|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 25, 2015 6:54:29 GMT
If the question came up should we have laws to protect our "right" to be offensive to "other religions", the answer should be an emphatic no. Doesnt matter where we live, even if it says one nation under God, in no way does that say "At the expense of all others"
When I was a child, getting married was "The union of Man and Woman before God". At that time, I was forced to attend a Christian church with my parents. I have found that before the church stepped in, marriage could be done by two people without anyone else involved, no ceremony, just they had to make a verbal promise to each other. The Church stepped in to make it more regulated.... The church made the rules. At that time, in thic country, the Church was the law, as it was before any formal police force. Now the question is, if a Gay couple decide they want a Church wedding, which they legally have the right to do now, has the Church any right to object?... In this I have a problem. I did NOT in any way fall out with the people of the church I once attended, and I have a few good friends who are very devout church goers... I decided I did not think I was that religious, and I can not call myself any faith above any other, because it causes too many arguments, and my decision to retire from religious practice was to avoid the unnecessary arguments.
But I still agree that those who have deep religious beliefs should stand by them.
And I know one of my Vicar friends has a deep problem with the fact he does not agree with Church Gay weddings. He has no problem at all with Gay relationships, he is not homophobic, he is fully welcoming of all faiths and other peoples beliefs, as long as they respect his own, but his religion does not agree with gay Union in any way, and he cant agree with a law forcing him to change anything....
So does he have the right to refuse to marry Gay couples?... Is he a public servant, should he be forced to do so?...
It is this one reason why he is now considering retiring from being a Vicar. Trouble is, he is a bloody good vicar, everyone loves him, he is perfect for what he does.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 25, 2015 10:23:11 GMT
If the question came up should we have laws to protect our "right" to be offensive to "other religions", the answer should be an emphatic no. Doesnt matter where we live, even if it says one nation under God, in no way does that say "At the expense of all others" When I was a child, getting married was "The union of Man and Woman before God". At that time, I was forced to attend a Christian church with my parents. I have found that before the church stepped in, marriage could be done by two people without anyone else involved, no ceremony, just they had to make a verbal promise to each other. The Church stepped in to make it more regulated.... The church made the rules. At that time, in thic country, the Church was the law, as it was before any formal police force. Now the question is, if a Gay couple decide they want a Church wedding, which they legally have the right to do now, has the Church any right to object?... In this I have a problem. I did NOT in any way fall out with the people of the church I once attended, and I have a few good friends who are very devout church goers... I decided I did not think I was that religious, and I can not call myself any faith above any other, because it causes too many arguments, and my decision to retire from religious practice was to avoid the unnecessary arguments. But I still agree that those who have deep religious beliefs should stand by them. And I know one of my Vicar friends has a deep problem with the fact he does not agree with Church Gay weddings. He has no problem at all with Gay relationships, he is not homophobic, he is fully welcoming of all faiths and other peoples beliefs, as long as they respect his own, but his religion does not agree with gay Union in any way, and he cant agree with a law forcing him to change anything.... So does he have the right to refuse to marry Gay couples?... Is he a public servant, should he be forced to do so?... It is this one reason why he is now considering retiring from being a Vicar. Trouble is, he is a bloody good vicar, everyone loves him, he is perfect for what he does. I think this is a very simple question with a very simple answer. If you live in a country that has freedom of religion as part of it's basic constitution, then forcing the cleric of any religion to perform rituals that are prohibited according to that religion is against the law. Plain and simple. Polititcians can write a piece of legislation saying they'll legally acknowledge any marriage between two people of the same sex, performed by any type of cleric from any type of religion, but they can't dictate whether or not those religions can/must perform those wedding ceremonies. I don't care if you have a state church, like both we here in Denmark and the British have, it's still interference with the freedom of religion, which is still illegal. I don't know how it works in the UK, but if I don't support the state church, I can opt out of paying church tax and the rights that come with it. Yes, the state church is paid for through taxes, but as I have the legal right to choose not to pay that particular tax, it's actually user funded. Therefore it's not a public service and therefore it's not subject to the same rules as, say, the fire department. They have a right to say no and in return, I have the right to say, "Fair enough. I won't contribute to your church then."
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 25, 2015 13:26:31 GMT
If the question came up should we have laws to protect our "right" to be offensive to "other religions", the answer should be an emphatic no. Doesnt matter where we live, even if it says one nation under God, in no way does that say "At the expense of all others" When I was a child, getting married was "The union of Man and Woman before God". At that time, I was forced to attend a Christian church with my parents. I have found that before the church stepped in, marriage could be done by two people without anyone else involved, no ceremony, just they had to make a verbal promise to each other. The Church stepped in to make it more regulated.... The church made the rules. At that time, in thic country, the Church was the law, as it was before any formal police force. Now the question is, if a Gay couple decide they want a Church wedding, which they legally have the right to do now, has the Church any right to object?... In this I have a problem. I did NOT in any way fall out with the people of the church I once attended, and I have a few good friends who are very devout church goers... I decided I did not think I was that religious, and I can not call myself any faith above any other, because it causes too many arguments, and my decision to retire from religious practice was to avoid the unnecessary arguments. But I still agree that those who have deep religious beliefs should stand by them. And I know one of my Vicar friends has a deep problem with the fact he does not agree with Church Gay weddings. He has no problem at all with Gay relationships, he is not homophobic, he is fully welcoming of all faiths and other peoples beliefs, as long as they respect his own, but his religion does not agree with gay Union in any way, and he cant agree with a law forcing him to change anything.... So does he have the right to refuse to marry Gay couples?... Is he a public servant, should he be forced to do so?... It is this one reason why he is now considering retiring from being a Vicar. Trouble is, he is a bloody good vicar, everyone loves him, he is perfect for what he does. I think this is a very simple question with a very simple answer. If you live in a country that has freedom of religion as part of it's basic constitution, then forcing the cleric of any religion to perform rituals that are prohibited according to that religion is against the law. Plain and simple. Polititcians can write a piece of legislation saying they'll legally acknowledge any marriage between two people of the same sex, performed by any type of cleric from any type of religion, but they can't dictate whether or not those religions can/must perform those wedding ceremonies. I don't care if you have a state church, like both we here in Denmark and the British have, it's still interference with the freedom of religion, which is still illegal. I don't know how it works in the UK, but if I don't support the state church, I can opt out of paying church tax and the rights that come with it. Yes, the state church is paid for through taxes, but as I have the legal right to choose not to pay that particular tax, it's actually user funded. Therefore it's not a public service and therefore it's not subject to the same rules as, say, the fire department. They have a right to say no and in return, I have the right to say, "Fair enough. I won't contribute to your church then." We do not pay a Church Tax in this country, the Church Of England receives no Government funds it relies on donations and its investment portfolio for funds. Having said that it holds somewhere around £8000 million in investments so it is by no means poor. The law in the UK States that the non state Churches for instance Methodism can opt into same sex marriage as they wish, but also states that Canon Law of the Churches of England and Wales has primacy, so unless Synod changes the stance on same sex marriage it is not possible to marry as such in the Church of Engkand.
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 25, 2015 13:37:27 GMT
In silver's case the issue is though that it very likely is the state religion.(church of england)
They hold actual political power, and are linked both to the government and the royals if i understand correctly.
I would agree that they didn't have to do this if they gave up the seats in the house of lords and any link to the queen.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 14:27:41 GMT
in the US, churches are not obligated to perform rites on demand. - which is to say if the church doctrine says you are not eligible for a rite, then they don't have to perform it.
I would say that I have no problem with gays - but I have to be honest and say that some of them are annoying. - not the homosexuality, but the affectations they adopt. of course, I am not prejudiced in that I am also annoyed by the affectations some heterosexual people adopt. but all in all, they are free to do what they want to so long as it is not an imposition on me. as far as what is and isn't an imposition; your results may vary. telling me what I have to think is usually counted as an imposition, though.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 25, 2015 14:48:19 GMT
in the US, churches are not obligated to perform rites on demand. - Not yet, anyway. But many believe that churches are "subsidized" by the government and as such must abide by laws that protect sexual orientation. They get this idea based on churches not being required to pay taxes. If they don't pay taxes, they believe the government is subsidizing them. It's the same flawed logic that says the government subsidizes big oil companies by allowing them to deduct operating expenses before paying taxes on what's left.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 25, 2015 15:24:37 GMT
I've long maintained that the easiest way to fix the marriage issue is to let the government get out of the marriage business.
I'd like to see the government declare all marriages "civil unions", a simple contractual matter. From that day forward, there would be no marriage licenses--just civil union licenses between consenting adults. Existing marriage licenses wouldn't change; they would just be legally equivalent to the civil union with all rights and privileges the same as always.
Since most religions see marriage as a religious rite, you are then freed to find the religion you want to marry you, or not.
Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing.
To me, this is the only sensible reaction to the current marriage hysteria on both sides. This ends the pressure to impose actions on the religious that they find offensive--if a Catholic priest won't perform your marriage, take it up with the Vatican and the court of public opinion, not the legal authorities.
From the Christian side at least, this would be definitely in line with the "Render under Caesar" idea: it elevates marriage above the temporal law, where they think it belongs.
From the Constitutional perspective, it elevates the 1st Amendment "freedom of religion" also; it gets the state's nose out of personal beliefs.
From an atheistic perspective, it gives "freedom from religion" by disconnecting religious connotations from law.
To me, it's pretty much a win-win-win all around.
Of course, this does brings up the question of why a civil union could be limited to just two people...but that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 15:38:23 GMT
I've long maintained that the easiest way to fix the marriage issue is to let the government get out of the marriage business. I'd like to see the government declare all marriages "civil unions", a simple contractual matter. From that day forward, there would be no marriage licenses--just civil union licenses between consenting adults. Existing marriage licenses wouldn't change; they would just be legally equivalent to the civil union with all rights and privileges the same as always. Since most religions see marriage as a religious rite, you are then freed to find the religion you want to marry you, or not. Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing. To me, this is the only sensible reaction to the current marriage hysteria on both sides. This ends the pressure to impose actions on the religious that they find offensive--if a Catholic priest won't perform your marriage, take it up with the Vatican and the court of public opinion, not the legal authorities. From the Christian side at least, this would be definitely in line with the "Render under Caesar" idea: it elevates marriage above the temporal law, where they think it belongs. From the Constitutional perspective, it elevates the 1st Amendment "freedom of religion" also; it gets the state's nose out of personal beliefs. From an atheistic perspective, it gives "freedom from religion" by disconnecting religious connotations from law. To me, it's pretty much a win-win-win all around. Of course, this does brings up the question of why a civil union could be limited to just two people...but that's another story. except for the detail that I prefer the term "domestic partnership" I fully agree with you, and have been suggesting it for a few years, now. - I even agree that you could have multiple members in your partnership if you so choose - say a developmentally disabled child, or an elderly parent. - or you could have a plural relationship if that is your thing. - my thought, which you didn't mention, is that the domestic partnership does not presume a sexual relationship. - want the governemnt out of your bedroom? done.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 25, 2015 15:38:28 GMT
Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing. It depends. In Connecticut, the marriage license is what makes you married, the ceremony is a formality. But, the marriage license is not official until it is signed by a certifier (priest, Justice of the Peace, etc.) Hence, some people just run to the nearest Justice of the Peace's office and have a quick round of 'I do' to get married. But, the problem with the quick marriage can be getting your future children their religious rites & sacraments. My wife & I were married by a family friend who was an ordained priest through the Universal Church of Light. When we went to get out oldest baptized, the priest at my wife's Catholic church informed us that our marriage was not recognized by the Church because it was not performed in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest - therefore, we could not get our child baptized until we fixed this (quick ceremony with two witnesses). First, the priest had to get over the fact that I am Episcopalian. Then, he wouldn't let my brother, also Episcopalian, be a Godfather...had to settle for him being a "Christian Witness"...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 15:41:16 GMT
Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing. It depends. In Connecticut, the marriage license is what makes you married, the ceremony is a formality. But, the marriage license is not official until it is signed by a certifier (priest, Justice of the Peace, etc.) Hence, some people just run to the nearest Justice of the Peace's office and have a quick round of 'I do' to get married. But, the problem with the quick marriage can be getting your future children their religious rites & sacraments. My wife & I were married by a family friend who was an ordained priest through the Universal Church of Light. When we went to get out oldest baptized, the priest at my wife's Catholic church informed us that our marriage was not recognized by the Church because it was not performed in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest - therefore, we could not get our child baptized until we fixed this (quick ceremony with two witnesses). First, the priest had to get over the fact that I am Episcopalian. Then, he wouldn't let my brother, also Episcopalian, be a Godfather...had to settle for him being a "Christian Witness"... The catholic church is very much about protecting the brand.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 25, 2015 15:43:20 GMT
Isn't the tradition in Italy that you have two ceremonies on your wedding day?
First, you go to city hall for the civil ceremony, then you go to church to have the religious ceremony.
A bit cumbersome, but it seems to work for them.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 25, 2015 15:45:29 GMT
Isn't the tradition in Italy that you have two ceremonies on your wedding day? First, you go to city hall for the civil ceremony, then you go to church to have the religious ceremony. A bit cumbersome, but it seems to work for them. Doesn't Vegas also have a two ceremony system? You get married in the morning and divorced after you sober up...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 15:50:12 GMT
Isn't the tradition in Italy that you have two ceremonies on your wedding day? First, you go to city hall for the civil ceremony, then you go to church to have the religious ceremony. A bit cumbersome, but it seems to work for them. Doesn't Vegas also have a two ceremony system? You get married in the morning and divorced after you sober up... and both through a drive-up window.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 25, 2015 16:22:27 GMT
I've long maintained that the easiest way to fix the marriage issue is to let the government get out of the marriage business. I'd like to see the government declare all marriages "civil unions", a simple contractual matter. From that day forward, there would be no marriage licenses--just civil union licenses between consenting adults. Existing marriage licenses wouldn't change; they would just be legally equivalent to the civil union with all rights and privileges the same as always. <snip> except for the detail that I prefer the term "domestic partnership" I fully agree with you, and have been suggesting it for a few years, now. - I even agree that you could have multiple members in your partnership if you so choose - say a developmentally disabled child, or an elderly parent. - or you could have a plural relationship if that is your thing. - my thought, which you didn't mention, is that the domestic partnership does not presume a sexual relationship. - want the governemnt out of your bedroom? done. Meh. I avoided the term "domestic partnership" because there are those that would argue "Well, then they must COHABITATE and live in a DOMESTIC position, and obviously a PARTNERSHIP is too easily broken and..." In short, I've hung out with too many legal nitpickers. YMMV Sex, cohabitation, children, inheritance all would be treated the same regardless of the genders of those involved. I've known happily married couples where one member isn't even in the same state as the other for long periods of time (military deployment, remote construction workers, travelling salespersons, entertainers, etc.). I worry about the developmentally disabled only to the extent of what is considered a "consenting adult". I suppose it depends on the level of disability. I don't quite understand the advantage to form a union with an elderly parent. As for polyamory/polygamy/open marriage/etc., I am withholding judgement for now. I've known a few polyamorous folks, and I can't say they're any worse than the conventional monogamous type. Which brings us to a fundamental question: Is there some critical interest in society promoting the "nuclear family" core (man+woman) in some way that is different from other unions? We're getting really off topic from "Weird News" but I find the discussion interesting. Anyone think we should move to a new thread?
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 25, 2015 16:31:59 GMT
please do, my personal opinion is that 2 (or more)consenting adults should be able to get a legally binding partnership, no matter what sex they are or even if they have sex at all...
The same goes for adoption, as long as you can pass the qualifiers, adoption, especially for "in-country" adoptions, should be okay.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 25, 2015 16:45:47 GMT
In silver's case the issue is though that it very likely is the state religion.(church of england) They hold actual political power, and are linked both to the government and the royals if i understand correctly. I would agree that they didn't have to do this if they gave up the seats in the house of lords and any link to the queen. As it is illegal to have a Same sex wedding ceremony in the Church Of England, I think Silverdragons friend must actually be from one of the nonconformist, non established Churches that have opted into such weddings through their own Church hierarchy. The Queen is head of the Church of England, and Bishops sit in the House of Lords, their Canon Law is part of British law. We do have civil weddings at Registry Offices and other licenced places.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 16:53:38 GMT
I'd say we can move or not. I selected the terminology because "domestic" is taken in contrast to "business" and a partnership is what it is. one could presume "civil" means they don't argue, and "union" means they pay dues.
as for the elderly parent, one advantage of being married is that if you have disparate incomes, you can average them for tax purposes - bringing the high income member out of a higher tax bracket. it also clarifies such issues as medical visitation, insurance, and inheritance.
as for the ease of dissolution of a partnership - look how easy it is to dissolve a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Mar 25, 2015 18:17:25 GMT
Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing. It depends. In Connecticut, the marriage license is what makes you married, the ceremony is a formality. But, the marriage license is not official until it is signed by a certifier (priest, Justice of the Peace, etc.) Hence, some people just run to the nearest Justice of the Peace's office and have a quick round of 'I do' to get married. But, the problem with the quick marriage can be getting your future children their religious rites & sacraments. My wife & I were married by a family friend who was an ordained priest through the Universal Church of Light. When we went to get out oldest baptized, the priest at my wife's Catholic church informed us that our marriage was not recognized by the Church because it was not performed in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest - therefore, we could not get our child baptized until we fixed this (quick ceremony with two witnesses). First, the priest had to get over the fact that I am Episcopalian. Then, he wouldn't let my brother, also Episcopalian, be a Godfather...had to settle for him being a "Christian Witness"... I know in Nebraska it's the state-issued marriage license that makes it a "real" marriage. I believe that's also the case in California -- a few years back, there was a story all over the news about the (hetero) couple coming up on their 50th wedding anniversary that discovered their priest forgot to file the signed copy of their license, meaning they were not legally married. They're darn lucky they discovered this while sorting out pre-retirement paperwork, if they hadn't found out until one of them died so much for survivor's benefits. And I've got an even more confusing story about Catholic weddings. A friend of mine is Greek Orthodox, her former husband is Presbyterian. When ex-hubby dumped her for having health issues, my friend had to get an Orthodox annulment as well (part of the divorce agreement was "and he won't fight the annulment"). Later, she found a much better guy, and they agreed to marry. New hubby is Catholic, on his first marriage. The Catholic church will accept the validity of an Orthodox wedding, but won't accept the validity of an Orthodox annulment, so they had to pay for a Catholic annulment despite no one involved in the original marriage being Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 25, 2015 18:27:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 25, 2015 20:26:51 GMT
I just find it weird that a church that has several of it's people in positions of national power can still pick what it wants to follow of the basic law...
Then again, I find the whole idea of a house of lords with unelected people wacky as all
|
|