[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by OldDave

OK, I'll take a shot at a civil answer, because I like the way you asked. I did write a personal response to Jack, but decided that wasn't appropriate as encouraged by the Admin the other day, so I didn't send it.

Certainly this is a subject that generates strong feelings. And as Gracie said, with religion and politics (and this is both) you really cannot change other people's beliefs.

I don't have a dog in this fight. My wife and I have been married for 40 years.

So with that background let me say a couple of things. Yes Rosie has a bad marriage track record, but does that somehow speak to all gay marriages? As I pointed out Nabors and his partner have been together as long as me and my wife. I will never forget the coverage of New Hampshire when they change their laws. The first couple married were two of the sweetest looking ladies who had been together for more than 50 and were both successful professional people. How can their union hurt anyone. The truth is gay people are just a good, just as bad, as the rest of us.

As to the church marriage vs. civil union argument. It seems on the surface logical. The problem is what if the gay couple are just as committed to their religous beliefs are you are? They don't want a civil union, they want the same marriage you had. More and more churches are accepting this. They want the same rights. So it it's OK with their church, I don't see how someone in another church can object. And I"m not sure looking at the history of marriage really works too well. In the bible you get into multiple partners, taking your dead brother's wife, and one of the yuckier parts of the bible, not allowing seed to be spilled and getting your daughters involved. Marriage is an ever changing institution.

This country was founded on religious freedom, and it is critical to a free society. We seem to have forgotten this a bit in the last couple of decades as some groups want to force their religious beliefs not only on other people, but into law. The only way freedom of religion can work is to have freedom from religion too. That would be Religion with a capital R as in middle ages in Europe when the church was the goverment. That doesn't work too well as I recall.

Bottom line, ask yourself how two old men in Hawaii that obviously care very much for each other, getting married, hurts you. The voters of Washington State decided this was OK. That's how this country works.

I don't think your statements on laws and religion are acurate. Many of the laws on the books today have their roots in English common law, much of the common laws roots come from religions beliefs, some biblical, some church so I think to try to totaly seperate religion from law is flawed. That's like saying we can't have a law against murder because the ten commandments say you shouldn't commit murder. Freedom of religion has more to do with not legislating what religion you must believe in, not what the law says per se. For example at the time of the founding fathers if you lived in England the Church of England was the government sponsored religion