I think I actually update less often than Mykel, which is pretty damn sad. At least I update more than Mark seems to, although he seems to be taking a moral stance against updating. I tried to pass my posting apathy off as a moral stance, but it was really all about my exhaustion. Enough philosophy
(
Read more... )
Comments 2
So, it is acceptable, then, to insert religious dogma into contractual relationships that can be enforced/nullified by judicial decree? This is in complete conflict with the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
The current debate over the "sactity" of marriage is dangerous and must be laid to rest. Therefore, I think it necessary to strip religious meaning from the institution of marriage, and make it a legal, SECULAR, and binding contract between two willing individuals.
If a couple wishes to insert religious meaning into it, they can have their own separate shindigs and rituals that are not recognized in any way by the government of the United States. This "amendment" does not condemn such acts (which would qualify as intolerant).
...and, baseball?! What's up with that?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment