Quote:
and I thought it was funny. You can have all sorts of fun lifting things from context.


My reaction was that I'd laugh if there weren't so many folks out there trying to cram their interpretation of God's laws and will down our throats, along with the rest of the world's...that makes me want to cry. In the narrower context, I have no problem with the notion of having two equally valid forms of marriage, the civil and the sacred, as long as they're both available to those who make them. Some churchs don't have a problem with santifying homosexual union, and that should be their right. As I've observed before, what marriage 'means' is defined by the two people involved, both within themselves and between each other---often on a day-by-day or evven minute-to-minute basis. The forms it takes in law should be determined by the churchs, not the State; the State's role should be regulation of such issues as property and inheritance. That is, if we're not to become a theocracy, in which case we need to do much more than amend the Constitution; we need to throw it out and start over! None of this piecemeal stuff.....