Commentary from Skipp Porteous

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Civil Unions for All

Marriage generally is a religious institution, or at least it has religious connotations. Because of the constitutional separation of church and state, the state should have no part in marriages. Any union of two people that the state is involved in should be a civil union. The only interest that the state has in a union of two people is a contractural one.

If people want to get married, the state (every state) should allow people to do what they want. They should be able to get married in the church, synagogue, mosque, home, or whatever, of their choice, and the state should recognize their marriage.

If they want a civil union, the state should be involved and record the union at the county courthouse. In other words, the state should not be involved in marriages, ever.

3 Comments:

  • Here - Here...or there there...whatever...anyway, I agree.
    So, can I comment on your Janet Jackson entry here? Is it legal to jump entries?
    I love your choice of word...delighted - simple,
    "I was delighted."

    By Blogger Copyright 2010 by Carol Scibelli, at 8:24 PM  

  • I agree, and it appears to be for the same reasons. Marriage is a religious institution and should not be interfered with by government. Civil unions are basically a contract between two (or perhaps more than two) people, which they could report to the government if they wanted to, but I don't think it would be necessary. NH charges a tax on marriage licenses, which I think should not exist. I support the repeal of any law that regulates marriage between consenting adults. Things like domestic assault could be treated as simple assault. It seems to me that people in government want to control every aspect of our lives.

    By Blogger Timothy A. Logsdon, at 10:11 AM  

  • Carol asks if she can comment on my Janet Jackson entry. Of course, it's a free country.

    By Blogger Skipp Porteous, at 2:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home