I pointed out that it isn't the state's business to enforce the religious aspect of marriage.
The more I read and write about this, the more I realize that the point you make there is the Big Thing to me. I think it has surpassed, for me, the issue of same-sex marriage. I hope no one thinks that means I don't consider the latter extremely important, because I do. But the government's involvement in religious issues is much bigger, and IMHO much more threatening: it threatens everyone, and even if one looks just at gay rights, it threatens more than just the right to marry.
I cannot understand why people who want to impose their religious beliefs through government means do not grasp the nature of that two-edged sword. If one uses the government to impose one's relgious values, at another time in another political climate it can be used to impose others' religious values on one. The only protection is clear, unmistakable, and absolute separation of church and state.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-21 10:53 am (UTC)The more I read and write about this, the more I realize that the point you make there is the Big Thing to me. I think it has surpassed, for me, the issue of same-sex marriage. I hope no one thinks that means I don't consider the latter extremely important, because I do. But the government's involvement in religious issues is much bigger, and IMHO much more threatening: it threatens everyone, and even if one looks just at gay rights, it threatens more than just the right to marry.
I cannot understand why people who want to impose their religious beliefs through government means do not grasp the nature of that two-edged sword. If one uses the government to impose one's relgious values, at another time in another political climate it can be used to impose others' religious values on one. The only protection is clear, unmistakable, and absolute separation of church and state.