::sigh::
Some people just don't get it. According to PlanetOut Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on ABC's "This Week" "he feels marriage is a sacrament and should only include a union of a man and a woman." (PlanetOut) Marriage is a sacrament. I would expect a priest or other member of the clergy to speak of marriage in those terms, but not a US Senator. Exactly when did the US government get into the business of solemnizing religious ceremonies?
I still don't understand how people continue to turn to religious beliefs as a reason to reject gay marriage. Gay and lesbian Americans have no interest in forcing any religious community to solemnize or even recognize their marriages. Honestly people, we don't care. News flash: we already consider our relationships recognized and sanctified by God or whatever spiritual entity in which we might believe. And for those of us who don't believe in a God (hardly unique to homosexuals) then it's a moot point, isn't it? We do expect the government to treat our relationships with the same respect it affords those of heterosexuals and treat us equal under the law. Is Sen. Frist saying the greater standard deductions for married couples is a sacrament as well? Then we have a real problem with the separation of church and state.
The religious wrong is probably more agitated than ever in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the government has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I'm sure they see the whole fabric of American society falling into pieces. I really don't understand that. The court's ruling is the epitome of American society. It supports the basic principles that America was founded on. No one could have said it better than Justice Kennedy did in the court opinion.
It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."
Tyranny of the majority is the very reason the first Pilgrims fled Europe to find a new land where they could practice their religious beliefs in peace. For all you Mormons out there, it's the same reason your ancestors fled to Utah. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that so many Americans have lost sight of their roots. It's human nature for the oppressed to turn into oppressors once they've created a power base of their own. Sad isn't it?