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?
That's not the reason I proposed this. I think church should not have the right to close these kind of contracts anyway. But whatever happens, I want humans to have equal rights, no matter their sexual orientation/race/religion/whatever else you care to think of.
I will say congratulations to california, seems another bigoted law got shot down.
That's how it is here pretty much as well, you can't get married in a church if you don't first get married by law. However, here, they are two seperate "ceremonies", first you marry by law, and then, if you want to, you can get married in a church. You don't have to marry in a church if you don't want to, the marriage is still valid (yes, I know, you don't have to in America either, but from your reply I did gather that a priest is legally capable of marrying a couple for the law, they aren't here, only "civil servants" are.).
Then there is absolutely no reason for you to propose it, because every marriage is already a secular, state recognized marriage. Your marriage in a church doesn't mean squat if you don't obtain a marriage license from the state.
Yes, I gathered that from Jar's post. Anyway, I think we had these discussions before, and you know I'm not against gays getting "married", I just don't care what they call a contract that is like marriage is now. There is of course no reason to change the name, but there you have it.
By the way, this saturday is "Gay pride parade" in Amsterdam, 80 boats going through the canals queering it up!
Yes, I was alerted to these problems before (by Rrhain, I think).
In my country, we just allowed gays to get "married", I think it's the simplest solution by far. But if it would help lessen the resistance, why not call it civil union, and make that equal to the now termed "marriage". Does a word really mean that much to people? (I guess that could be asked from either side)
And as I pointed out before many times, it's not just the term and the law that are in question. It's also the social acceptance that gay people seek.
And allowing them to "marry" will change this how? The bigots will all go: "Well, now that they can marry, I guess there's no reason to hate them anymore"?
The gay right issue isn't just about getting married. If this was all of it, then the whole movement is stupid. But the fake prom incident proved that this is more than just marriage.
I must have missed that, got a link? But I agree, it's about much more than marriage. So again, allowing them to "Marry" will change this how?
The school canceled prom altogether just so a lesbian couldn't go to prom with her girlfriend. Then the whole town full of adults planned out a fake prom for the lesbian couple and mentally challenged kids.
Gaining state recognized gay marriage is only one battle that we're trying to win. The real war is in the social acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, which is moving forward painfully slow.
I agree. I'm guessing your seeing gay marriage as a step in the right direction, then?
Just remember that sodomy laws were finally declared unconstitutional in 2001. Before that, gay men were still being jailed for doing private acts in their own bedrooms in some places. Hell, the country even elected a president (twice) that while he was governor of Texas supported and endorsed Texas' anti-sodomy law.
You're country's got a long way to yet. I feel for you, dude.
By destroying marriage and put in its place "civil union", we're practically taking a step backward as far as society is concern on this issue. Just like closing down all public schools and institute a privatized schooling system statewide. The excuse at the time was that they wanted people to be able to choose, which was of course bullshit.
Yes, I see your point. Again, I just don't care what they call it, that's all.
Because the pator went to the state and asked for a license to marry, which means, they should now adhere to the laws of the state. If they don't like the laws of the state, then they don't have to apply for the license. Simple as that.
Precisely. Nobody is stopping him from holding a religious marrying ceremony for the couple as well, if he is so inclined. If he doesn't want to marry people the state says can marry, it's pretty clear he should not be marrying at all. Say if I worked for a garbage disposal company, and one day I go up to my boss and say to him "Hey boss, you know what, I only want to take on pink dumpsters from now on, any other dumpster can stuff it as far as I'm concerned", what do you think my boss will do?
If you want to get a license to sell alcohol, but you think the drinking age should be 18, then you are in violation of the state law.
Pff, just sell it to them when they're sixteen, we do it over here (well beverages up to 15% that is, anything over that and you need to be 18)
Either follow the state law or don't apply for the license. Simple as that.
That seems to be the only area where the church has (and rightfully so) jurisdiction. Like when my kids marry their dolls, and I tell them, "Don't marry the black and the white one together," but they do it anyway. My kids, in that ceremony, have the authority.
But not state sanctioned marriages, where state law supercedes. Sorry, but their invisible friend doesn't have any say so in those cases.
Yes, I agree. I know I've said this before, but in my country the only people who get to legally marry other people are civil servants, priests only get to marry them religiously but are not allowed to do so unless the couple first gets married by law. In fact, that's a felony.
Call you queer and ask you to marry him? Lol
I know I'm sexy as hell, but that would be pushing it.
I know I shouldn't have assumed the boss was a male but it wouldn't have been as funny with a female boss.
Indeed, men are funnier than women.
When I was younger this would have been great. But now that I'm older, I'd hate to be in bars with annoying 18 year old douche bags, and it would certainly be worse if they were 16.
I think the drinking age should be 30 for men, 21 for women.
Hmm, if you put it that way... Bring it down to 28, and you've got yourself a deal!