Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 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: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 698 of 759 (768575)
09-12-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by Percy
09-12-2015 9:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
But I believe it would have been better if a new category of union had been created by Congress that had all the rights of marriage but was only civil in nature and not called marriage. This union could later be blessed as marriage by any religion willing to do so.
I completely agree. However, I don't think same sex advocates would have been satisfied. It does seem as they were determined to have marriage redefined and this does seem as if it was meant to be a direct confrontation with the Christian position rather than an attempt to find a working solution that satisfied both groups.
My concern is that now that marriage has been redefined that churches and clergy will be unable to refuse to perform or allow same sex marriages in their buildings. It has been stated that churches will still have the right to refuse to perform same sex marriages, but on what grounds? They would not be able to refuse to perform inter-racial marriages or marriages to other protected classes of persons and now same sex couples are considered a protected class.
I am just not sure how much of a difference allowing same sex civil unions rather than marriages would really make in some people's minds. It is really just giving a different name to the same thing.
Kim Davis could in good conscience sign these licenses for civil unions that are not marriage.
The way I understand it, the county clerk's job it to certify that the applicants have met all the requirements of the state for marriage. It is not an endorsement of the marriage as such, but a recognition that the applicants have a legal right to enter into a marriage contract, which under the law, same sex couples do have a legal right. To me this is essentially a civil union. It is a contract between a couple and the state; it is not a religious agreement at all.
The difficultly is that churches recognize those state contracts as valid marriages. In other words, if I were to get married at the court house and never have a church sponsored wedding, the church would still recognize the marriage as valid. There really is no distinction between the secular contract and the religious contract. So if there were to be a new category of "civil union" and when you submitted an application you had to choose either "civil union" or "marriage" and a heterosexual couple chose "civil union" would the church not recognize them as married? Or would marriage then be a two step process... civil union at the courthouse and a marriage if a church sanctions it?
Bottom line... would it be "OK" to bake a cake for a same sex civil union celebration? Probably not. So I am not sure this would solve the problem. Personally I oppose same sex marriage and I do believe it is a violation of what God intended for marriage. BUT I recognize that it is a serious social issue that we need to address and accept that there are a significant group of people who do not agree with my position. So I suggest that maybe it is the church that needs to make some changes... not necessarily approving of same sex marriage, but determining how to accommodate and respond to new and changing social norms. So far, the church's response isn't working so well.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Percy, posted 09-12-2015 9:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2015 12:19 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 701 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 12:37 PM herebedragons 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