Orrin Hatch is going to make my head explode:

Here it is:

1. Orrin believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman b/c it's 'sacred'.

2. Therefore Gay Marriage is unacceptable

3. However, we shouldn't discriminate against gays, that's not right...


WHOA NELLIE!

As my father of blessed memory used to say (as a native Pittsburgher), "What do you expect? Hatch was born in Pittsburgh and is a Republican."

How many marriages break up in the U.S. these days? About half, right? "Sacred" my butt. It's a legal contract. Everything else said by these wingers is just red meat for their base.

and how many women, Orin?

Just another garden variety Repub hypocrite. Meaning just another garden variety Repub.

They guy is strung tighter than barbed wire -- you're kidding, right???

they are divorced, but only because they believe in only two sacraments: baptism and communion/eucharist/the Lord's Supper. The rest, like marriage, is important, but not "sacred."

Yep .. that was the "sacred" ceremony --

People used to get quite extensive with the oils . . .

So annointing with oils was changed to baptism with water!

their husbands....!!!

The wives -- sometimes due to death and sometimes due to divorce -- have to count

on the hubbie to call their name in the after life.

If not -- they're just Mormon nothings!!!

How women tolerate and support this "church" is a mystery!!!!

That government can make laws about?

the legal marriage, the only one that counts, the one for which you need a marriage license issued by the state. THAT's the marriage gays want - the religious one, well, the religions get to decide for themselves who can get married, and that's fine.

Hatch is an idiot.

Oh, hell, they're ALL idiots.........................

And they are being prohibited by law. Either way, the government should not be making that decision and a few sects should not be making religious choices for all religions.

Loving people should be able to make lifetime (or even temporary) commitments to each other - either mundane or religious if their choice of religion allows it.

that's taken care of by the Establishment Clause.

Religious ceremonies - like a wedding - have no legal standing. Without that marriage certificate, the one you get at the courthouse, you are not legally married.

I agree with you that loving couples are loving couples, and all should be afforded the same prerogatives of citizenship in the United States, but, right now, four states allow legal same-sex marriage, and that has nothing to do with any religious organizations............

As violating the 'sacred' nature of marriage. But if it is 'sacred' the government should not be enforcing the definition of a small group of Christian sects - or even a large group.

I understand the difference between a mundane* and religious marriage. My marriage is strictly mundane, legal with no religious sanction. But my argument is that as long as one religion or religious sect is willing to unite two same sex people in a marriage, that removes the legitimacy of the "marriage is sacred" meme of the religious right. And any justification for the government to continue to recognize that narrow definition of marriage, either mundane or religious.

We've allowed the churches to define mundane marriage long enough - and limit the religious definition of it for some sects that are more accepting. This should stop.

*I use 'mundane' to mean non-religious.

I'm appalled at the numbers, the vast numbers of people who don't understand that there are two kinds of marriage - religious and civil - and civil is the only one that matters, legally.

The fundies, big surprise, have capitalized on that ignorance and there they stand.

It's like abortion - if you don't approve of it, don't have one. Same with marriage - if you don't want to marry someone, don't do it, but you can't prohibit others from doing it just because you don't want to do it.

Nice use of the word "mundane," by the way...................

recognized gay marriages and is permitting them --

organized patriarchal religions become even more medieval --

and stick out ever so much more like a sore thumb -- a sore, intolerant, homophobic thumb!


They're playing this card very heavily and it deserves a lot of response!!!!

he decries empathy as code for activist judges.

He is dithpicable

Pretty buttoned up from head to toe -- but not above doing dirty work for corps --

for perverts like Clarence Thomas, etc.

Disgusting guy--!!!

And he's completely out of touch. He came to my high school when I was sixteen and he made a fool of himself by being stumped by the questions of a bunch of hick teenagers. I guess he didn't expect us to ask real questions and he wasn't prepared. Since then, I've been embarassed that he's one of my senators and the embarassment has only grown as my political consciousness has grown.