Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Nope. The decision says precisely the opposite — that monogamy is a civil institution which may not be superceded by religious doctrine.


54 posted on 05/27/2009 6:12:25 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: steve-b
The decision says precisely the opposite — that monogamy is a civil institution which may not be superceded by religious doctrine.

No, it says marriage is regulated by statutory law.

Homosexuals cannot be monogamous. Mono-'gamy' denotes a biological procreation homosexuals are incapable of with each other.

Aside from that, nature determines how babies are produced. The natural law does not need human laws... All men are born of women.

Monogamy is a religious standard applied to the secular law.

Another convoluted decision like Roe v. Wade.

If Roe v. Wade says society cannot intervene in private reproductive choices, then public funding for abortion is illegal.

The homosexuals want their "separation of church and state," yet they will seek ceremonious sanctification in a marriage rite and some kind of esoteric absolution from the church of the state.

65 posted on 05/27/2009 1:41:48 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson