|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Huntard writes:
I didn't say it would change it. In fact, I specifically said that this was just one small battle to be won. One small step at a time.
And allowing them to "marry" will change this how? I must have missed that, got a link?
I already posted a link earlier. Just back step. An entire town created 2 proms, one for a gay couple and mentally disabled kids and the other (the secret one) was for everyone else. We know that the entire town was involved because it really took everyone's cooperation to keep the real prom where everyone went to a secret. Only 7 kids showed up to the official prom. Among them were the gay couple and mentally disabled kids. According to their interview, when these kids asked where the prom was, they were told in writing the time and location. The people who organized this made sure that everyone else went to the other one and that nobody told these kids about the real prom. After prom night, they taunted them at school. They even created a face book page named "quit yer cryin constance" where they posted the nastiest messages. The page is now down because of face book policies. You see, the thing about the event was that the school canceled the prom so that the parents could take over. Nothing could be done in court about it because the real prom wasn't really a prom or so they say. It was suppose to be just a private party with pictures labeled "prom 2010". Like I said, this is an act of pure evil by an entire town to segregate themselves from "the others". We're talking about adults here. This wasn't pulled off by the teens in school alone. This was pulled off by the entire community. I posted the links in message 18.
Again, I just don't care what they call it, that's all.
I do. All my gay friends do. Hell, in the last national gay meeting that we went to where everyone who supported gay rights from everywhere in the country cared. Like I said, one small step at a time. If we can't even win this step, what makes you think we can win anything else? Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hyro says:
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. 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. it's a fault of the grip around the particular field of belief you apparently have been roped into. please - give up the church that wont allow you to be who you are. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Species8472 Junior Member (Idle past 4903 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
Back in late march and early april when this happened, we had a long discussion about this at our local lgbt meeting. I still remember the outrage I felt.
Anyway, here is a link to some letters to editor from that local newspaper.
cliky clicky (try to say that really fast) Here is one from a very moral leader who knows all about good and bad and will no doubt make fun of us from heaven while the rest of us burn in hell.
quote: Here is one from someone who just doesn't understand why the rest of the country think they are bigots.
quote: Enjoy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
If a pastor or priest is performing a licensed marriage ceremony, he is a secular practitioner. I have no problem at all with rescinding his license if he refuses to marry certain people. 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. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Reasons such as these are precisely why the Establishment Clause was given -- to avoid things like this. 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.
Why would you even want to give pastors and priests any legal authority anyway? It's a purely ministerial (no pun intended) function. The real question is why you have a problem with it. People who want a religious ceremony get one, people who don't want one don't have to have one. A church that doesn't want to perform one doesn't have to. Where's the problem? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
How far in the past? There was a point in history when governments decided that marriage had a lot of civil legal implications and that civil registration of marriages had become necessary.
Did you need the state's permission to get married in the past? Hyroglyphx writes:
Why go to such an extreme? Why boot all the clergymen out on the street, as it were? Just make it clear that anybody who wants to perform marriages must comply with the secular requirements. Then individual clergymen can either perform marriages or not. If a Satan-worshipping, mixed-race, homosexual couple wants to get married in the Baptist Church in Selma Alabama, the congregation has a right to refuse but the pastor doesn't. 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? Edited by ringo, : Splling. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
...you are licensed through the state. This is not the case, no one is formally 'licensed' to perform weddings. Ordained ministers and other religious leaders are allowed to sign the marriage certificate and have it be valid. If asked, they have to show that they are indeed a minister, that's all. Here in Florida, Notary Publics may also solemnize the marriage by signing as can clerk of courts and Judges. Not one of these is licensed by the state but some are state employees. Only state employees could not refuse to marry someone due to them being gay. From a clerk of court website in Florida
Who may perform marriage ceremonies?
A regularly ordained minister or other ordained clergy; Elders in communion with some church; All judicial officers (judges) of the State of Florida; Clerks of Circuit Court and their deputies of the State of Florida; and Notaries Public of the State of Florida. In addition, the law provides that marriages may be performed among "Quakers" or "Friends," in the manner and form used or practiced in their societies. Note: Boat Captains are not authorized to perform marriage ceremonies in the State of Florida unless they are otherwise qualified as provided above. Marriage ceremonies must take place within Florida’s boundaries (within 3 geographical miles of the coastline). Who is a "regularly ordained minister"?He/she is a minister who has been recognized in the manner required by the regulations of the respective denomination to perform marriage ceremonies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If it's that way then I see no legitimate conflict, in which case, disregard everything I've said thus far Welcome to the club. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024