The government has no business defining marriage.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.It's not that government should define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's that government shouldn't define it at all. It can recognize it as a contract to be enforced. But that's the extent of it.
Ultimately, since this is about social engineering to undermine a religious position, and not legal rights -- gay couples already have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in California. It's about the word. They want "Marriage" to be the defined, legally proper way to refer to a gay union. So that they can then turn around and use it as a hammer. And it'll be used to violate that abridging the freedom of speech bit. "You say it's not marriage? HATER!!!! HATE SPEECH!!!!" That's the next step.
And don't get me started on "hate" crimes. Crimes are crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment