This is perhaps the most chilling and overt attempt to annihilate marriage that I've seen yet--and a Republican governor is in the middle of it.
From CNS News:
In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future legislature could abolish marriage and remove the rights now enjoyed by a husband and wife, a pro-family group charged on Monday.
In Brown's document, filed on Aug. 17, the attorney general stated that "the words 'marry' and 'marriage' have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as 'marriage' to some other name without any constitutional impediment."
Schwarzenegger filed a brief of his own that day, which said "the administration submits that use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as 'marriage' could be changed."
Apparently some in our country are dead-set on destroying the basic foundation of the family, and all societal stability.
We're in real trouble, folks.
3 comments:
You said it we're in trouble... That is getting a bit ridiculous. How are tax breaks and other government processes based on marriage going to be effected now? Do you forfeit those if you call it something else?
This isn't just a gay vs. non-gay issue. I've heard several anti-gay conservatives (most notably Rob Regier, formerly of the SD Family Policy Council) say that he would love if the state stayed out of the idea of marriage altogether, and left the word "marriage" strictly in the church, even if it meant getting rid of the 1,148 federal benefits of marriage.
Having the government call what amounts to a package of benefits something besides marriage makes sense. That way, churches retain control over "marriage," and the government can hand out the same rights and benefits (whatever they end up calling it) to everyone.
It's a win-win.
I don't recall Regier saying anything like that, so I can't attest to its accuracy or inaccuracy.
However, if the state is going to be in the business of awarding benefits on the basis of a sexual relationship, then it is clearly intended to imitate marriage since marriage has for thousands of years (since the beginning of human history) been the fundamental building block of family and thus society.
In the end, Ang, what you're saying is that the church can keep calling "marriage" what it is, and the government can issue counterfeit relational benefits that imitate marriage. Which is essentially like saying that the Dept of Treasury can keep issuing genuine currency, but others should be able to print $1s, $5s, $10s and $20s as they see fit, and everybody will be happy.
But if other people or agencies could issue "money" that imitated the real thing, what would that do to the meaning and value of the genuine currency?
Post a Comment