Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 759 (572303)
08-05-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
08-05-2010 2:05 AM


Can't you people see that by ending secular marriage you're following the same tactics as past bigots have taken? Rather than allowing gay people the same right to marry, you'd rather scourge the whole system?
I don't think maybe you understand the argument. The argument has more to do with the respecting the Establishment Clause (separating religion from state) than it does anything else. I don't think that the State should have ever come in to religious marriage at all, but I understand why they did. I agree that there needs to be protections for couples, gay or straight.
I just think there needs to be a distinction between a religious marriage and civil marriage. Don't let the terms "civil union" throw you for a loop. I just use the term civil union to distinguish it between a religious marriage and a civil one.
Sometimes, I wonder what your real motives are.
Because I think you're getting hung up on the term. It doesn't matter what you call it, I'm just trying use a phrase that sets apart religious marriage from civil marriage.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 2:05 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:00 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 759 (572319)
08-05-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
08-05-2010 9:00 AM


You do understand that every marriage is a civil contract don't you?
Yes, I do know that, but under my proposal it eliminates the need for certain religious beliefs to take a back seat to the state's wishes, and it protects people who otherwise couldn't get married to do so.
The way it stands now, pastors and priests are beholden to the state. I would strip them of any legal authority and just allow them to hold marriage ceremonies for whomever they want.
This way, government and religion is respected because they are kept separate. Huntard tells me this is how they do it in the Netherlands (and here I thought I was being original) and I think it is a great idea.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:00 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 759 (572326)
08-05-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taz
08-05-2010 9:14 AM


There is already a distinction between religious and civil marriage. Every marriage in the US right now is a civil marriage. Your marriage in the church doesn't mean a thing to the state. You have to obtain a marriage license from the state for the state to recognize that you're married.
Yes, but the pastors and priests who perform marriages are licensed under the State. Why give them any authority at all? After all, it's supposed to be about God's laws not the government's.
There's absolutely no reason why you should want scourge the current system of civil marriage just so gay people couldn't "get married".
No, no, under this system EVERYONE could get married (secular version). The only difference is that religion cannot dictate what the state does, and the state cannot dictate what religion does.
Let me try and explain it better.
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.
So how do we fix that? Well, you have civil marriage where the State marries you (gay or straight), but pastor's and priests have no authority through the state whatsoever. It's just a ceremony "under God."
This way everyone gets to marry.
From a strictly practical point of view, either allow gay people to get married or change a thousand laws or so dealing with marriage. Who's more practical?
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.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:14 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 759 (572329)
08-05-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
08-05-2010 9:37 AM


You're going to have to explain to me how religious beliefs are now taking a back seat to the state's wishes, because I'm not aware of such a thing happening.
Let's take California as an example. In order to legally marry people, priests, rabbi's, pastors, etc have to be licensed by the state. That effectively makes them an arm of the government.
I'm sure you're aware that there will be many pastors who disagree with homosexual marriage still, but now they are legally obligated to marry them.
My way protects religion and the state from one another.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:37 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 759 (572342)
08-05-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by subbie
08-05-2010 9:46 AM


quote:
but now they are legally obligated to marry them.
What makes you say that?
The California Constitution says that homosexuals can marry. Pastors licensed in California have to comply with the State.
So now they will be legally obligate to do something that violates their religion.
Reasons such as these are precisely why the Establishment Clause was given -- to avoid things like this.
Why would you even want to give pastors and priests any legal authority anyway?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 7:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 759 (572343)
08-05-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-05-2010 9:46 AM


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.
If what you say will apply to gay marriage as well, then that is one less problem to worry about. My only other problem is the state and religion still being intertwined when they should be separate entities.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 10:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 759 (572348)
08-05-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
08-05-2010 9:52 AM


I am reminded of Tyra Hunter, who was a victim of the same argument. The difference was Tyra paid with her life rather than just her dignity. Paramedics, because of their religion, refused to help her. When she finally arrived in the emergency room, doctors and nurses refused to help her because of their religion. They literally let her bleed to death.
That's completely different. You are conflating a church with everyday society. Medics don't have a choice, and they should be sodomized for all eterninty for allowing that to happen. They're NOT covered by the Good Samaritan law.
If you become a doctor, then it is your obligation to treat everyone.
Correct.
If you become a licensed marriage practitioner, then you have to marry everyone. If you don't like it, then get out of the business.
No, completely different. If you are a secular practioner, you have a legal obligation to marry everyone who requests it and pays for the services. 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.
Priests and pastors can already marry anybody they want with no authority of the state. It just won't mean a damn thing without obtaining a marriage license from the state.
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.
But you're suggesting more than just having strictly state sanctioned marriage. You're proposing we begin calling it "civil union", which is nothing short of scourging the whole system in people's eyes.
Like I said before, I don't care what you call it. I'm just distinguishing the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. A religious marriage has no authority, except the authority vested under their deity. But a secular marriage (which is pretty much a civil union) has a legal authority.
I have no objections, whatsoever, to anyone calling it marriage, civil unions, or pumpkin pie. I'm just using that to distinguish my meanings. That's all.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:52 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 49 by xongsmith, posted 08-05-2010 12:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 08-05-2010 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 08-05-2010 4:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 73 by Taz, posted 08-06-2010 12:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 759 (572391)
08-05-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
08-05-2010 2:14 PM


If a pastor or priest is performing a licensed marriage ceremony, he is a secular practitioner.
Did you need the state's permission to get married in the past?
I have no problem at all with rescinding his license if he refuses to marry certain people.
Why not just revoke their legal authority altogether and leave secular marriage to secular society, and let the religious have their cerimonies?
Wouldn't that be the most equitable way?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 08-05-2010 2:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 08-05-2010 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 759 (572397)
08-05-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
08-05-2010 10:55 AM


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.
It's not that part I was questioning. I was questioning whether or not a Californian pastor could legally deny a homosexual couple the right to marry in light of the new change.
I honestly don't know since it just passed, but I am fairly certain there will be many cases just like these in the not-so-distant future.
Gay couple: Would you please preside over our marriage?
Pastor: I can't, it is completely against my religion.
Gay couple: But we have a right to marry and you are licensed through the state. You are obligated to uphold your license or risk losing it.
Pastor: I am obligated to God above all and answer to Him. Why can't you just find a gay-friendly pastor to preside over the wedding?
Gay couple: Because we chose this Church. We're Christian too!
Pastor: No, you're not. God abhors homosexuality!
*more back and forth bickering ensues*
All of a sudden the ACLU is called and, quite frankly, both the couple and the pastor have a case.
Why not avoid this by denuding religious leaders the ability to preside over secular marriage and let them have their ceremonies under their god? I mean, isn't the Constitution absolutely explicit on this point?
Get the government out of religious marriage, and get religion out of secular marriage. The two are oil and water.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 10:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 2:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 59 by kjsimons, posted 08-05-2010 2:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 759 (572401)
08-05-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by xongsmith
08-05-2010 12:55 PM


I guess my problem is the church aspect of marriage. I didn't "use" a church, but I can see where some people might want to do so. I guess my problem is that if you want to get married under such'n'such a church, and that church says "you cant", you should be OUT OF THAT CHURCH SO FAST EVEN LIGHT WOULDNT KNOW.
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.
give up the church that wont allow you to be who you are.
Well, you and I seem to agree, but both would fight over the principle of it. The gay couple would fight over the right to be married just like all the other parishioners, and the clergy would fight over the right to preserve "God's unfailing Word."
Seems like it's going to surface, UNLESS there is a stipulation that if a certain Church would not feel comfortable with it, they should not be forced, and that NO secular form of government could ever deny them their right to marry, because they're Constitutionally protected.
If it's that way then I see no legitimate conflict, in which case, disregard everything I've said thus far.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by xongsmith, posted 08-05-2010 12:55 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2010 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 759 (572409)
08-05-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by subbie
08-05-2010 2:51 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 2:51 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 759 (572427)
08-05-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
08-05-2010 3:11 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2010 3:11 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 759 (572429)
08-05-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by onifre
08-05-2010 4:12 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 08-05-2010 4:12 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 08-06-2010 9:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 759 (573209)
08-10-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2010 7:05 PM


no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs
An excellent provision. Thanks for finding the verbiage

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 7:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 12:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 759 (573222)
08-10-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taz
08-10-2010 12:46 PM


Hyro, no offense but are you still listening to those liars who lie right through their teeth for jesus? This pastors'-rights-are-violated bullshit have been bullshit ever since the beginning. Yet, here you are still repeating this bullshit.
If you'll go back and read what I've been writing for the last three pages, you'll see that Subbie cleared that issue up for me. Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals, I no longer have no objections, and haven't for several pages.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 12:46 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 1:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 91 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 1:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024