Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Chacham's Journal: Michigan State Constitution Amendment: Marriage 6

Journal by Chacham

Got my sample ballot for my precinct (19c-27). Here's the the second of the two state proposals.

PROPOSAL-2
A PROPOSAL TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A "MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION" FOR ANY PURPOSE

The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Should this proposal be adopted?

I'm against the state defining marriage. Yet, since it is used, i'm for this.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michigan State Constitution Amendment: Marriage More

Michigan State Constitution Amendment: Marriage

Comments Filter:
  • Can you grant the assertion that the only entity of humanity that has an opinion concerning what marriage is and isn't is religion? Name a single primary source of thought/literature/culture that concerns itself with the definition of marriage that is not of religious origin, i.e., who is it that originally decided that marriage was for a man and woman?

    Those who think that the state should define it are advocating theocracy.

    Would you like your state constitution to go on and define what a church is? Wha
    • I do not diasagree. Marriage is a religious thing. The state usurped it. Now challengers want to to change it.

      Instead of changing it, or enforcing it, the state should simply not recognize it.
    • Can you grant the assertion that the only entity of humanity that has an opinion concerning what marriage is and isn't is religion?

      No, it isn't even close to being true - see below. Or explain how you consider the MA Supreme Court to be a religion :-)

      Name a single primary source of thought/literature/culture that concerns itself with the definition of marriage that is not of religious origin, i.e., who is it that originally decided that marriage was for a man and woman?

      Tax, immigration and inheritance

      • There are so many things wrong with your reasoning I don't know where to start.

        Pointing back to common law as the basis for the assertion that marriage has been defined in a non-religious context is a tautology. This is something like saying that since "christmas" is mentioned in state holiday listings that it is thusly defined by the state. My discussion, it seems almost too obvious to say, went to the origins of the institution, not word counts in the code.

        Bad laws are all over the books. This is why
        • There are so many things wrong with your reasoning I don't know where to start.

          Funny, I was thinking exactly that as I read your original post...

          This is something like saying that since "christmas" is mentioned in state holiday listings that it is thusly defined by the state.

          Nope. More like pointing out the presence of a law regarding Christmas as evidence that Christmas has a meaning (and hence definition) beyond the purely religious: it is also defined in law. Trying to argue that there shouldn't be

  • Remind me not to move to Michigan, Washington state legislators are working on getting gay marriage acknowledged.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close