that was even near-unanimous. Approximately 5/6s of the members of Congress voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:52 am
People with that mindset believe they have a higher moral code than the rest of us, whether we are Muslim, Hindu or of no faith at all. It’s an arrogant and false assumption which makes them act in a high-handed and pompous manner, which leads to things like defining marriage, trying to control people’s genitals and stealing humans in order to make them slaves.
Edit: Some goofball said that Webster’s only ever defined marriage as between a man and a woman…obviously they’ve been on the absinthe and had their vision impaired:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:28 am
I think that those that seriously believe in God DO actually believe everything is a theocracy. That God is the supreme ruler. So obviously his Word is the law in their minds. Just my logical thoughts…
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:25 am
We’re not alone.
We have 6000 years of civilizations who have agreed with us almost unanimously.
(Sodom and Gomorrah declined.)
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:20 am
Who the hell wants to see 2 guys swapping spit, thats just wrong.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 am
Marriage is between a Man and a women; Its ALWAYS been that way and WILL ALWAYS BE THIS WAY so deal with it!
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:17 am
They don’t…
I am not religious and am not a member of
any religion…
But I also define Marriage as…
One Male & One Female…
Anything else is just a sexual perversion which
has done nothing but propagate the spread of AIDS…
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 am
Actually, here is the legal definition, defined by law:
MARRIAGE – A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations.
Sorry, you failed to make your point here. The legal definition of marriage, set by the law, as in our government defined marriage.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:22 am
On this point I think ‘other than religion’ ignores one of the biggest issues. There is a prohibition of establishing a state church, but there is another prohibition against INTERFERING with a church. If churches don’t consider gay marriages to be within their sacramental definition of marriage, some are concerned ‘gay activists’ will sue churches to require they be married in that church. That is an infringement on religion.
The problem is that government has no business defining what is marriage at all. If they want to assign rights and benefits to relationships they should use non religious terms for ALL of us. Then churches can each decide what, to them, is the sacrament.
I voted against Prop 8 because I think government has to treat all people the same. however, I also think government can’t interfere with practice of a religion.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:05 am
Marriage is just a scam anyway. It started as a way for families to sell off their daughter like livestock. There really isn’t any “sanctity” of marriage.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 am
The better question is why do you gays care? Just get married in a state that votes for gay marriage and be miserable like the rest of us married folks.
You deserve it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:26 am
It IS NOT just the religious RIGHT.
That is NASTY! Do YOU HEAR ME!
QUIT. THE TWO CAN’T MAKE A BABY. SO STOP TRYING TO GET MARRIED.
AGAIN, THAT IS THE NASTIEST THING YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE!
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:54 am
They are under the delusion that marriage is a religious contract when it’s a civil contract, and they ignore that the government doesn’t care whether you get married in a church or a government building or on the beach just as long as you register that marriage with the state, follow the statutes, and make it legal. In no state is there a requirement that marriage be “sanctified” by religious ceremony or a priest, or a preacher.
They know it’s not a theocracy, they just like to act like it is one – or should be one.
EDIT: Ruth is right that gays don’t have to worry about the Religious Right, at least too much. They tried twice to add discrimination to our Constitution to stop any state from legalizing it but failed miserably. Now they have to settle for voting on their neighbor’s civil rights to keep it out of separate states.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:00 am
Another gay rant heard from.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:48 am
For THOUSANDS of years the word ‘marriage’ has had the same meaning, what right do YOU have to change that?
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
why do atheists always want to force their beliefs on everybody.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 am
why does the left think they can redefine the word marriage…works both ways
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Marriage…has been defined properly for a long time…get over it!
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 am
“marriage” is a term that has been around since forever. It is a term that has a definition. Look it up in any standard dictionary from 20 to 200 years ago. A union between a man and woman.
It is not the religious right that is trying to define the term because it is already defined. Rather it is the gay liberal left that wants to change the meaning of the word. This reeks of Newspeak and 1984.
“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Call it a gay union and you are good to go.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:52 am
who cares. its gross thats why people dont like it. no one likes to see two dudes kiss or two bulls. its been up for vote it got slammed no one wants it. GET OVER IT!!!!
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Actually, I think it’s Webster or Oxford that define the word.
And it always “between a man & a woman”.
Why don’t you coin a cool, new word for it?
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I am a christian,I don’t agree with gay marriage. That being said ,separation of church and state was written into the constitution for this very reason .If you take religion out of the picture there is no good reason why gay people shouldn’t have the right to marry.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I guess you are missing the point that marriage is a religious institution?
Defining marriage without religion is like defining an ocean without water!
The Warlock
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Conservatives can’t handle a world with more than 2 colors. Things are either black or white, good or bad, right or wrong, American or unAmerican, etc., etc., So the idea of “marriage” having a religious definition in the religious realm and a secular meaning in the secular realm is just overwhelming to them.
As a clergyman, I know that most clergy could tell these people that when we perform weddings we clergy function on behalf of BOTH the church and the state and that the people we marry have BOTH a civil and a religious marriage. But the one that MATTERS to the state, is the state marriage. Those who get ONLY the Civil marriage (from a Justice of the Peace) receive.those benefits even if churches say that such people are NOT MARRIED in the eyes of their church.