[quote:hpfok31e]Did you ever notice that the priest still says he marries you by the power invested in him by the state of XXX? I do not know when the State got to marry people, but the Church lets it.[/quote:hpfok31e]
Erp… I don’t think he says that. In a catholic wedding, the ministers of the sacrament are the two parties getting married who confer the sacrament upon each other. The state agrees that when these vows are witnessed by a priest, then the couple is entitled to the benefits (and obligations) extended by the state to married couples.
But it’s the two people who confer the sacrament and start the process moving. You could argue that gay persons have the right to have a judge witness their vows so that they could enjoy the same benefits and obligations, but it breaks down in certain areas.
The state has agreed to recognize an institution. But the key ingredients in that institution are one man and one woman. The state is not obliged to recognize two men (or two women) as the same institution – because the ingredients are different. This is a form of sexual discrimination on the most basic level, i.e. the acknowlegement that a man is not a woman. It is not, however, unjust discrimination. (Not all discrimination is unjust – for example, “You must be this tall to ride the cyclone” is a form of discrimination, which saves lives). This is simply a recognition that men aren’t women, and vise versa.
The simple fact is that if we say the state is not allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman only, then we open a whole can of worms, for that logic opens the door for all sorts of things, I.e.
1. Polygamy(Why can’t the four of us marry one another?)
2. Institutionalized Incest (Why can’t I marry my sister?)
3. And eventually, Institutionalized Bestiality (Rover loves me, he’s a good dog, and for pete’s sake I want marry someone who can bring me the paper in the morning…Why can’t I?)
Okay, I’m done.
Dave ” title=”Smile” />