On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 05:07 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:49:33AM -0800, Craig Lalley wrote:
>> Once again you hit the nail on the head.  Society over time has
>> developed a
>> contract call "Marriage" it is a partnership between two people, God,
>> and since
>> the Government is involved it is a four way partnership.
>
> 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.

Right on Jay.

Unfortunately, this reasoning won't make a dent on closed minds.

FW

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