2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

To me there seems to be a distinction between the religious and public meanings of marriage.  Ms Gallagher talks about not wanting to change the public meaning of marriage but imposes a religious definition.  I am OK with allowing private religious groups to impose their narrow definitions of marriage, however, in the public domain, the institution of marriage is simply a set of laws, rights, and responsibilities that govern financial issues and individual liberties (e.g., visitation, inheritance).  I do not see how it is reasonable to impose a single individual religious definition of marriage on the public legal aspects of marriage makes sense.  As another blogger said, Ms Gallagher's focus on children does not stand up unless she thinks that public marriage should also exclude the elderly or infertile.

GDM

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context