The religious right has indeed demonized the ACLU for, in their words, trying to remove religion from the public square. Of course to make this point they must ignore the dozens of cases the ACLU has taken to protect the rights of individuals to freely express their religious beliefs.

It is laughable that Rev. Land finds himself uncomfortable agreeing with the ACLU over this. It speaks to just how far out of the mainstream he is with his Christian reconstructionist message.

Posted by: ds0490 | February 16, 2008 12:18 AM

The state has the right to decide who may get married to whom (bans on incest and polygamy, etc.) but not to decide who may perform religious marriage ceremonies.

What we need, viz. "separation of church and state", is a clear statement of the State's goals and hence its definition of "marriage". The ongoing debate re. "defense of marriage" is absurd.

If we are--and our Constitution says we are--a secular union, no religious body should be able to dictate to our masses what constitutes a "couple", a "family", a "faith" or a "covenant". These things must be LEGALLY and not THEOLOGICALLY defined.

The debate over so-called "gay marriage" only arises because, under current legal definitions, only "immediate family" may visit or decide for critically- or terminally-ill patients in a hospital and only "members of household" are covered by most group health plans. Most LGBT people couldn't care less what theological, religious or fiduciary importance others attach to "marriage" just as long as they are able to define "family" as they see fit and so define which members of their respective "households" are eligible for group health benefits or Social Security survivor benefits.

In view of the foregoing, why limit your outrage to the mere performance of "weddings"? My father performed my brother's wedding ceremony; my grandfather performed my parents'. Neither patriarch is an ordained minister; my father is a retired professor and my grandfather was a Member of Parliament. Within their respective spheres of influence, both could legally perform weddings. Actually, the only instrument that should be REQUIRED for a "wedding" to take place is a valid MARRIAGE LICENSE, and that only to ensure that each partner is aware of any STDs the other(s) might have.

It may be argued--and has been, elsewhere--that "marriage" has been instituted for the protection of any progeny that may issue therefrom. It makes sense, in that event, to limit "marriage" to persons capable of producing live young (e.g., fertile heterosexual couples). However, if that is the purpose and scope of the law, why extend it to include determination of heirs, powers of attorney or powers of execution? What have those things to do with protecting children or ensuring their welfare? In the days before women comprised an appreciable workforce segment, it certainly made sense to protect their estate as well by compelling men to care for those they covenanted with to house, keep and derive progeny from. However, even that notion is largely obsolete.

I am a Christian man and am wed to one woman. We have one son. We are bound in an everlasting covenant of marriage. What we embrace for ourselves within the sanctity of our relationship with God and with one another is, frankly, none of the State's business--nor should it be. However, just because I embrace certain truths and values does not mean that I have any right to impose those ideas on anyone who may embrace others. If the shoe were on the other foot--if I were a straight Christian in an overwhelmingly gay Wiccan society--I would not consider oppressively exclusive laws to be fair. In a secular nation such as ours, fairness is the standard to be held above all others.

Posted by: O. Blivius | March 14, 2008 11:47 AM