Comments

  1. says

    Justice Daniels got to the heart of the matter. ‘This is about religion.’

    Opponents were asking that their ‘definition’ of marriage derived from a religious stance making marriage available only to those they approve of be the basis of civil law.

    Daniels: Religion is not part of the Constitution.

  2. simon says

    They mean Christianity of course. The same people will find some of the Islamic views on morality unacceptable to them. It never occurs to them some of their own views are equally repugnant to others.

  3. john patrick says

    I met with two legislators in their local offices, and stressed a number of points. One is that no religious groups opposed to marriage equality will be forced to officiate at such weddings. Second is that those religious groups who want to officiate at civil same sex marriages do not have the freedom to do so. So religious groups that want religious freedom to not officiate will have it. But those same groups do not want other religious groups to have the religious freedom to so officiate.

Leave A Reply