Mueller Lake Park Outdoor Amphitheater
Government Should Not Be Involved in Marriages
RECEIVED Mon., Feb. 23, 2004
Dear Editor,
Rep. Barney Frank came out against the "marriages" taking place in San Francisco, Calif., since Valentine's Day. Sane liberals of all inclinations should be rabidly paranoid of this movement.
Make no mistake; marriage is a religious institution. It has been adopted into law by government over the years in clear violation of the separation clause of the United States Constitution. If the Supreme Court of the United States is forced into making a decision in favor of any endorsement of "marriage," gay or straight, it will enshrine for the first time a constitutional principal binding church and state.
This movement clearly violates the implied separation of church and state. The ACLU to my astonishment appears to support the gay agenda. If they would just look past the end of their noses to the long-term consequences they would be backing the most widely accepted resolution to this issue, civil unions. You would think that the words uttered by every member of the church who performs marriages, "And now by the power vested in me by (insert your local jurisdiction here)," would be prima facie evidence of this ongoing traditional violation of the separation clause of the Constitution. The only one that should be vesting power in the church is God.
The Congress should pass legislation as soon as possible seperating marriage from any codification by government. All "marriages" previously endorsed by government should revert to civil unions and the ability of anyone to enter into these unions should be broadly allowed. Anyone "married" in a church by a member of the clergy, gay or straight can call themselves "married." In the eyes of government the civil union would carry the same weight for everyone, as it should be. Problem solved, separation maintained.
Rep. Barney Frank came out against the "marriages" taking place in San Francisco, Calif., since Valentine's Day. Sane liberals of all inclinations should be rabidly paranoid of this movement.
Make no mistake; marriage is a religious institution. It has been adopted into law by government over the years in clear violation of the separation clause of the United States Constitution. If the Supreme Court of the United States is forced into making a decision in favor of any endorsement of "marriage," gay or straight, it will enshrine for the first time a constitutional principal binding church and state.
This movement clearly violates the implied separation of church and state. The ACLU to my astonishment appears to support the gay agenda. If they would just look past the end of their noses to the long-term consequences they would be backing the most widely accepted resolution to this issue, civil unions. You would think that the words uttered by every member of the church who performs marriages, "And now by the power vested in me by (insert your local jurisdiction here)," would be prima facie evidence of this ongoing traditional violation of the separation clause of the Constitution. The only one that should be vesting power in the church is God.
The Congress should pass legislation as soon as possible seperating marriage from any codification by government. All "marriages" previously endorsed by government should revert to civil unions and the ability of anyone to enter into these unions should be broadly allowed. Anyone "married" in a church by a member of the clergy, gay or straight can call themselves "married." In the eyes of government the civil union would carry the same weight for everyone, as it should be. Problem solved, separation maintained.
John McJunkin
