I was eating my breakfast and came across this Letter to the Editor at the S.F. Chronicle (June 10, 2008):
Don’t call it marriage
Editor – In choosing to impose the dogma of a "vocal minority" upon churches, the California Supreme Court has declared the separation of church and state dead.
The institution of "marriage" between a husband and wife of opposite sexes has its origin in the book of Genesis, predating both the California and United States constitutions by over four millennia. The fact that "the state" codified the biblical term "marriage" into government legislation does not ordain four state operatives clad in black robes to redefine this intellectual property of "the church."
"The state" may concoct any form of civil union it desires and brand it with some politically correct moniker. Just don’t violate the separation of church and state by calling it "marriage."
So I finished my breakfast and just sent in this letter:
Why should citizens in the State of California be subjected to the religious beliefs of others (Bob Nystrom, “Don’t Call It Marriage” June 10, 2008)? Just because Bob Nystrom believes that the world was created four thousand years ago and that the ‘church’ owns the word marriage, does that mean the rest of us should be forced to live under those beliefs? Should the state just become a theocracy? If so, which form of Christianity should be the rule of law? Or maybe it should be Buddhist or Hindu or Jewish or Muslim? Should all religious beliefs be followed and put into the State Constitution? If so, then I propose that the first law to be in the Constitution should be to make divorce illegal except for infidelity (according to the words of Jesus). Believe what you want, just don’t force it on the rest of us. And according to the latest poll, the view of the vocal minority has now become the view of the majority…
Dr. Kevin Kaatz
We’ll see if they print it…
My original letter had included the fact that the word ‘marriage’ comes from the Latin word ‘marito’ and that word is not the ‘intellectual property of the church’ at all. It belonged to the Romans and like a lot of other things, it was taken over by the Christians. Maybe the Christians who are against gay marriage should go back to their Old Testament and redefine their own modern marriages to mimic those of the Old Testament where wives and children were property and where the women had no say in things. But I imagine that wouldn’t go over very well today…