Curiosity prompted me to type in marriage in the mirriam-webster online dictionary, and the result was pretty interesting:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Now, It has been speculated that moral issues were the biggest reason why Bush won reelection. But among this subset of issues, one in particular seemed to harbor the most dissenting opinions, Gay marriage.
The bible is the primary reactionary tool that opponents cite when bashing gay marriage, which for me does not seem relevant. Soon, these hot-button issues that have polarized our nation will have to be addressed, but governmentally, is it sound to base our rationale on the spiritual teachings that represent just one of the myriad religions practiced in this country. In India, Hinduism and Islam are dominant religions, would it make sense for that country to simply pick one of these religions and base law simply around the more popular of the two, without any representation for the others? Would this be fair? Sure, I am Christian, and I do believe in the bible and it’s spiritual merit, but I just don’t feel that my beliefs should be forcibly imposed on another of differing convictions. Recently, I had asked my friend Nick about his opinion on these issues, and he brought up a really profound, rhetorical point, “Wasn’t this country founded for religious freedom?”.
As Chief Justice Reinquest’s deteriorating health condition, threatens vacancy in our supreme court, let’s pray Dubya does the right thing.