Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[LuvDuke]

Legally, I'm not aware of any differences between a church marriage and JP marriage. So long as the religious officiant has the license or whatever required to perform the marriage (as mine did), it is just as legal as a JP marriage.

What I would see happening if we went to civil marriages, would be that EVERYONE that wanted to have a valid, legal marriage would have to be married by a civil official, such as a JP. Those also wanting a religious "marriage" could have one in a church, but the church ceremony would have no bearing whatsoever on the legality of the union.

So for example, as a Catholic, my church would not recognize the civil ceremony as a sacrement, but I could obtain the sacrament by having a Catholic wedding in a Catholic church. My Catholic church would not perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but the Methodist church down the street might. Those that only care about or need the legal marriage would simply choose to forego the religious ceremony, and those that wish to have the religious ceremony could have it, but without the civil ceremony, it would not be a legal marriage.

It's the license that makes you married in the state's eye. You basically have civil union now.

On a lighter note, we were married by a JP who raised prize winning poodles.

 

[Chuck S]

I don't see why we can't have "civil marriage" and "sacred marriage". The individual Church would have final say over who gets a "sacred marriage" and if that Church was ok marrying gay couples then so be it, but the state could not force a Church to marry gay couples. No discrimination lawsuits or anything. The state would have the control over who gets a "civil marriage".

Would that still be separate but equal?

The US gov't can not tell a church they "have" to marry anyone, even a hetero couple, or recognize that relationship.

But yet, if a hetero couple has a basic civil ceremony, not involving religion at all, most US churches recognize that couple as "married."

Also remember, that for many legal forms, like proof of birth etc, that the gov't will accept baptismal certificates and church wedding certificates as "proof" to get those birth certificates or legally recognize marriage. In the US, legal and religious marriage has been intertwined in a way that will make it difficult to separate without a complete and true separation of church and state.

I wonder if that would hold true in gay civil marriages, and how, or if, churches in the countries that do allow full gay civil marriages recognize/acknowledge the legal gay marriages.

 

[cardaway]

Legally, I'm not aware of any differences between a church marriage and JP marriage. So long as the religious officiant has the license or whatever required to perform the marriage (as mine did), it is just as legal as a JP marriage.

Check out the requirments of what it would take for somebody to be able to perform a strictly civil marriage (basically needing to be a JP) and how few requirements there are if somebody says they are part of a religion. If they are part of some religion, they will let almost anybody sign off a marriage.

I understand that the majority of people don't have a problem with this, because as things are now it works, but it could be a problem if some the things were to change.

would see happening if we went to civil marriages, would be that EVERYONE that wanted to have a valid, legal marriage would have to be married by a civil official, such as a JP. Those also wanting a religious "marriage" could have one in a church, but the church ceremony would have no bearing whatsoever on the legality of the union.

So for example, as a Catholic, my church would not recognize the civil ceremony as a sacrement, but I could obtain the sacrament by having a Catholic wedding in a Catholic church. My Catholic church would not perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but the Methodist church down the street might. Those that only care about or need the legal marriage would simply choose to forego the religious ceremony, and those that wish to have the religious ceremony could have it, but without the civil ceremony, it would not be a legal marriage.

Not only do I think that would be the only way it could work if this change came about, I also think that's the way it should work now.

 

[Uncle Remus]

When Religion Loses Its Credibility
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas

What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.

Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

Answer in Scriptures

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."

As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.

What would Jesus do?

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...religion_x.htm
________________________

 

[BuckNaked]

It's the license that makes you married in the state's eye. You basically have civil union now.

You could call it a civil union if you like, but I have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law. Yes, it was the marriage license that makes it legal, but it was not performed by a JP or other civil officiant.

Basically what I'm saying is that a potential solution is to take away the ability of any clergy to perform a legal marriage.

I'm pretty sure that concept has been around for quite awhile, because I seem to remember reading at one time that Grace Kelly and Prince Ranier had two ceremonies - the civil marriage and the Catholic ceremony.

On a lighter note, we were married by a JP who raised prize winning poodles.

At first glance, I thought you wrote "...prize winning noodles" and I was wondering HTH people raise noodles.

 

[cardaway]

In the US, legal and religious marriage has been intertwined in a way that will make it difficult to separate without a complete and true separation of church and state.

Exactly. In fact if we take away all the benefits that governments give people who are married... problem solved.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Exactly. In fact if we take away all the benefits that governments give people who are married... problem solved.

Works for me-I'm single.

 

[Laura]

I'm pretty sure that concept has been around for quite awhile, because I seem to remember reading at one time that Grace Kelly and Prince Ranier had two ceremonies - the civil marriage and the Catholic ceremony.

Yes, in some countries I know you have to have a civil marriage that is not in the church at all. Take France, for example, which I imagine Monaco copies:

GETTING MARRIED IN FRANCE

Note : The French legal system requires that civil marriages take place in a French "mairie" (City Hall). Therefore, marriages cannot be performed within the Embassy or within an American Consulate in France.

Civil Ceremony
All marriages must be performed by a French civil authority before any religious ceremony takes place. The mayor can authorize the deputy mayor or a city councilor to perform the ceremony in the town in which one of the parties to be married has resided for at least 40 days preceding the marriage. These requirements can not be waived.

Religious ceremony
The religious ceremony has to be performed after the civil ceremony (never before). The minister, priest or rabbi will require a certificate of civil marriage before any religious ceremony takes place.

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/visitingfrance/marriage.asp


Until recently the UK had two options for places where a couple could marry legally: a Registry Office or an Anglican church. They've now included some other sites like old buildings, parks, etc. but they have to be designated as a-okay by the government.

 

[LuvDuke]

Works for me-I'm single.

You learn something everyday.

 

[MassJester]

So they think it's yucky. That's ok, they don't have to get involved or watch.

here's a question: Do gay people find public displays of affection by heteros or the thought of heteros doing their thing "yucky" ? I'm really curious....

I am reminded of the debate on the floor of the Consitutional Convention here in Massachusetts on this issue. The Senator from Lexington addressed the legislature and said something to this effect:

I know why you are opposed to this, you think sex between one man and another man is "icky". Well then, if you think about it, you should definitely vote for gay marriage, as you all know there is no sex after marriage.​

I enjoyed that thoroughly.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yes, in some countries I know you have to have a civil marriage that is not in the church at all. Take France, for example, which I imagine Monaco copies:



http://www.ambafrance-us.org/visitingfrance/marriage.asp

Italy is the same way. You get married at the "municipio" (city hall), and then you get married in church if you want.

However, in Israel, there is no civil marriage. All marriage is presided over by the rabbis. Many Israelis went to Cyprus to get married in a civil ceremony and the the state of Israel recognizes those marriages, but it is not recognized by the rabbis.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You learn something everyday.

yesterday I learned what okra was! Almost wish I hadn't though...

 

[MassJester]

Yes, we all will have our say.

We all have our beliefs (religion) and we all have the right to influence society. Basing one's beliefs on God (or not) does not disqualify anyone from influencing the society that we and our children live in.

Better thru voting than judicial fiat.

Segregating public accomodation by race was struck down by judicial fiat as voting couldn't get it doen--I suppose you don't approve.

Let's dust off all those "White's Only" signs--darned activist judges...

 

[Andy B]

I do not think it is needed or helpful to propose that religious ceremonies should not perform the marriage act for anyone when it same sex marriage is allowed. This would only perpetuate the feeling that changes were needed to make all equal, whereas many people currently do not have religious marriages currently and surely in time reality would impinge on religions and some would begin to perform same sex marriages also and this would reinforce equality.

 

[LuvDuke]

I do not think it is needed or helpful to propose that religious ceremonies should not perform the marriage act for anyone when it same sex marriage is allowed. This would only perpetuate the feeling that changes were needed to make all equal, whereas many people currently do not have religious marriages currently and surely in time reality would impinge on religions and some would begin to perform same sex marriages also and this would reinforce equality.

The reality is the generations that are following do NOT have the same visceral reaction to gay marriage or gay people in general. Within 10-20 years, laws against gay marriage will seem as offensive as the Jim Crow laws of 50 years ago.

The world is changing.

 

[RickinNYC]

Segregating public accomodation by race was struck down by judicial fiat as voting couldn't get it doen--I suppose you don't approve.

Let's dust off all those "White's Only" signs--darned activist judges...

Again with the kicky little sports car references.

 

[MassJester]

We all have equal rights. All single adult men can marry women. All single adult women can marry men.

You are trying to impose your values to change society to the way you see fit.

That was the line of reasoning behind banning interracial marriage. No one is discriminated against, and everyone can marry. Blacks can marry blacks, and whites can marry whites: see, no dsicrimination.

Take a look at Loving v. Virgina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). I'm sure you will be outraged at the activist judges who by judicial fiat forced the good people of Virginia to let a black man and a white woman marry. Why couldn't they leave it in the hands of majority voters? We're a democracy aren't we.

Darned activist judges...

 

[MassJester]

Honest question......

What is/would be the difference between marriage and civil unions?

If there is no difference, why not call it the same thing?

 

[BuckNaked]

I do not think it is needed or helpful to propose that religious ceremonies should not perform the marriage act for anyone when it same sex marriage is allowed. This would only perpetuate the feeling that changes were needed to make all equal, whereas many people currently do not have religious marriages currently and surely in time reality would impinge on religions and some would begin to perform same sex marriages also and this would reinforce equality.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if same sex marriage is legalized, churches should have to perform them? Because that won't ever fly in this country.

 

[Andy B]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if same sex marriage is legalized, churches should have to perform them? Because that won't ever fly in this country.

It has be suggested earlier that religious groups should be prohibited from performing marriages and this should be a civil matter only. I was suggesting that that would only increase resistance to change and that the status quo should exist for who could perform marriages but all who currently can perform the act should be allowed to do so for same sex marriages also. There should be no compulsion on any religion to perform same sex marriages as there must be freedom of religious expression within their own groups, however I believe that within a reasonable timescale you would see a number of them changing their policies.