tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post112143760442167541..comments2023-10-02T04:41:34.722-04:00Comments on Marry in Massachusetts: Non-Fomenting Remarksmassmarrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02358207247771711952noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post-1121714380673586462005-07-18T15:19:00.000-04:002005-07-18T15:19:00.000-04:00Well, WC, I'm with you. Why someone wants to inter...Well, WC, I'm with you. Why someone wants to interfere with a private civil contract between two adults is beyond me. <BR/><BR/>The religious ranters somehow seem to miss that church marriages are just that. They are not legal without the state license and filing the completed forms with the government. That makes it a legal marriage.<BR/><BR/>We touched on that a year ago in <A HREF="http://massmarrier.blogspot.com/2004/07/why-there.html" REL="nofollow">Why There?</A>massmarrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358207247771711952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post-1121708190093447002005-07-18T13:36:00.000-04:002005-07-18T13:36:00.000-04:00But of course fomenting hatred is exactly what the...But of course fomenting hatred is exactly what the cardinal insists on being able to do. I don't see why anyone should be patting him on the head and telling him "Don't worry, you're still going to be able to bash gays."<BR/><BR/>Civil marriage is not a "religious issue." Religious marriage may be, but the government has already made the law clear in that regard--churches can set their own rules for marriage--so the cardinal should, in fact, keep his mouth shut. He's right in that regard.<BR/><BR/>Whatever we think of the Canadian hate speech laws, they have to be applied equally with no exceptions for people who claim to get their hatred from a deity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com