This can be found on YouTube:
Some comments:
So when a religion declines to change its practices, it won't be denigrated and compared with a White Supremacist group that refuses to perform interracial marriages.
Hmmm... Ocean Grove Camp had its tax exemption on its pavilion because it claimed the pavilion was "open to the public". But does "open to the public" mean "open for any use any member of the public cares to make of it"? What if someone wanted to have a Spam cook-off in a parked belonging to a nearby mosque? Do the owners have any grounds to object?
"The case was based on discrimination laws, not gay marriage." Oh, you mean like equal protection and 14th Amendment law, cited in the Walker decision?
"Catholic Charites of Boston ... could have refused to take Federal funds, but they opted just to shut down their adoption services" I'm sure they were swimming in money, and could have easily kept the service going without Federal funds. Oh, well. I'm sure someone else will take up the slack.
Now, what we may need to address is, why have civil marriage in the first place? Why not abolish it and let the churches have it? Indeed, if marriage is a religious institution, and we're supposed to be keeping Church and State separate, maybe it's time we quit having the government endorse a religious institution.
No comments:
Post a Comment