--- Jay Maynard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Bzzt. Incorrect premise: while, under the beliefs of many (probably all)
> religions, the relevant deit{y is,ies are} involved, in the eyes of US law,
> it is strictly a civil contract. Otherwise, civil judges could not perform
> marriages.
>
> It is the benefits of that civil contract that should be made available to
> all under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation. If they are not,
> then the words "equal protection under the law" are devoid of meaning.

Ok let me rephrase it.  "Society over time has developed a contract call
"Marriage" it is a partnership between two people, (God, if you so choose), and
since the Government is involved it is a three/four way partnership.

You will notice I said "two people", I did not say anything about sexual
orientation, but society has deemed it to be two opposite sexes.

My point was, the Government's role was supposed to "enforce" the contract.  It
no longer does that and one could argue activily campaigns against it.  Ever
notice the divorce statistics?

-Craig

Government can't solve the problem, Government IS the problem.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *