Klarinet Archive - Posting 000337.txt from 2004/11

From: Joe Fasel <jhf@-----.gov>
Subj: Re: [kl] RE: elections)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:47:06 -0500


On 2004.11.06 05:39, Forest Aten wrote:
> Bill....=20
> Then you say:
>=20
> "I only absolutely draw the line at calling it "marriage." That word is
> already taken and means something else."
>=20
> And I say....in YOUR mind.....but not in the mind of many others.

To rephrase what I said in response to Rien's message the other day,
I would seriously suggest that the right way to address this problem is
to remove the word "marriage" from the legal lexicon. Let the religious
institutions (not necessarily in agreement with each other) define what
marriage is. Let the state define the parameters of "civil union".
Any couple might decide to enter into both of these arrangements, one,
or neither.

In the church to which I belong, I suspect the general sentiment would
be for heterosexual marriage and some kind of blessing of a same-sex
union, though in time that may change.

A change over time in the church's attitude toward homosexual unions
might be similar to what we have already seen with the female priesthood.
When women's ordination was first introduced in the U.S. Episcopal Church,
there were many who said that this was just nonsensical by definition--
that a woman could no more be a priest than a husband or father. You don't
hear that much anymore.

--Joe

Joseph H. Fasel, Ph.D. email: jhf@-----.gov
Systems Planning and Analysis phone: +1 505 667 7158
University of California fax: +1 505 667 2960
Los Alamos National Laboratory post: D-2 MS F609; Los Alamos, NM 8=
7545

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org