Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Christian Miller
Recent Activity
-
Christian commented on the article |Marriage: The Unholy Alliance of Church and State
"By the power vested in me, by the state of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Wife." declared the minister in front of the altar.
We have heard it so many times at weddings, movies and television that we forget the significance of this pronouncement and how it blurs the vast difference between the government meaning of marriage and the popular meaning of marriage.
The word "marriage" conjures in our minds and emotions the promise of love, caring, committed relationship, living together, making babies, families, and continuity. A government marriage license does not require or address any of those things. The couple does not even have to declare that they intend to like each other or live together. In this respect it is a hollow document, only a voucher for a bundle for exclusive government benefits and privileges. These subsidies have grown with little thought, challenge or debate during the 20th century.
There is a popular misconception that marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between the bride and the groom. This is not quite true, "Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves" There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government's rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime. No one reads the unsuspecting couple their "Miranda rights" or informs them about what they are agreeing to.
Our minister above conducting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is a government official, an "agent" of the State of California. There is a conspiracy of Church and State. If a couple wishes to have the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in their own local church they will be forced, as a practical matter, to get a government marriage license in which they assent to this contract with government which binds them to whatever marriage laws the government wishes to enact or change.
The controversy over same-sex marriage should cause us to ask: Why is the government involved in marriage? Equality? Fairness? Why is the government giving exclusive financial benefits to people with marriage licenses and not to people without marriage licenses? I submit that people will fall in love, live together, make babies and perpetuate families with or without the government. Why do we want the ministers of our faith to be government agents?
I recommend that churches stop being agents of the government; that the state governments stop issuing marriage licenses or special civil unions; and that the federal government stop giving exclusive subsidies to people with marriage licenses. Benefits for all or benefits for none.
-
Christian commented on the article |
Consider that a couple that is not religious does not need to have a religious ceremony to become legally married, but a religious couple cannot get married in most churches without getting legally married.
-
Christian commented on the article |I have a picture of a house burning down and folks reluctant to use a fire hose for fear of water damage.
-
Christian commented on the article |
If we are going to bring down CO2 to 300 ppm in 40 years to avoid the gobal disaster that is predicted, we will need to take risks, make trade-offs, and make sacrifices. We need to push all the buttons now with the current technologies while we work at improving the technologies. Driving Priuses, paying bills on line, changing lights bulbs, and casting blame is not going to get us there in time.
-
Christian commented on the article |
Until we can say that nuclear power can reduce CO2, the other issues such as protection against terrorist attacks are moot.
-
Christian commented on the article |
Craig, Right now we produce about 20% of our electricity by nuclear. Are you saying that if we replaced the remaining 80% with nuclear that there would be no overall reduction in CO2 emissions?
-
Christian commented on the article |
Charles, You have an uncomfortable decision: are you more afraid of the risks of Golbal Warming or the risks of Nuclear Power?
-
Christian commented on the article |
Nuclear power and birth control are necessary if we want to get CO2 down to safe levels in the next 40 years.
-
Christian commented on the article |
Al Gore et al. have a credibility problem because the solutions they are willing to consider are not commensurate with their dire predictions. They dare not utter the word “nuclear” lest it tarnish their liberal credentials.
They are not willing to weigh the risks of nuclear power against the risk of the end of civilization they predict could happen in 50 years.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits