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

To: jboot; Honorary Serb
How about taking back the word ‘marriage’ which has been defined as a sacrament between a man and a woman.

If homosexuals want to bond, they can have ‘civil (somethings)’ but they can't have a ‘civil marriage’.

“Marriage” is “marriage”. Between one man and one woman. To call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage is to dilute “marriage” to the point it no longer means what it did. Maybe it would mean nothing at all.

37 posted on 08/19/2011 2:26:03 PM PDT by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: hummingbird; jboot

Of course same-sex “marriage” is not marriage, no matter what the law says!!!

But the “gay” activists and their parasites have made such a hash out of civil marriage (and out of marriage in liberal protestant “churches”), that the Church (or even the state) may have to resort to such expedients as to separate civil and Sacramental marriage, as in several European countries. (The state WILL recognize Christian marriage, since Christian couples will obtain both a licensed civil marriage and a Sacramental Marriage.)

I don’t see a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman happening anytime soon. Such an amendment would settle the whole issue in the best way possible.


39 posted on 08/19/2011 3:19:52 PM PDT by Honorary Serb (Kosovo is Serbia! Free Srpska! Abolish ICTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | 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