|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Actually, it's the Free Exercise Clause that's implicated here. And the Free Exercise Clause is exactly why no member of the clergy will every have to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against their religion. That's all I needed to know. Thanks! The protection of the religion and state from one another was my concern. Now that I have a specific Constitutional clause to rely on, those concerns are now diminished, thanks to you. Now all that is left is, what, 45 states to go? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, in most instances people wouldn't put up with it. And by not putting up with it, I mean filing litigation against the church. I'm almost certain this will happen at some point. There are two possible solutions to this 'problem'. 1) Only people acting in the capacity of a state bureaucrat are obliged to issue certificates for those legally permitted to marry. 2) If a pastors is obligated to perform marriages even if they disagree morally with the marriage - and they don't like it they should drop their status as being able to legally marry people and only retain their ability to marry people 'in the eyes of the Lord' and refer the couples that he does marry to the registry office to make it a legal marriage. A pastor shouldn't have any moral qualms about 'legally marrying but not religiously marrying' someone. He (or she) doesn't have to give it God's blessing, after all...it would just be him carrying out the duties and responsbilities he has implicitly agreed to by signing up to perform state-sanction weddings: like paying taxes or jury duty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But you can't walk in to a church and demand that they put their beliefs on hold, regardless of how reprehensible you may find it to be. Sure you can. If their beliefs in some way conflict with secular law then they are forced to change, and they have. Why should they be allowed to reject someone based on sexual orientation then point to an invisible man in the sky and a 2000 year old book to support their case? What kind of lunacy is that to allow? If they can point to a law that we can all accept, then fine. But pointing to 2000 year old stories as their evidence in support of their outright ignorance, fuck that.
I'm just distinguishing the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. On is make-believe, like the one's my daughters perform on their dolls. The other is the only legal one. That is the only difference I can see. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Marriage in the US is a purely secular contract. Churches can hold ceremonies celebrating or sanctifying that marriage. And my understanding of the problem is that the "separate but not really equal" options offered to gay couples do not provide the same guarantees as that secular marriage contract; eg, medical insurance, survivor benefits, next-of-kin rights. Whatever we end up calling it, gays need to have the exact same "married" rights as straights. Whether they can have a church sanctify their union should be between them and the church(es) in question. If a church refuses them, as I'm sure many would, then would they really want to have anything to do with that church? But despite such refusals, there are also many churches and clergy who would be more than happy to marry them I'm vaguely aware of some mainstream churches, plus there are undoubtedly "activist" priests and ministers. But a sure bet would be a Unitarian-Universalist church, which has long been very supportive of gay rights. PSWhy don't we try to learn from real-world working examples? From what I understand, both Canada and Mexico have gay marriage. How do they handle it? Also, I know that for decades Mexico has had separate civil and religious marriage -- in the earliest 1950's my in-laws married in Mexico City and they were legally married by the state a few days before the church ceremony; my father-in-law tried to talk her into a wedding night between the two ceremonies since they were already legally married, but she insisted on the church ceremony first. Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
...there are also many churches and clergy who would be more than happy to marry them I'm vaguely aware of some mainstream churches... I recall seeing a headline yesterday about an Episcopal bishop celebrating the ruling, so you are absolutely correct about some "mainstream" churches welcoming gay marriages with open arms. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There are two possible solutions to this 'problem'. Thanks to Subbie, it appears that it won't be a problem, or if it is, all a lawyer has to do is invoke a specific clause.
A pastor shouldn't have any moral qualms about 'legally marrying but not religiously marrying' someone. He (or she) doesn't have to give it God's blessing I agree. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Why should they be allowed to reject someone based on sexual orientation then point to an invisible man in the sky and a 2000 year old book to support their case? What kind of lunacy is that to allow? It's not lunacy, it's freedom. I wonder if you'd be so glib if it all of a sudden was state-mandated that all comedians have to, by law, recite the Lord's prayer and 18 Hail Mary's before a performance. You'd have every right to piss, moan, and wail. You should be able to do whatever it is you want, believe whatever it is you want, so long as it doesn't harm someone in the process. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool of the LA Episcopal Diocese is openly gay and her long term partner Becki Sander would love to get married in the Church. That is still not possible but hopefully it will come soon. They've been together now for 22 years.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
subbie writes:
It really depends on what you mean by mainstream. The episocopal church is split right now, and from what I understand there could be a bloody civil war coming soon. So far, the anti gay marriage crowd within the church has only been threatening to pull fundings of aid works outside the country. I recall seeing a headline yesterday about an Episcopal bishop celebrating the ruling, so you are absolutely correct about some "mainstream" churches welcoming gay marriages with open arms. In other news, the gheys are getting scarier by the minute
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sure you can. If their beliefs in some way conflict with secular law then they are forced to change, and they have. Why should they be allowed to reject someone based on sexual orientation then point to an invisible man in the sky and a 2000 year old book to support their case? What kind of lunacy is that to allow? Well I don't see that this is particularly a problem, since why on earth would any gay couple want to be married by a homophobe? Especially since even if he's compelled to marry them, he is still free to add: "You may now kiss the .. other groom ... oh, and by the way, in God's eyes you're not really married and you'll burn in Hell". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It's not lunacy, it's freedom. That should be a bumber sticker for the Iraq and Afghan war. lol
You should be able to do whatever it is you want, believe whatever it is you want, so long as it doesn't harm someone in the process. Dude you/anyone could be a nazi, racist, bigot who thinks women and minorities shouldn't vote or be seen in public, BUT, if you are also a restaurant owner, you can't discriminate on the basis of your beliefs. Especially not when your reason for doing so is because an invisible man in the sky inspired some select people 2000 years ago to write a book... that's a bogus copout. You can believe whatever you want, yes I agree, but if you're going to be given the right to marry people, keep your opinions out of it. And that goes for any other job, restaurant/bar owner, theater owner, comedy club, etc. OR, simply get out of that business because apparently they can't keep their individual beliefs out of it. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Especially since even if he's compelled to marry them, he is still free to add: "You may now kiss the .. other groom ... oh, and by the way, in God's eyes you're not really married and you'll burn in Hell". In the same sense that many, many racist had to marry interracial couples and watch them kiss in their face. They were free to add whatever they wanted, too, but they were also free to get drilled in the mouth. People tend to remember that often before they speak in public. A straight jab to the grill always seems to remind people that their opinions, especially when not a favorable one, should be kept to themselves. It'll take a few fists to the mouth to correct the whole situation, but it'll get corrected. And if anyone thinks gay men can't fight, they should come down to south beach and see the roided out animals that also happen to be gay. It'll make anyone think twice about insulting them. It's one thing to get your ass kicked, but it's another thing to get your ass kicked by someone who would also fuck it... Lol - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyro writes:
I know this issue has been cleared up, but I just want to know out of curiosity. Are you married? The reason I asked is because you don't seem to know about this stuff from personal experience and really sounded like those deceiving ads from the far right... I'm-a-doctor-and-I-must-choose-between-my-job-and-my-faith kinda ads. I can assure you that pastor's and priest's can legally marry people. They obtain their licenses through the state. BUT, if what Jar says is true (that any religion can deny whomever they want for religious purposes) then I see no viable objection. If it protects both homosexuals and religion then my concerns are not valid. Added by edit. I know they can legally marry anybody they want, but only through the state. I said they could marry anybody they want but won't mean a damn thing without that licence they get from the state. That's exactly what they're already doing. I just attended a gay wedding at a gay friendly church a few months ago. 2 gentlemen (friends of a friend) had been together for 15 years and they'd been waiting all that time. Now that it really looks like Illinois just won't budge, they decided to get a ceremonial wedding. They were married by a pastor in a church in front of a hell of a lot. Their marriage still doesn't mean a damn thing because it's not licensed through the state. And would someone please explain to me what the hell being a doctor has to do with gay marriage? How does that California doctor has to choose between her faith and her job? Like she has to choose to treat them or not? What does that line mean? Edit again. In fact, let's look at every line of that storm commercial.
quote:Ok. quote:That's what a storm means, dumbass. quote:Yup, them gheys are coming to get you. quote:How so? quote:Again, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. quote:How so? quote:What does gay marriage have to do with the doctor profession? I mean, do you guys want the right to choose to who you treat and who you let to bleed to death? Is that it or am I missing something here? quote:How is the government punishing your group? Be specific. quote:And as far as I know, Massachusetts hasn't been struck with fire and brimstone from the sky yet. quote:Again, how the hell does same sex marriage change the way you live? quote:Choice about what? This ad has been out for a long time now, and I still don't understand what the hell those people were talking about. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And would someone please explain to me what the hell being a doctor has to do with gay marriage? How does that California doctor has to choose between her faith and her job? Like she has to choose to treat them or not? What does that line mean? Spouses have visitation rights, and count as next-of-kin for the purposes of making medical decisions for next-of-kin. Unmarried partners don't. So if gay people are allowed to marry, tragedies like this would be averted:
When Pond collapsed during a family vacation three years ago, her partner for 17 years, Janice Langbehn, was forbidden to see her loved one. Langbehn begged and pleaded for hours to be given access to the room, but was denied. Langbehn said she was allowed in to see her partner for only five minutes as a priest gave Pond the last rites. Pond died from a brain aneurysm while Langbehn was forced to stay in the waiting room. It wasn't until Pond's sister arrived at the Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital that Langbehn got any information. "To hold Lisa's hand wasn't a gay right, it was a human right," Langbehn told CNN on Thursday. That would make Baby Jesus cry. Now, some people unduly biased by facts and logic might say that Obama's directive of April 15th 2010 makes the whole point moot, since it will make hospitals extend the same courtesies to unmarried partners. But not so the Family Research Council: as senior FRC fellow Peter S. Sprigg explained, Obama's memorandum "undermines the definition of marriage", adding, "Yeah, the whole separate but equal thing was just a big con --- let's admit it, we just hate faggots". I made that last bit up, obviously. Imagine one of them being honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I feel like punching those doctors...very hard...in the nuts....
Goddammit, fucking inhumane sons of bitches, can't let someone who loves your patient see them? Why? Cause your a fucking bigot? Grow a fucking pair. Ok...*breathes deeply in and out*...rant over, we now return you to your regular programming.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024