Under the new Congress we are anticipating a slew of pro-homosexual bills as payback for the help that the same-sex marriage lobby gave the Democrats in the election last fall. Because most people, including many in Congress, realize how radical that lobby is, homosexual groups are well-versed in masking their agenda. Creating special protections for homosexuals becomes "hate crimes." Forcing businesses to elevate homosexuality to civil rights status becomes the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act." Mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle at the expense of morale in the Armed Forces becomes "The Military Readiness Enhancement Act."
While we are fighting a federal wish list that Rosie O'Donnell would love, our friends in the states have been battling this same agenda for years. A state legislator in Maine recently introduced a bill to strip the clergy of the right to sign marriage licenses, thereby divorcing state-sanctioned marriage from religious ceremonies. Lawmakers in Maine have also introduced LD375, "an act to amend the Family Medical Leave Laws," which would greatly expand the existing domestic partnership benefits. Mike Heath, Executive Director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, is working hard to push back the agenda by enlisting online activists to help him. Please sign up for the Civic League's citizen Action Center today.
Comments (3)
"A state legislator in Maine recently introduced a bill to strip the clergy of the right to sign marriage licenses, thereby divorcing state-sanctioned marriage from religious ceremonies. "
Sound like a good idea. I can never figure out why Christianists want the State of all things to be recognized as an entity able to "sanctify" marriage. Really. What a dumb idea. The State of Nevada cannot make a marriage a sacrament. Not even for Brittney Spears.
All the State can ever do is recognize a contract.
March 8, 2007 3:30 PM | Comment Permalink
Yes... the religious union and legal union really should be completly seperate. Have the couple go to a church for the former, and then file the relivent paperwork for the latter.
Churches benefit from complete freedom: They can marry or not marry whoever they want, noone will be trying to dictate to them about the rules of eligability. As they are exempt from most discrimination legislation, there would be no legal demands. If they want to marry homosexuals, they can. If they dont, then noone can make them. Whatever they do, if it has no legal meaning at all, then there is no reason for government to regulate or otherwise meddle.
The state gets to to avoid some of the bickering. It allows the proper method of government to decide what couples qualify for a marriage contract, without quite so many people worrying that it will be intruding on church territory.
March 9, 2007 5:47 AM | Comment Permalink
Is it really our place to tell any state other than our own how to govern it's own citizens? How can we ask for more rights for our own states when we meddle in the business of states other than our own.
March 12, 2007 6:53 PM | Comment Permalink