Political & Elections

conyat · Veteran Member

RE: Sen Portman

longprime · Guru

RE: Sen Portman, and others

conyat · Veteran Member

RE: Sen Portman

conyat · Veteran Member

Basing whether people can have a marriage certificate from the state on whether they are eligible for the sacrament of marriage in a particular church makes about as much sense as forbidding Jewish people from getting their child a birth certificate because they aren't eligible to have their child baptized.

conyat · Veteran Member

johndoe, in answer to your question, here's a list of churches that celebrate gay marriages at least in some situations:

I was suprised by a couple.

Faiths Allowing Same-Sex Marriages

United Church of Christ: The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian church to fully support same-sex marriage and perform marriage ceremonies.
Jewish: Reform Judaism embraces same-sex marriage and rabbis can perform ceremonies.
Quaker: The willingness to perform gay marriages varies by meetinghouse, but there is some acceptance and performance of same-sex marriages among Quakers.
Metropolitan Community Church
Unitarian Universalist

Faiths Allowing Limited Same-Sex Marriage

Episcopal: In the Episcopal Church, priests are authorized to bless same-sex wedding ceremonies but not declare the marriage official or sign the marriage license. Certain dioceses can perform full marriage ceremonies.
Lutheran: Lutheran churches can decide, on a church-by-church basis, whether or not to perform same-sex marriage.

http://gayweddinginstitute.com/_blog/Gay_Weddings_are_Good_for_Business/post/Which_Churches_Allow_Gay_Marriage/

winchester · Guru

But what does the Catholic Church have to do with secular law?

Wow.

conyat · Veteran Member

I have been fascinated by the idea expressed in one of the earlier posts on this thread that same-sex marriage should be illegal because a poster's religion considers it sinful. It never occured to me that it was the function of government to prevent people from making legal contracts that a church does not approve of, even if the contract doesn't involve the church. It seems to me that the administration is going to present some thorny issues. Should the government also ban second marriages if a person has a living ex-spouse and has not obtained a papal annullment? What about collection of interest? Many religions forbid that.

I'd appreciate it if those who feel this is the role of government could elaborate more on how they see this working: where do you draw the line on what contracts to forbid, what religion should get preferential treatment from the government if their doctrine conflicts, etc. It's a fascinating idea and one I had not thought much about. My dad had a related idea bout capital punishment (he thought it fundamentally unfair that the murderer gets the opportunity for deathbed repentence when the victim might not have) but that's tale for another day.

hope · Guru

Black churches denounce NAACP Gay Marriage Stance

A coalition of black churches has denounced a move by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to endorse same-sex marriage.

The NAACP passed a resolution this weekend endorsing same-sex marriage as a civil right and opposing any efforts to "codify discrimination or hatred into the law."

The action comes a week after President Barack Obama came out in support of gay marriage.

The NAACP's board voted at a leadership retreat in Miami to back a resolution supporting marriage equality, "calling the position consistent with the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution."

"The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social, and economic equality for all people," Chairwoman Roslyn M. Brock said in a statement.

"Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage quality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people," NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said.

Rev. Anthony Evans, with the National Black Church Initiative, opposed the president's and the NAACP's endorsements of same-sex marriage. He warned that Obama and the NAACP will lose support among black churches for their stand.

"We love our gay brothers and sisters, but the black church will never support gay marriage," Evans said. "It is and always will be against the ethics and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The National Black Church Initiative is a faith-based coalition of 34,000 African American and Latino churches comprised of 15 denominations.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Fifty years ago, in some parts of the US, blacks were Segregated from whites. Now we have a black man who is living in the White House.

Things change. Not as fast as some would like. Societal changes creep slowly.

Some will never be on board for these changes. I see hope's point of view and get where she's coming from. I respect her thoughts, even though I could never embrace her relgion.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

But what does the Catholic Church have to do with secular law?

hope · Guru

Of course you do not understand it, romani.

Some day, perhaps....

hope · Guru

My neighbors for the past three years have been lesbians. One has a teenage son from an earlier marriage to a man; they also have two children together when one of them was impregnated twiceby a family friend.

My husband and I got to know them well, we attended Christmas parties at their home; they have looked out for our house while we are trying to sell it since moving back to PA. They shoveled the driveway for us during the recent Kansas snowstorm. They are nice people.

Do I believe that everyone is entitled to bear children just because they can? No. The jury is still out on the effects on children. Do I believe that they have the right to get married? No. If one believes in God and natural law, then one believes a man and a woman were designed to procreate. Bogus recent animal kingdom studies nothwithstanding. Do I have a problem with them living together, doing what the heck they want to in the privacy of their own home? Hell, no. Ditto for legalities--hospital visits, wills, and the like.

The Catholic Church discriminates against gay people as much as they do single unmarried people. That is--having sex outside of marriage is forbidden.Did I sin by doing that before marriage? You betcha. Did I confess it? You betcha. I won't go into the rest of my sins in the days when I was young and foolish.

People are Catholic for the forgiveness, for the redemption. Of course, one must believe in the concept of sin to begin with. For many of us who do, the smug pro-gay marriage people who think they are allowed to judge, while at the same time condemning the Church for "judging" brings up a gag reflext. Hey, you know what? Judge who the heck you want, but then don't turn around and comdemn me for judging--okay? We all judge, we are all human. You are not better or worse than most.

As for Portman, wow. Inquisition anyone? Saw a CNN anchor interview him yesterday===way worse than any confession I ever went to! Who died and made Dana Bash God, judge and jury? Just wondering.

As for the brainaics over at CC, ,stop the ignorance already. One of them just stated the priest drank all the wine left after consecration!! Such a scandal! The consecrated wine is supposed to be drank by the priest. Stop the stupidity.

Oops...sorry for judging... wink

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

As do I, SLS. I agree that it's not a liberal vs conservative issue (or D vs R). I think it's a matter of equality vs not. Either gay couples are equal under the law or they're not.

I don't fault anyone who comes to accept gay marriage because of someone else coming out of the closet. I just think it's hypocritical. My own father didn't fully support marriage equality until my best friend came out, though my father was never against it either. He was ambivalent.

I will take marriage equality supporters however I can get them, it just kinda gets under my skin that people are against something that doesn't affect them UNTIL it affects them. It's just kind of like nails on a chalkboard, I guess.

But I guess I shouldn't... what's the expression... look a gift horse in the mouth? I'll just nod my head and take the support.

hope, I don't really understand what you quoted. My apologies.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I can speak and type in complete sentences, but i am typing on iphone and it is hell to correct posts! Sorry for typos.

My point is that until you see this issue in a new light - ie, a family friend or member of your own family - you might not get it. It isn't even a liberal vs conservative issue that is cut and dried. I know liberals against it and conservatives for gay marriage.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

The interesting thing about gay marriage, or even just the idea of knowing couples that were gay or lesbian....when I was in high school Iknew several people who were homosexual. Never knew a couple, though. What is the distinction? If you aren't friends with or know people who are different than you, it is hard to know what to think. Are they different? Nope. Same as everyone else.

I came if age when HIV was a pretty big deal. People died from it, thise in high risk groups, and those that had infected blood transfusions and People who had sex with those affected. Anyone remember who had the highest mortality rates from HIV? Gay males and IV drug users. Risky behavior contributed to this. i wOn't elaborate. You get where I am going with this.

This was essentially a generation ago, and many folks attributed homosexual behavior to be of the kind that led to the rise of HIV. Like many things, that behavior was probably the outlier group, not the majority. The more you get to know normal folks, it seems less different.

People like Portman, and Even Obama were not raised in neighborhoods where it was normal to see gay couples or even gay parents. Some may never know them. I know several couples andsome have kids. I don't think it is weird. Different, yes. I don't fault those that haven't gotten there, yet. They may never. It doesn't impact me the way it might, others.

Razorsharp · Guru

I would be more concerned if he did not change his position once he realized first hand that sexual orientation is determined at birth and is not a choice. I don't know of anyone who has not changed his or her views over 10, 20, etc. years. He should be cheered for reaching the right conclusion even though he was a little bit late.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I want to deny equal rights because you're gay.
Oh my son's gay?
Equality for all!

That story makes me both happy that he's seen the light and makes my blood boil that he's willing to deny equality to others until it hits home.

hope · Guru

Thank you, samurai.

My mother was a devout Catholic and I heard my father refer to it all once or twice as "Mumbo-Jumbo." He was baptized Lutheran but never attended church. But he came to mass with us at Christmas and Easter when we were young and drove my mother and my brother and I to church every week, confession every couple weeks, Stations on Fridays in Lent, Novenas, etc etc ! (She did not drive.)

it would be lovely if everyone could be so tolerant of religious differences.

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 16th of March 2013 09:54:44 PM

hope · Guru

This didn't come up much until recent times, as SteyN points out. It was easier to be Catholic when social norms conformed more to Christian views of sin. We are living in a secularist age( as that "conservative" Pope Benedict pointed out. :)).Those of us who believe there are deep, theological and spiritual reasons to be against abortion, same sex marriage, even birth control ( as whacky as it seems), sex outside of marriage, pornography, the exploitation of children, etc. etc., in these times are called upon, unfortunately (because it causes us a lot of grief but is, in fact, imperative for us) to extend our religious belief system into the political sphere. How can it be otherwise?

If people want to sin, have to it. It is between them and God. Or not their God, if not believers, as the case may be. Not my business. But if they want to attempt to destroy my Church to make themselves feel good about themselves - nope. Not having it. Leave us alone. You go your way and I'll go mine.

What used to be called in this country the separation of church and state.

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 16th of March 2013 06:23:46 PM

hope · Guru

Steyn nails it:

“I mean, this idea, the parochialism of it, the idea that somehow the American media’s preoccupations — gay marriage and abortion, should also be the preoccupations of the oldest continuously functioning entity in the world, the Catholic Church has basically been, unlike AOL-Time Warner or whatever it’s called this week, the Catholic Church has actually been operating under the same name for a couple of thousand years now,” he continued. “And the shallowness and the trivial nature of the coverage right down to the stupidity of CNN announcing that this was the first non-European Pope, apparently thinking that, you know, St. Peter was a nice Milan boy or whatever, has utterly shamed — and the fact that these guys have to go to Columbia Journalism School to talk this kind of ignorant codswallop to the world, is amazing to me.”

Steyn’s take on the root cause of this was that such positions on those issues are played up in a secular world by elite institutions. He then traced how homosexuality was viewed throughout time as evidence to back his claim it was “ridiculous” for an institution as old as the Catholic Church to take a position that has only been around for the last two generations.

“I athink it testifies to the fact that for many in the secular world, in the elite institutions of the secular world such as the media, the sort of liberal pieties, the orthodoxies, the dogma of the age, are a kind of substitute — are a kind of substitute religion, the one true faith which has its own sacraments,” Steyn said. “And you have to believe in those sacraments, like abortion and gay marriage and all the rest. And whatever one believes on the question of same-sex marriage, there’s nothing in two thousand years of Christendom to indicate that the Catholic Church is anything but opposed to it.”

“So if you take the Catholic Church seriously as an institution, an institution that goes back to St. Peter, whereas the idea of homosexuality as a 24/7 identity actually only reaches back about two generations,” he continued. “I mean, in the 19th century, homosexuality was an act. It was something you did. Then in the late 19th century, it kind of became a condition. It was regarded as a kind of illness. And then since the 1960s, early 70s, it’s been regarded now as in fact a positive identity. And one or another of those may be correct. But if you’re the Catholic Church, and you’ve been in this game for two thousand years, the idea that the orthodoxies of the last two generations trump the previous two millennia is looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/steyn-on-ridiculous-media-preoccupation-with-social-issues-in-papal-coverage-audio/#ixzz2NkCRd1 ZT

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 16th of March 2013 03:37:56 PM

longprime · Guru

Blood is thickeer than ideology. evileye