|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Here in Massachusetts, USA (just south of where my denomination ordained a practicing gay bishop), we are currently on day three of debating terms of a proposal to amend our state constitution to ban gay marriage, since the Supreme Court of our state ordered to start happening in May.
I know where I stand on the issue: I'm for it, and I'm hoping my church will perform such ceremonies (although since people will want to know, I will state now that I am currently not married and not gay.) But that is almost besides the point of this post. What *I* want to know is what people here think of the legalization of marriage under the civil laws for homosexuals. NOT whether or not you think it is right theologically - that debates been done. But if the church doesn't have to perform them (and they wouldn't have to if they didn't want to, same as they don't have to marry YOU if they didn't want to), then what are the arguments?
[ 08. January 2006, 21:59: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
That is what I have been saying myself. Nobody is proposing to try to force churches into sanctioning a marriage of which they do not approve. It seems to me, actually, that people who are saying they are trying to save the institution of marriage should be glad that there are so many people who so value it as to fight for it so long, especially with the divorce rate what it is and with a lot of people not interested in getting married at all.
Personally, I think any adult who wishes to do so should be allowed to marry anybody they want. If they want to dissolve it later, they will have just as many legal problems over a divorce as anybody else has.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QuakerCub
Shipmate
# 4728
|
Posted
Zeke
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
David
--------------------
Be still and know that I am God
Posts: 141 | From: Clearwater, FL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I totally, completely, 100% fail to understand what possible interest the state can have in discriminating between gay and straight marriages. All of the reasons the state has for legally creating and recognizing marriage applies just as much to gays as to straights. For the state to discriminate in this way is tantamount (IMHO) to approving one religious viewpoint over another, which the 1st Amendment prohibits.
Swat my 'hind with a melon rind
But that's my Mousethief state o' mind.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
I'm for complete seperation of church and state on the question of marriage. The state should recognize civil unions between any two consenting adults. (Yes, Chas, just two. I'm old-fashioned.) Faith communities should bless marriages between whatever combinations they see fit to bless.
Never the twain should meet.
Here endeth the lesson.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I'm with Eanswyth on this one. The state has no business defining or regulating marriage at all. The state's primary interest in marriage (not the only interest, but the primary one) is that it allows them an easy way to regulate inheritance and the custody of minor children when somebody dies, and to regulate the dividing of property and custody should the couple split up. It gives the state a default "who gets the property and the kids." This interest is the same, whether the couple is gay or straight.
Therefore, I think that if the state does not regulate gay relationships in the same manner as it does straight relationships, the state is derelict in its duties.
I think I'd go so far as to say that this would apply to multiple relationships as much as to pairs.
But I think that marriage is a religious concept, and should be regulated solely by the various religious entities according to whatever rules they have for solemnizing marriage. The state's interest is solely secular, and I think the states would do well to end marriage as a legal relationship, and institute civil union for all parties who desire it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I'm in San Francisco. We had gay marriages today. The mayor decided to go ahead and authorize it on his own authority.
He's catching flack already. And the governor is against gay marriage...
Many people, I think, are hoping for SF to fall into the sea... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Here in the UK there are proposals afoot for the civil registration of partnerships and, if I understand correctly, this will not only include but be primarily for, gay and lesbian couples. It will, of course, all be voluntary. I would hesitate to describe those likely to opt for registration though as being in any way married because they won't be - in the eyes of either Church or State. The proposals are essentially about tidying up potentially messy situations such as what happens to property, money etc if one partner dies or the partnership is ended for another reason. There are no doubt people here who know far more about this than I do and, unlike me, are qualified to speak on the subject with a competent authority.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I will say one thing, and one thing only.
Imagine, if you will, your spouse dying. The coroner refuses to release the body of your spouse because you are not legally next of kin. You have to contact your spouse's parents or siblings to have the body released.
That is what has happened to at least three gay or lesbian acquaintances of mine. It could have happened to me when my partner was diagnosed with late stage congenital heart valve failure and had to have emergency heart surgery (fortunately she's completely well now, and we had powers of attorney well before she got sick).
I am for marriage. Obviously.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
As the Ship's resident Arch-Bigot Fundie Hose Beast(tm), you'll be unsurprised to find me opposed to the state taking any steps in legitimising non-monogomous heterosexual relationships, and compelling society to accept any view contrary to what I believe to be God's clear guidance on the matter of human sexuality.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
LFD
And that has what to do with this thread?? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
Exactly, Arabella. It is wholly and manifestly unfair that people who have been committed to each other for their whole lives should be penalised by the state in this way. I think the current registration scheme due to be implemented in the UK, alluded to earlier in the thread, is a good step in the right direction. I am all for gay marriage - it is the next step in the ongoing struggle to make society truly equal (in the eyes of the law at the very least).
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BuzzyBee
Ship's Drummer
# 3283
|
Posted
LFD
The point of this thread (if you'd care to bother to read the OP) is entirely based on the civil, non-religious attitude to the proposition.
Even if we accept your view of "God's clear guidance" on the matter - why should that be applied to atheists? What right have christians to force non-christians to live their lives according to christian theology?
--------------------
BuzzyBee
~~~~~~
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. Martin Luther King, Jr
Posts: 465 | From: Bristol | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
The scope of marriage (and thus the whole realm of human sexual relationships) in the scriptures is one that applies to all humanity, so any attempt to legislate contrary to what I believe the scriptures teach very much affects the spiritual dimension, especially if Christian denominations endorse the incorrect views in ceremonial aspects of marriage.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
OK troops, I am all for discussion of this topic. Please go ahead and discuss it until the cows come home. However, as you must be aware, this thread could be stepping on several dead horses which would be nasty, unsanitary, and smelly. So do please avoid Homosexuality and Christianity, Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries, Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?, and Living as a Christian Homosexual . Otherwise, have at it.
Tortuf
Purgatory Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
What most others have said.
Whomever ought to be able to have their relationship recognized by the government for legal purposes. Then if they want, or are allowed to, they can toddle off to the church of their choice and have God recognize it. Or not. Like in France.
One of the better reasons for separation of church and state, in my opinion.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
Once again I find myself unable to resist posting.
After long and careful consideration, I find I have absolutely no opinion on the subject. It doesn't effect me in any way; either way. I suppose there is a disinterested agreement with most of what's been said here (sep of church/state), but I can summon no passion whatsoever in regards to this issue.
Is it possible to become addicted to posting in Purgatory?
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
I'll agree with the general consensus, but also add that I find the whole idea that marriage as an institution could somehow be threatened by this very, very strange and irrational.Then again, a surprisingly large number of people think they have been abducted and interfered with by aliens...
I heard about the flood of gay and lesbian marriages in San Francisco on the radio this morning while I was making breakfast. I payed close attention to my wife and our interactions as we woke the children and got them fed and dressed and ready for the day... and nothing had changed. I realize it's only anecdotal evidence, but it's powerful enough for me to dismiss any further discussion along the "this is a threat to marriage" line for ever.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I heard them interview the two "little old ladies" on the radio while driving home from work today. They were very eloquent and politically aware and a kick to listen to. They didn't sound like "little old ladies" according to the classical stereotype. It was a very pleasant interview and I'm glad I heard it. They've been together 51 years, they said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Ya know, with the divorce rate what it is, I don't think it's hommersexuals that are threatening the institution of marriage.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Ya know, with the divorce rate what it is, I don't think it's hommersexuals that are threatening the institution of marriage.
While we're at it, why don't we let five-year-olds drive? It's not like all the adult drivers are doing that great at it! You know how many people were killed on the road last year?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Even for you that is such a truly stupid comparison, you've taken my breath away.
Bless your heart. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
C'mon, Sine, give me some credit for effort here. It's not that easy to come up with an analogy in a homosexuality thread that doesn't use the P word. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I'm sorry. This is Purgatory. I apologize in advance if anyone was so oversensitive as to be offended by that post.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
I disagree. If the divorce rate is around 50%, it's not because marriage is under attack from homos and lezzies.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Boys,
Purgatory, no personal references.
Remember?
(In the words of the immortal William Schwenck Gilbert, "With constabulary duties to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not a happy one.")
Torfuf
Purgatory Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
I disagree. If the divorce rate is around 50%, it's not because marriage is under attack from homos and lezzies.
Correct, perhaps, but totally irrelevant. And it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I sincerely apologize for implying that Kyralessa is stupid. It was wrong of me. I'm very sorry. I fucked up. Please forgive me.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
Heterosexuals haven't done such a great job with marriage. Let someone else have a go at it. Maybe the rest of us can learn something.
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?
If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?
If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
It is Biblical, after all. (But read Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" before you get too excited.)
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?
If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
Not the P word I was thinking of, but a very good question. Perhaps we as a country owe Utah an apology.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I think JL is making a good point and asking a serious question. If we are going to change marriage, should it just be left at two consenting adults? If not, why not?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
Then it's a red herring opposed politicians are using. I keep hearing it on the news. Don't you?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think JL is making a good point and asking a serious question. If we are going to change marriage, should it just be left at two consenting adults? If not, why not?
To my mind, marriage is a religous concept. None of the government's business. Civil unions as contracts are the government's business and none of the church's.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
We're talking about marriage though right, not civil unions?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
In the current public discourse, I can't quite tell the difference. What is the difference? All I'm interested in are legal protections under the law. Having a shower, walking down an aisle, or having some mumbo-jumbo said over me isn't important, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
Then it's a red herring opposed politicians are using. I keep hearing it on the news. Don't you?
No, but I don't hear (or see) the news; I read it. So I looked through fix or six news stories just now (e.g. Reuters, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC) on the recent events in San Francisco and Massachusetts.
Interestingly, pretty much every story has quotes from supporters of homosexual marriage giving their reasons for supporting it, but none of them quote from those who oppose homosexual marriage giving their reasons for opposing it.
Rather curious, that.
[If you can link to a story with the reasoning you cited, I'd be interested in reading it.]
[ 14. February 2004, 00:21: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
It seems to me that there are two separate questions that Christians should ask:
- Is gay marriage right or wrong?
- Given that there are and will continue to be committed gay couples, how should we treat said couples?
It is NOT a given that because one concludes that gay marriage is wrong, one should also conclude that gay couples should be saddled with the kinds of problems that Arabella mentioned above, such as a gay not being able to obtain his/her late lover for burial.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Sine
quote:
In the current public discourse, I can't quite tell the difference. What is the difference?
I think the difference is that people feel if we alter the definition of marriage in one case, there will be very little to stop it being altered in others. I would guess that's why many people who don't favor changing the definition of marriage are in favor of civil unions.
What I've heard in the news suggests that the goal is marriage though, not civil unions.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
To my mind, marriage is a religous concept. None of the government's business. Civil unions as contracts are the government's business and none of the church's.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
any attempt to legislate contrary to what I believe the scriptures teach very much affects the spiritual dimension, especially if Christian denominations endorse the incorrect views in ceremonial aspects of marriage
A couple of points here, LFD.
First, what you believe the scriptures teach isn't necessarily what the scriptures teach. There's a fair to middling chance that you're wrong, especially since what you believe the scriptures teach probably doesn't match what I believe the scriptures teach and Holy Tradition confirms. So why should we take your opinion over mine? We're not talking about church rules here, we're talking civil law. So tell me why your opinion of the scriptures should be legally binding on my -- or better yet, why my opinion should not be legally binding on you.
Second, if the church has it right and the state has it wrong, why do you think that will make a dime's worth of difference in what the church does? I can tell you that the fact that every jurisdiction in the US that I'm aware of allows people to be married a dozen times if they like, as long as it's to one person at a time, doesn't mean that you can get married in the Orthodox Church a dozen times. The law doesn't forbid a man from marrying his goddaughter or a woman from marrying her godson, but the Orthodox Church does. We don't need the law to tell us what we're supposed to do about marriage. Why do you think other churches would?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
So I looked through fix or six news stories just now
Fix or six? Well, I think I know what I meant, anyway.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
josephine and Sine, aside from the statements on this thread, I haven't heard anybody say government should get out of the marriage business and I think it's unlikely that will happen.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Anecdotal, but even at my very redneck workplace, the rednecks are able to discern the difference between religous marriage and legal civil unions. But that could be because they've had twenty-odd years to put up with me, and knowing I have a partner.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
No, but I don't hear (or see) the news; I read it.
So you've not heard or read politicians say they're "defending the concept of marriage"?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Argh. When did the Orthodox buy into secularism?
Probably when we found ourselves in a setting where we are a tiny minority in a culture that is, in many ways, incompatible with, if not hostile to, what we are and what we believe.
I don't want the government deciding that burning incense in Church is a health hazard and banning it. I don't want my employer to be able to fire me for refusing to work on Holy Friday. I don't want some latter-day prohibitionist deciding that Orthodox Christian infants shouldn't be allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't want my children being taught, in public school, that they should "Just Say No" to alcohol, no matter what, with no mention being made of wine taken as part of religious ceremonies.
I think the surest way to preserve my rights to live my life as I see fit, and to worship my God as I see fit, is to protect the rights of others, when the government intrudes on them.
If that makes me a secularist, so be it. I've been called worse.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I think the surest way to preserve my rights to live my life as I see fit, and to worship my God as I see fit, is to protect the rights of others, when the government intrudes on them.
Is marriage a right?
[Perhaps the government should just quit recognizing marriage of any sort altogether.]
[ 14. February 2004, 01:09: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
