Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 759 (572221)
08-04-2010 5:31 PM


Good first step but still a long way to go.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 759 (572305)
08-05-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 8:54 AM


You do understand that every marriage is a civil contract don't you?
Before you can get married in the US you must first get a license from the state. If the ceremony is to be held in a Church, the officiant marries the parties under power vested by the State and God.
There is no such thing as a non-civil marriage in the US.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 8:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:07 AM jar has replied
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:30 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 759 (572310)
08-05-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Huntard
08-05-2010 9:07 AM


Yes, in the US recognized Clergy can perform the actual ceremony and can bless a marriage but all marriages in the US are still licensed civil contracts.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:07 AM Huntard has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 759 (572317)
08-05-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Huntard
08-05-2010 9:11 AM


Let me try to explain where the real problem related to terms lies in the US.
We have over 1000 KNOWN Federal Laws and Statutes that regulate things based on the terms "married", "husband", "wife" and "spouse" alone. There are an unknown number of State, County, City and Regional laws and statutes that also use those specific terms. Then there are all of the insurance contracts, employee rules and regulations, even club and society contracts that use those terms.
If we were to institute new terms such as Civil Union or Domestic Partner then each of those pre-existing references would have to be searched out and the document modified to really make the new terms equal.
There are several possible ways to address the issue, the simplest would be to pass one law that says the term Civil Union and Marriage are equal and may be freely substituted, and that sets correspondence between each of the terms in question.
If that were done then none of the existing laws, rules, regulations, contracts, agreements would need to be changed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:28 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 759 (572331)
08-05-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 9:41 AM


NJ writes:
I think it is wrong for religion to say that two homosexuals cannot marry because it offends their religion.
But I also think it is wrong for a religion to be forced to marry homosexuals if it goes against their religion.
But no one is saying that or has ever said that. For example, Roman Catholics are free to refuse to marry a couple where one or more of the parties are NOT Roman Catholic or has been divorced. A Baptist minister is not forced to marry a Jewish couple.
NJ writes:
My way, because marriage was never state-sanctioned in the past to begin with. This is a recent invention, and one that totally flies in the face of the Constitution.
The Netherlands does it just fine, and it is completely practical.
Not quite. In the Netherlands you must first have a civil ceremony.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:22 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 759 (572344)
08-05-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 10:22 AM


Why would it be any different than any of the other reasons Clergy can refuse to marry someone?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:22 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 759 (572353)
08-05-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 10:38 AM


NJ writes:
BUT, if what Jar says is true (that any religion can deny whomever they want for religious purposes) then I see no viable objection.
Please, do not just take my word for it. Test my position. Call a local Rabbi and ask if he will perform a marriage ceremony for a Roman Catholic couple, ask a Roman Catholic Priest if he will marry a divorced couple, test what I claim.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 2:44 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 759 (572395)
08-05-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 2:31 PM


NJ writes:
Did you need the state's permission to get married in the past?
Certainly for a long, long time. There are records of marriage licenses going back to at least the 1600s in the US.
NJ writes:
Why not just revoke their legal authority altogether and leave secular marriage to secular society, and let the religious have their cerimonies?
That is the situation today. Marriage in the US is a purely secular contract. Churches can hold ceremonies celebrating or sanctifying that marriage.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 08-05-2010 4:38 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 759 (572398)
08-05-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 2:44 PM


I would be thrilled if that did happen. It's time that some religious practices did get challenged and criticized, but honestly, that has never come up in any of the other exceptions so I see no reason anyone would bring that scenario up. After all, why would anyone want to get a marriage sanctioned by an ignorant bigot in the first place?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 759 (572430)
08-05-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by subbie
08-05-2010 4:43 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 4:43 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 759 (573229)
08-10-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
08-10-2010 1:23 PM


Aren't people protected?
Isn't it legal to not associate with a subset of folk?
Are religions being treated any differently then individuals?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 1:23 PM onifre has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 759 (573427)
08-11-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by hooah212002
08-11-2010 11:36 AM


hooah212002 writes:
There are plenty of religious politicians, judges, people in positions of sway, etc. who are fighting this as well through various legal means.
And there are plenty of religious politicians, judges, people in positions of sway, etc. who are supporting the decision as well through various legal means.
For example, the just recently elected Reverend Canon of the Los Angeles Diocese of the Episcopal Church, The Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, is an openly gay woman who has been in a committed relationship with her partner for over thirty years. She has a very vested interest in seeing Prop 8 overturned.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 11:36 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 759 (574899)
08-18-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by archaeologist
08-18-2010 4:51 AM


In support of archaeologist
Okay, I read your monologue.
Let me see if I can accurately summarize your position.
You still believe homosexuality is wrong and that same sex marriages are somehow not real marriages but realize that what other folk do has no bearing on what you do. Is that a fair summary?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by archaeologist, posted 08-18-2010 4:51 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 503 of 759 (702757)
07-11-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 500 by Faith
07-11-2013 10:56 AM


Faith once again simply lies and misrepresents what has been said.
Faith writes:
Once again, the point about pedophilia was to demonstrate the weasel euphemism "sexual orientation," not equate it with other "sexual orientations."
But no one has said that all sexual orientation should be accepted.
Edited by jar, : fix quote box

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 10:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 11:07 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 508 of 759 (702765)
07-11-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Faith
07-11-2013 11:07 AM


Re: Faith once again simply lies and misrepresents what has been said.
That all sexual orientations are not equal has never been questioned.
Which is why the average American today is more moral than the god that had little Mary knocked up.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 11:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024