The legal battle over same-sex marriage in California is also a clash of religions.
As the state Supreme Court prepares for a three-hour hearing March 4 on the constitutionality of a state law allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, the justices have been flooded with written arguments from advocates on both sides – including two large contingents of religious organizations with sharply differing views.
On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as “the lifeblood of community, society and the state” and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create “deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution.”
On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims.
Why would dissident Mormans and Muslims favor same sex marriages? Could it be a way of greasing the slope and steepening the angle?
Because it opens the way to polygamy.
Br Micheal, you couldn’t be refering to the slippery slope, the camels nose etc. could you?
That the courts are even considering the marriage issue is the logical consequence of the moral collapse of mainstream Reformation Protestantism in this country.
“dissident groups of catholics” *gag*
Try “heretical groups of catholics” for a more accurate description.
Wot, No Episcopalians?
Oops… wrong thread 🙁
The “gift” is a large box of Turkish Delight…
Where Soka Gakki goes, I cannot believe that any rational being will follow. With friends like that…. Larry
Years my grandson came up on a fight that two of his friends were waging. They each had a different viewpoint on an important subject. He listened, shook his head and walked off remarking something that sounded like “..give ’em h*ll each other..”!! Nuff said.
# 1-3 About the slippery sloap argument.
It is a red herring argument. A change in the law in California will no more create precedent for legalizing marriage to multiple partners than the change in California to permit interracial marriage 60 years ago has done.