Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tom Boucher <trekkie AT nomorestars.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:07:58 -0500


On Feb 5, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Diana Duncan wrote:

I know, I know, very sensitive topic. But I am truly at a loss with the current arguments that marriage is the province of the churches, therefore shouldn't be recognized by states unless churches approve. As Craig and I are both atheists and our ceremony explicitly did not include the word "God", why is our marriage recognized by the governments? It was certainly not sanctified by any church. In fact, the state is in the business of providing secular marriages at court houses and judge's offices. How does calling the union of two people a civil union differ from these secular marriages? Will the current proposed changes to state and federal constitutions inadvertently reclassify all such marriages as civil unions?

I truly am curious about serious answers to these questions. I don't know that any of you know the answer, but it's worth a try in this diverse forum.


I find it appalling that a belief systems viewpoint (Christianity) is being applied by the federal government, and I was raised catholic so it's not like I don't have a faith in the same religion that some folks believe should be imposed on everyone

But then again, I think about things more than some people do. Bush sure doesn't seem to stick to the old republican doctrine of 'less government is better'

I also have problems with the so-called 'homeland security' which I feel is an attempt to suspend the bill of rights for the convenience of the law enforcement folks to spy on citizens.

However I'm all for tagging & checking incoming visitors - though I want it done for all visitors, friendly countries or not. All some idiot that wants to get into the country without being checked is get a passport in england or france or one of our other 'friendly' countries and they are in. If I recall correctly (and I may not be) but a few of the idiots that flew the planes into the buildings had passports from countries that are now not tagged

And if you're not a US citizen, you don't deserve our bill of rights protection. there should be some type of way to separate these two. I don't think Guantanamo type of incarceration is right either, but we should not be able to secretly get wiretaps for our own citizens, visitors sure, but not people born or legallized.

There are a lot of things that have happened the last few years that the current administration has done. I will *not* vote for him - AGAIN.

Not that it matters in this state I believe, too many people think the republican party is the 'christian' party and vote that way, they forget that right now the only thing the republican, or really the democratic party believe in is businesses or interest groups that pay their way.

But i'll vote democratic come november





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page