California Ruling Protects Religious Freedom

Michael:
**When you have to resort to using 3 words to describe a condition that is similar to, but different than a condition already described by a single word, then the use of one word to describe both conditions is wrong, dishonest, in short, it's a lie.**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why we should simply refer to homosexual and heterosexual legal unions as what they are - marriage. One word for both.

Michael said: "And I stipulate that the gays and lesbians of the world who insist that their unions are marriages are all bald-faced liars."

Because you don't think they are? That's such a ridiculous statement. They aren't lying. They believe differently than you do. Marriage never meant just Christians. Though it used to mean women were property. And it used to mean more than one wife. And it used to mean people of the same race. Here in MA, it means heterosexual couples and same-sex couples. I agree with you, though, it's just "marriage." Right now, because we're still denying same-sex couples the right to marry, we have to use "same-sex marriage," just as we used to have to say, "interracial marriage" when we were arguing whether or not people of different races could marry. Two people of the different races are married. It's the same for two men or two women. We only need the designation because people like you don't want to extend the same rights to same-sex couples.

Rev. Gaddy's got it right. The ruling protects religious freedom. If I have to live by someone else's religion, I do not have religious freedom. The Catholic church is against divorce, but anyone can divorce, because if no one could because Catholics don't approve, we wouldn't have freedom of religion. Same with same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court explained that in its ruling, which Rev. Gaddy quotes.

"Now I have nothing against allowing same sex couple to have the same rights of inheritance, join venture, and beneficiary designation that the rest of us traditionalists have."

And some people had nothing against allowing black people to ride the bus and drink water from a fountain as long they kept to the back of the bus and used a separate fountain.

Separate is not equal. Marriage is a civil right.

Let me put it to you in simple english.

The word, "Marriage", up until the past few years meant, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Ask the overwhelming majority of people around the entire world what the definition of marriage is and you will get the same answer.

Now I have nothing against allowing same sex couple to have the same rights of inheritance, join venture, and beneficiary designation that the rest of us traditionalists have. That falls under the Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But "same sex marrigage" does not mean "marriage". A civil union between two people of the same sex that bestows all the rights and obligations (too many forget that second part) enjoyed by a a civil union between two people of different sex is fine.

When you have to resort to using 3 words to describe a condition that is similar to, but different than a condition already described by a single word, then the use of one word to describe both conditions is wrong, dishonest, in short, it's a lie.

And I stipulate that the gays and lesbians of the world who insist that their unions are marriages are all bald-faced liars. I ain't buying your redefinition of the English language to suit your agenda.