the problem is that the church has anything to do with marriage in the first place.
each individual should be able to pick one other individual to be joined with and recognized by the government. All the church stuff should be irrelevant. That should be between people and their church.
Considering marriage is a religious ceremony, I don't know how it's related to anything but the Church and other religious institutions. Contracts between two consenting adults, however, (what most people deem today to be a marriage) have necessarily nothing to do with religious institutions. But the point is that marriage and what are seen as "marriage contracts" are two completely different things. Nobody has the right to be married by a Church, but everybody has the right to voluntarily associate with one another (or so it had once been).
When the government came in and decided to arbitrarily give out benefits is when this became a controversial issue. Once again, the state causing conflict. Not too surprising to see anymore.
Well, maybe they would leave the Church, but maybe they would stick around and hope the Church that they love comes around to their point of view.
It's hard not to both admire and sympathize with the type you've described - for me, anyway - but human nature, being as diverse as it is, also includes those who both can't tolerate the thought of an institution that might exclude them and don't mind using the courts to force the changes they desire.
I haven't kept up with the Boy Scouts legal troubles since Philadelphia tried to screw them over the lease they had, but I'd think that churches with no intention of accomadating should brush up on that history.
-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 1st of March 2011 08:15:56 PM
-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 1st of March 2011 08:16:48 PM
WASHINGTON—Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals. "It was just awful—they smashed through our living room window, one of them said 'I've had my eye on you, Roger,' and then they dragged my husband off kicking and screaming," said Cleveland-area homemaker Rita Ellington, one of the latest victims whose defenseless marriage was overrun by the hordes of battle-ready gays that had been clambering at the gates of matrimony since the DOMA went into effect in 1996. "Oh dear God, why did they remove the protection provided by this vital piece of legislation? My children! What will I tell my children?" A video communique was sent to the media late yesterday from what appears to be the as-yet unidentified leader of the gay marauders, who, adorned in terrifying warpaint, announced "Richard Dickson of Ames, Iowa. We're coming for you next. Put on something nice."
I don't understand why anyone would belong to a church that clearly doesn't want them/accept them. I couldn't be with a group that doesn't accept who I am.
I, on the other hand, do understand why someone would belong to a religion that doesn't accept them: because they believe the religion mostly has it right, but is mistaken on their particular issues. So, suppose they believe, in general, in what the Catholic Church teaches. They believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in apostolic succession, in all that stuff. They like the mass, the music, confession. But they think, let's say, that the Church is mistaken in refusing to ordain women. Well, maybe they would leave the Church, but maybe they would stick around and hope the Church that they love comes around to their point of view.
This does not apply to me; I have left the Church I was brought up in, because I'm an atheist. But members of my family are still religious and still remain part of the Catholic Church, even though they may disagree on some of the stands it takes. And that makes perfect sense to me.
I don't understand why a same-sex couple would waste their time suing a church...
I won't understand it either, but....
I am with CF. I don't understand why anyone would belong to a church that clearly doesn't want them/accept them. I couldn't be with a group that doesn't accept who I am. It's never made any sense to me. But it could be because I'm not really religious.
Neither am I. Also, I've no interest in forcing/punishing an organization because I can't/won't meet their rules for membership or sanction.
Sad to say, not everyone feels like we do, whatever their reasons.
the problem is that the church has anything to do with marriage in the first place.
This is the first thing in recent memory that soccer and I agree on lol.
I am with CF. I don't understand why anyone would belong to a church that clearly doesn't want them/accept them. I couldn't be with a group that doesn't accept who I am. It's never made any sense to me. But it could be because I'm not really religious.
I don't understand why a same-sex couple would waste their time suing a church; anyone can sue anyone, but that particular suit sounds like such a waste of time and money. We haven't seen a raft of orthodox Jewish, Muslim or atheist couples suing the Catholic church for not marrying them, have we? I haven't even heard of a divorced person who couldn't get an annulment suing the Church to allow him marry.
When my husband and I got married, we had to go through an involved pre-Cana process. If we hadn't done it, the Catholic church would have refused to marry us-- and we would have had no grounds to sue. Everybody knows that religious institutions get to pick and choose which couples they want to marry. That was true before any gays could get married, it's still true now, and it's not controversial.
I think many people are like a little bit of you and a little bit of cat.
I support it, but because of my religious beliefs I would never classify it as a marriage. In the catholic belief marriage is a holy sacrament...that would be why if you marry outside of your religion you must get a dispensation, and even than the church will not do a "high mass". It is also why if you get divorced to get re-married in the church you must get it annulled.
The terms union and marriage for non-catholics are equal. However, it isn't for a Catholic. The same would be said for the terms divorce and annullment. You can be a catholic and be divorced, but in the eyes of the church, until that marriage is annulled you are still married. In the church you can be married by a JP, and seen as married legally, but not in the eyes of the church.
Catholic Churches now have things called Vatican I and II. Vatican I is orthodox...for example before you can take communion you must have fulfilled a checklist:
1. Good standing in the church --- go to church every Sunday, if you missed last week, you must go to confession to be absolved. 2. Marriage in good standing ---in other words married in the church and no birth control. 3. Did not eat 1 hour prior 4. Did not drink 45 minutes prior 5. Have attended confession in the holy seasons (Advent and Lent). 6. Received all of the sacraments, such as baptismal...etc
Yes, they go through the checklist....they actually say at this time we would like to invite everyone up for communion, BUT to accept this sacrament ...
Vatican II. At this time we would like to invite our Catholic community to receive communion....notice no check list. OBTW II also calls confession, reconciliation.
That is why I say people do not understand for certain people of religious faith, they can accept homosexual unions from a societal perspective, just not from a religious one.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
the problem is that the church has anything to do with marriage in the first place.
each individual should be able to pick one other individual to be joined with and recognized by the government. All the church stuff should be irrelevant. That should be between people and their church.
So for that no same sex couple should be allowed to marry?
Didn't say that, nor anything close to it, tom. Myself, I'd prefer the unambiguity of "civil union" instead of "marriage" but understand their desire for the latter blessing.
I do feel, though, that if the position is allowed to be argued by some supporters on the basis that it won't impact the religous positions of others, the reality sort of taints the whole.
I also do not doubt that some same sex couple will attempt to force a church/religion to marry them and they will be wrong. So for that no same sex couple should be allowed to marry?
While I hope everthing works out in a satisfactory way for everyone on both sides of the fence of this issue, I'm having a really hard time believing that, sometime in the future, this won't be used by a noble-minded gay couple (and their equally noble-minded lawyer... rotfl) to whoop on a church that won't extend it's blessing to their union.
I've a bridge for anyone who says it won't happen, btw.
pima- I agree 100%. I will fight for any church that is forced by the government to perform gay marriage. Yes I am familiar with the Ocean Grove case-it did not force a religion to perform a same sex marriage.
I hope that this country finally gets it. Nobody is saying your church must perform the marriage. To me that is why I don't bite off on the religion defense aspect for not allowing homosexual unions.
You may not approve of it from a religious perspective, and I respect that opinion. However, religion is not how we work in this country. We have that thing called separation of church and state. This is a state issue. What harm does it do at all to the state by allowing homosexuals to get married?
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
Finally some movement on this. Maryland is poised to pass a gay marriage bill. Hopefully, we'll avoid a referendum vote and it will be smooth sailing for the bill.
