Marriage in Lincolnland Discriminates

Lincolnland is trying to decide if gay marriage will be legal, and from TPP’s perspective, how can it not be, particularly because civil unions for gay couples have been approved already?  So what’s the controversy?  There really isn’t any because the proposed law does not compel any religion to perform a marriage for any couple they disapprove of.   TPP was quite fortunate to have gotten married long, long ago, in a place far, far away, because presently the Catholic Church surely would not allow him to marry one of theirs, if she still was one of theirs.  Conversely, our church has no problem with the idea of gay marriage, but our church is prevented from exercising its freedom of religion by another religion whose practices have become codified into law.  Our local dolt representative is a member of the GnOPe, so he has a non-reasoning, knee-jerk response which seems to simply be, no, he won’t vote for it.  Well, here’s a message for our representative.  In case you didn’t know, religion does not own marriage here in Lincolnland, although a religious organization has claimed [Marriage] “is not a civil right; marriage was created by God and cannot be modified by anybody except God.”   Well, folks, you may believe that, but it isn’t in fact true and that train pulled out of the station a long, long time ago because any heterosexual couple, even if atheists,  can go right down to the courthouse, sign a piece of paper, and without a single religious blessing or reference, be married. And so can gay couples except it's a civil union. So the only question remaining, and this may not have occurred to our representative’s little GnOPe brain is why aren’t all committed couples equal before the law?  Why does the change in wording of civil union to marriage make this a no-no?  Is it because of your religious beliefs tell you it’s wrong if they are gay? If so, why should your “freedom” of religion be allowed to prevent the freedom of another religion?   Is it because your religion is, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, the one true religion?  So why do I care what you believe except you get to decide for everyone, a mistake that will have to be corrected by our democratic process.  Perhaps you haven’t read the US constitution lately; a refresher course is suggested. 

The biology of Marriage

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council claims scientific validation for one-man-one-woman marriage. "Marriage is a natural institution—rooted in the order of nature itself.
The reason marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to create a new human life. Marriage is treated as a public institution because it is in the public interest (not just in the private interest of particular couples) for the human race to reproduce and continue into future generations."
Sure, that's why different human cultures have viewed marriage in so many different ways. Clearly this fellow knows very little about biology. Mating just isn't so simple out there, why plants have something like 16 different sex expressions of which just one is "male and female" plants. Harems the norm among many animals, so a sultan's harem can claim the same; it's a natural institution. Pair bonding is in no way the norm, and promiscuity is everywhere! Does Peter wish us to castigate celibates or childless couples because they choose not to reproduce? And when a burgeoning human population can be found contributing to so many of our problems, indeed, is it in the best interests of future generations for the human race to reproduce quite so much? Of course, we all know that none of this actually matters; science doesn't support his position. It's all about religion and religious bigotry aimed at homosexual marriage, but rather than say "my religion makes me a bigot" they try to suggest science supports their position. In the small minds of such people as Peter, the only religious freedom is their religious freedom, and everyone else had better conform. Think carefully about political candidates who proclaim a religious motivation for seeking public office, especially those who say god told them to do it. Fortunately just enough legislators in New York State saw the issue clearly enough, without a religious bias, that our USA democracy took a small step forward. The rest of them would happily endorse their version of the Taliban.