The supreme court is listening to arguments regarding same sex marriage. I have written about this before but feel compelled to speak once more. It is a fundamental question as far as I am concerned. Much is said about the separation of Church and State. I hear the " scholars " refer to that provision in our Constitution frequently in defense of their arguments. I myself have stated that I felt the United States was a Christian nation and been sternly corrected that we are not ! The state does not sponsor any religious view or denomination. Okay, point taken. Now we are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to rule upon a religious matter. How can this be ? The definition of marriage is a religious matter,is it not ?
It is not a ruling on legality. The " acceptance " of such a definition is a moral judgement. What is being ruled upon is whether the federal government will extend benefits to those that wish to " marry " the same sex. A matter of semantics really.
I will state that not even the Supreme Court will change my definition of marriage. No matter what those learned lawyers have to say, my opinion, will remain unchanged. As I have said in previous blogs if they wish to establish civil unions or mutual agreements of understanding in place of, but equal to marriage,so be it. The bottom line is it is not a marriage in my eyes. And the government cannot legislate it to be so. The Supreme Court could rule that the sky is pink but it will still be blue.
The major issue with me is this trying to force me to accept a fundamental change in definition. Why ? No amount of legislation will change my moral values or beliefs. I can not be forced to accept that. Why the insistence on the use of the term marriage? By calling it a marriage it is not legitimizing this aberration in behavior. I do not condone persecuting these individuals in any fashion. I do not hate those that choose this lifestyle. I do not oppose extending the same financial rewards to those entering a union. I do oppose redefining such as a marriage.
I defend my position of hanging onto the definition of marriage as between a man and a women. Religious and social custom has always dictated so. The meaning is clear. A redefining of that is a redefining of history itself. Should the Supreme Court rule on the definition of God ?
The court should only be ruling upon the withholding of benefits citizens are legally entitled to ! To rule on just changing the definition of marriage to legitimize an otherwise illegal union is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In my opinion the response must be, Marriage is between a man and a women. Other lawful unions may be recognized by the government. That is what we should be voting upon, not a definition that is well established.
To put it another way. Can I just declare my home a Church and gain tax exempt status ? Define a church ? And if I can, is it then retroactive ? I should receive a refund on any taxes paid. If the supreme court has the power to change the definition of words, anything is possible. We do require standards. Marriage is a standard well defined.
It is not a ruling on legality. The " acceptance " of such a definition is a moral judgement. What is being ruled upon is whether the federal government will extend benefits to those that wish to " marry " the same sex. A matter of semantics really.
I will state that not even the Supreme Court will change my definition of marriage. No matter what those learned lawyers have to say, my opinion, will remain unchanged. As I have said in previous blogs if they wish to establish civil unions or mutual agreements of understanding in place of, but equal to marriage,so be it. The bottom line is it is not a marriage in my eyes. And the government cannot legislate it to be so. The Supreme Court could rule that the sky is pink but it will still be blue.
The major issue with me is this trying to force me to accept a fundamental change in definition. Why ? No amount of legislation will change my moral values or beliefs. I can not be forced to accept that. Why the insistence on the use of the term marriage? By calling it a marriage it is not legitimizing this aberration in behavior. I do not condone persecuting these individuals in any fashion. I do not hate those that choose this lifestyle. I do not oppose extending the same financial rewards to those entering a union. I do oppose redefining such as a marriage.
I defend my position of hanging onto the definition of marriage as between a man and a women. Religious and social custom has always dictated so. The meaning is clear. A redefining of that is a redefining of history itself. Should the Supreme Court rule on the definition of God ?
The court should only be ruling upon the withholding of benefits citizens are legally entitled to ! To rule on just changing the definition of marriage to legitimize an otherwise illegal union is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In my opinion the response must be, Marriage is between a man and a women. Other lawful unions may be recognized by the government. That is what we should be voting upon, not a definition that is well established.
To put it another way. Can I just declare my home a Church and gain tax exempt status ? Define a church ? And if I can, is it then retroactive ? I should receive a refund on any taxes paid. If the supreme court has the power to change the definition of words, anything is possible. We do require standards. Marriage is a standard well defined.
No comments:
Post a Comment