From: Ellen K. 

You are right that our founding documents and much of our subsequent
legislation is based on the religious principles of our common heritage.

I personally think it is reasonable to have "domestic partner"
legislation that removes inequities such as the right to hospital
visitation, dependent status in connection with employment benefits, etc.

I do not think the state should legislate a change in the definition of
marriage to allow same-sex unions to be called "marriage".   But
as
painful as it is to say this, I don't think basing opposition to this on
the Bible is going to stand up in court, because it would be ruled as
preferring the Judeo-Christian tradition over others.  (Of course Islam
does not recognize same-sex unions as marriage either.  I don't know about
Hinduism or Buddhism.)

So I think those of us who feel strongly that allowing same-sex unions to
be called "marriage" is a Very Bad Idea, need to come up with a
position that will stand up.  Possibly this could include historical
statistics showing that the nuclear family is the basis of a stable
society, i.e. society has an interest in the institution of marriage as an
institution.  ???

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:00:59 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message :

>These comments you two are fawning all over are quite simplistic and amount
>to nice sounding superficial rubbish.
>
>The fact that religious principles inform, have informed, and certainly
>informed the codes of behavior and morality that is embodied in our
>constitution and other founding documents is without question.  The morality
>embodied in our criminal code to this day (and even more so when the
>constitution was written) come extensively from our common religious codes
>of behavior.
>
>The constitution does not provide for the separation of government
>institutions from our history and cultural heritage which includes our
>common general religious codes of behavior.  Any thinking person who tries
>to deny this is either so woefully uninformed as to challenge the initial
>premise about being a thinking person or, as is more likely the case, a
>disingenuous liar.  Cute sound bites do not change our history and culture,
>as much as some atheists and elitist snobs might like to pretend otherwise.
>
>
>Gary
>
>"Monte Davis"  wrote in message
>news:aafk121f8s5et1932e5439a9n71nbg4aa5{at}4ax.com...
>> Bill Lucy  wrote:
>>
>> >"you placed
>> >your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not
>> >place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
>>
>> I'd seen that, loved it, sent it to my brother to put with a similar
>> gem of his:
>>
>> "I have no problem with the Ten Comnmandments in government buildings,
>> long as I can put up the Bill of Rights in all the churches."
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5