Repost (I thought this was really intelligent)

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In continental Europe, where the religious rite is not recognized, only those wishing it must undergo the rite.

To me, it makes more sense for us to go to a two step ceremony, the legal right endowment from the state and the religious rite for religious significance. I'd wager that's where we're headed.

And why not? What are the arguments against it? Anyone? I haven't given it much thought.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

And why not? What are the arguments against it? Anyone? I haven't given it much thought.

I believe the religious leaders wanted to coopt the power of marriage by requiring the state to institute it, because at the time the worked in cooperation with the state. So religious leaders are now seeing it come full circle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

And why not? What are the arguments against it? Anyone? I haven't given it much thought.

I don't think the religious rite is legaly recognized here either, absent Caesar's paperwork. That's the point. It's just that here the paperwork is quietly sent in after a religious ceremony, whereas in Europe they have two.

Someone on the sister site brought up how this could be an argument against the fear gays would bring suits to require religions to perform gay marriage. This perspective just reinforced what a lie that fear is. Gay marriage is the logical extension of separation of church and state, the linchpin of the Enlghtenment and the American republic. A country that tolerates gay marriage making churches perform it is as absurd a notion as a lion grazing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think the religious rite is legaly recognized here either, absent Caesar's paperwork. That's the point. It's just that here the paperwork is quietly sent in after a religious ceremony, whereas in Europe they have two.

Someone on the sister site brought up how this could be an argument against the fear gays would bring suits to require religions to perform gay marriage. This perspective just reinforced what a lie that fear is. Gay marriage is the logical extension of separation of church and state, the linchpin of the Enlghtenment and the American republic. A country that tolerates gay marriage making churches perform it is as absurd a notion as a lion grazing.

You act as if we should trust government to be wholly rational, not emotional. I trust it not at all, hence my libertarian leanings.