Dear NYS Senators.....
Dear Honorable Senators,
I understand that you feel that you need to protect marriage. I understand that you believe that marriage is defined by the Bible, that the definition you use is shared by a sizable portion of the country (if not the majority), and that your definition is bound tightly to religion.
This, however, is exactly why people believe in the separation of church and state. Because, quite frankly, the law should never be used to enshrine religious definitions of legal contracts.
I understand that some people believe gay marriage to be an abomination before the eyes of the Lord, and that, therefore, the law should prevent it. However, according to the Bible, it's *also* an abomination before the eyes of the Lord to eat shellfish, or to wear clothing of mixed cloth. Tellingly, there's no laws against those activities.
I can understand if you believe that marriage is something far more important than, say, Kosher practices, and I'd certainly be willing to go along with that (no offense to my Jewish friends, mind you.) But if you want to state that marriage should be defined by the Abrahamic religions' views, stop and consider what that means. If we assume that the Abrahamic religions have a monopoly on the definition of marriage, then all other marriages are invalid. Not only the ones performed by a Justice of the Peace, but also every marriage for folks of other religions - every Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Just... gone, no longer counting, because they do not involve an agreement with or a commitment before the Abrahamic God.
Now, obviously, that is not happening. People are allowed to have non-Abrahamic weddings. People are allowed to have a Justice of the Peace marry them, or religious functionaries of other religions. Which means that, according to the law, the Abrahamic definition is *not* the sole definition of the legal contract we call marriage.
So, if we are able to reach that point, and make that decision - which I doubt many people, if any, would attempt to argue - why, then, does the situation change when gay marriage come up? The state can show no compelling reason as to why a particular religious belief needs to be enshrined in law in regards to a specific form of marriage. In the eyes of the state, it's a legal contract, plain and simple. Two consenting adults, acting under no duress, should be able to enter into a binding legal contract should they so desire. I am unaware of any other form of legal contract where the genders of the people involved is the deciding factor as to whether or not that it is legal. So, why then, does the state act differently in the case of marriage?
In regards to the concept of a "civil union" - all marriages are civil unions. If you want to go down that road and claim that a solemnized homosexual relationship can only be termed a civil union, then, frankly, all solemnized relationships should be termed as such. Remove the special title of marriage, and treat everyone the same. Which is, I believe, exactly what the Constitution calls for.
Thank you for reading this, and I expect to see you correct this issue when you reconvene in January.
I understand that you feel that you need to protect marriage. I understand that you believe that marriage is defined by the Bible, that the definition you use is shared by a sizable portion of the country (if not the majority), and that your definition is bound tightly to religion.
This, however, is exactly why people believe in the separation of church and state. Because, quite frankly, the law should never be used to enshrine religious definitions of legal contracts.
I understand that some people believe gay marriage to be an abomination before the eyes of the Lord, and that, therefore, the law should prevent it. However, according to the Bible, it's *also* an abomination before the eyes of the Lord to eat shellfish, or to wear clothing of mixed cloth. Tellingly, there's no laws against those activities.
I can understand if you believe that marriage is something far more important than, say, Kosher practices, and I'd certainly be willing to go along with that (no offense to my Jewish friends, mind you.) But if you want to state that marriage should be defined by the Abrahamic religions' views, stop and consider what that means. If we assume that the Abrahamic religions have a monopoly on the definition of marriage, then all other marriages are invalid. Not only the ones performed by a Justice of the Peace, but also every marriage for folks of other religions - every Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Just... gone, no longer counting, because they do not involve an agreement with or a commitment before the Abrahamic God.
Now, obviously, that is not happening. People are allowed to have non-Abrahamic weddings. People are allowed to have a Justice of the Peace marry them, or religious functionaries of other religions. Which means that, according to the law, the Abrahamic definition is *not* the sole definition of the legal contract we call marriage.
So, if we are able to reach that point, and make that decision - which I doubt many people, if any, would attempt to argue - why, then, does the situation change when gay marriage come up? The state can show no compelling reason as to why a particular religious belief needs to be enshrined in law in regards to a specific form of marriage. In the eyes of the state, it's a legal contract, plain and simple. Two consenting adults, acting under no duress, should be able to enter into a binding legal contract should they so desire. I am unaware of any other form of legal contract where the genders of the people involved is the deciding factor as to whether or not that it is legal. So, why then, does the state act differently in the case of marriage?
In regards to the concept of a "civil union" - all marriages are civil unions. If you want to go down that road and claim that a solemnized homosexual relationship can only be termed a civil union, then, frankly, all solemnized relationships should be termed as such. Remove the special title of marriage, and treat everyone the same. Which is, I believe, exactly what the Constitution calls for.
Thank you for reading this, and I expect to see you correct this issue when you reconvene in January.