Quote:If you do not see the difference in your example and gay marriage, I fail to see how my pointing it out to you will make any difference. For about the hundredth time on this thread, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is what it has always been in our society and in most societies throughout history. Restrictions as you give as an example change the definition of marriage.
I have little reason or desire to object to some kind of civil union for gay couples, so long as it does not lead to any law that forces a church to recognize that union as being morally equal to marriage. They can claim it is morally the same and Christian churches can say otherwise. This would provide the legal benefits they desire. But compromise is not what the gay community (as a whole) wants or desires.
CR
Joe already spoke to this with typical eloquence. In precisely the same manner as earlier claims by whites that 'citizen' meant white
and only white residents, you make the claim that marriage includes only such as you say it includes. That's not very compelling as rationale. It certainly does not trump the principles laid down in your constitution.
What does 'force a church to recognize...as morally equal' mean? That's quite an interesting notion. You seem to consider that even if the church you belong to will not be forced by legislation to perform marriage ceremonies which it prefers not to perform, that some oppression is levied upon your church
if some other church or body in the community has a different moral notion and thus will marry them. Could you clarify?
