So yeah, I'm happy...

[bovil]

...but the Christotarians are continuing their cries that this is destroying marriage.

So for those of you out there heterosexually bonded in matrimony, I ask you one thing:

Is your marriage weaker now than it was at 9:59 am PDT, May 15, 2008?

If you can say "no" then good for you.

If you have to say "yes," you're a sad, sad person and I feel very sorry for you.

Did it take an outside influence, "threatening marriage," to make you notice the flaws in your own marriage? Has your marriage been a sham this whole time, only held together by government pressure? Is your marriage so weak that the government allowing other people of other traditions and faiths (or not partaking in any faith) to exercise their rights shatters your own faith and your marriage?

Feel free to ask these questions to others...

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I considered that position for a while, but what it really comes down to is the portability of the legal rights is tied to "marriage" and civil unions proved that.

[kilah-hurtz.livejournal.com]

Unless they eliminate all legal concepts of marriage and make the only legal protection tied to civil unions, it is still 2nd classing people based on who they are.

I am not sure if that would be a good thing, it would allow people to recognize relationships of mutual dependence and trust without the question of sex or intimacy.

[gamingkitty.livejournal.com]

If a single person may join the conversation, I think splitting religious marriage from legal marriage/civil union would be a good thing. The government has no business endorsing a religious viewpoint on this issue, any more than it has on getting involved in transubstantation - consubstantiation - communion as symbol. (And I hope I didn't mangle those terms too badly, I'm catsitting for friends and my books are at home.)