[PD/TD] Re: [CS-FSLUG] Activist Republican Judge Says CA Marriage Law Unconstitutional

[Leon Brooks]

On Monday 21 March 2005 06:56, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Rather, civil unions should be available to all,

Yes.

> and should carry the rights traditionally associated with marriage.

No.

A civil union should carry _some_ of the rights of marriage; a civil 
union is an arbitrary legal partnership, whereas a marriage is a very 
specific relationship with a religious foundation. A marriage is a 
partnership plus.

> If I couple wishes to be married, they should go to the church
> of their religion, and have it blessed by whatever god they
> wish to have it blessed by.

Yes.

> This, of course, opens up a can of worms.  For example, gay adoption:
> How can our government give preference to heterosexual couples over
> homosexual couples with regard to adoption without hypocracy?

By distinguishing between civil union and marriage.

> And we are to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God
> what is God's.

Absolutely.

> I presume this means that it is God's place to dictate and
> enforce holiness, and the government's place to enforce
> fairness. 

Not exactly. The government's place is to prevent gross unfairness. The 
government is a safety net, not mother and father. If it meddles with 
absolutely everything in an attempt to go beyond safetynetism and 
achieve some kind of absolute fairness (whose definition?) the result 
would be a rolling nightmare. Always has been, and I see no reason why 
it will not always be.

Cheers; Leon