Aug 12, 2005 00:33
This is to all you Pro-Lifer's out there or should I say Christians?
Let's be frank here, how you've managed to try to have the government impose your religious beliefs should be applauded but it stops here. Your nonsense needs to stop. For those of you who don't believe in Abortion, good for you. You have your belief's and I have mine. Your belief's however stem from your Religious conviction and Religious doctrine that does not belong in the Constitution. We have "Separation Of Church and State" for a reason. The idea behind "Separation Of Church and State" was to prevent Government intruding, see the Church Of England. Unfortunately now it seems some Religions and Religious people would have their religious choices or laws imposed on us. This includes because my God said so. Fact is this, you can't legislate Abortion, just like you can't legislate Adultery.
Seriously I understand how you feel but this isn't something for you to impose on other people, this is their choice to make and if they go to Hell so be it. I even understand where you're coming from...ALMOST. You see if you weren't blinded by your overwhelming religious convictions you'd come to the same conclusion I have. You should vote according to who you believe in environmentally and economically, along with some other factors but FRANKLY religion shouldn't determine if you vote for a Democrat OR a Republican. Religion should NEVER be a factor in Politics, it hampers real Political discourse.
Also on the subject of Gay Marriage it should be up to that individuals church and government should instead use the term "Civil Unions" when referring to marriages for EVERYONE in the governmental sense. Btw even if your only objection to Gay's being married is because of the Religious aspect and you don't believe in it but do believe in Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, etc. look at that amendment you're about to sign. I live in KS and the Anti-Gay marriage amendment signed into law was basically an Anti-Gay Rights bill since it also didn't allow those other official enjoining terms that could be performed by a JP. You see I'm sure you'll agree that in the governmental concept of marriage there are rights extended onto couples they wouldn't get if unmarried. For example is it so wrong for two people who love each other to want to make sure that at least 50% of the money their partner has will go to them should something unfortunate happen? Yes you can argue Will's but let us not forget people forget and it may not be as airtight as marriage could possibly be.