Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A priest, minister or other religious leader performs a marriage ceremony and signs the contract making it legally recognized. Refusing to perform this ceremony would put the church in violation of someone's rights, unless exceptions are put into place protecting the church's rights. The other option would be to revoke the church's ability to perform legally binding marriages.
A religious marriage is not legally binding. A minister has no power to grant government rights.
A priest, minister or other religious leader performs a marriage ceremony and signs the contract making it legally recognized. Refusing to perform this ceremony would put the church in violation of someone's rights, unless exceptions are put into place protecting the church's rights. The other option would be to revoke the church's ability to perform legally binding marriages.
That's not true. Civil marriages and religious marriages are separate, unrelated things. A church can define marriage in anyway it sees fit and can also deny marriage ordination for any reason whatsoever. If I could find an affirming Church, I could go marry 5 men, 6 women, my 3 year old niece, a cat, and my favorite reading chair in a giant polygamous marriage (if not, I could start my own Church). On the flip side, your church could refuse to marry you for any reason it wants, even something as trivial as they don't like your eye color.
As to the clergy signing a state marriage certificate, that's a courtesy extended by the state to simply the process. To get civilly married, one needs to fill out paperwork (marriage license application) and submit it to the state to be reviewed. The states allow for this work to be in essence subcontracted. All states allow the clergy to perform this bureaucratic function, and it makes sense. Most people who get a religious marriage also get a civil marriage and they almost always do it at the same time. Allowing the clergy to perform this bureaucratic function streamlines the process, saves time, and also saves the state money. And it's not just the clergy. Most states allow judges to do the same, many states allow notary publics to do it, and some even allow any adult who passes on online exam to do it.
Any minister can refuse to marry a gay couple just like he can refuse to marry an atheist couple or a Muslim couple or even a black couple if he's a racist minister. That's his 1st Amendment right. The fact that the clergy (and judges and notary publics) are allowed to assist in the preparation of civil marriage paperwork does not mean that religious marriages hold any legal standing whatsoever.
This is why the government should get out of the business of performing marriages. Like it or not, this presents a HUGE moral/religious dilemma for many Christians. I am one of them. I, do not agree with homosexuality and/or gay marriage. However, I support it on a human rights level. This has been a HARD thing for me to reconcile. Mainly because as a Christian, if you associate with sinners, you are also guilty of that sin.
So, while I disagree with homosexuality/gay marriage, I realize that, with the way the "marriage system" is handled in the US, sticking to my personal beliefs will result in the denial of rights to others. I have reached a point when I've realized that this is just not okay. It still creates a huge spiritual dilemma for me...but that's my problem.
Would it create such a huge spiritual dilemma if you were open to the idea that the entire notion of where you get your immoral stance of homosexuality were wrong?
I believe I've explained to you the issues of the famous 5 "clobber" passages of the Bible and you dismissed them, but your entire dilemma stems on 5 mistranslated verses from thousands of years ago that Jesus never even mentioned.
5 out of over 37,000 verses and something Jesus Christ himself never addressed, has become the biggest issue in all of Christianity.
Separate but equal never is. You can't discuss equal rights while intentionally creating an unequal scenario.
And since marriage is a concept that predates religion, and has already been used to refer to same-sex couples thousands of years ago, and all over the world today, it's a patently stupid argument for you to claim you own the word.
And by the way, for people whining about a word, you are aware only English speakers have the word "marriage" right? Are you claiming that gays can't use the word, "huwelijk" in the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, because that word belongs to heterosexuals too?
Is huwelijk a sanctified word for heterosexuals?
Let me ask you this:
What about the scenario is unequal?
If overnight, civil unions are provided the exact same benefits and rights as marriage, would you be okay with it?
I'm not talking about a situation where certain laws might not mean the same, etc, I'm talking about a mirror image of each other.
This is why the government should get out of the business of performing marriages. Like it or not, this presents a HUGE moral/religious dilemma for many Christians. I am one of them. I, do not agree with homosexuality and/or gay marriage. However, I support it on a human rights level. This has been a HARD thing for me to reconcile. Mainly because as a Christian, if you associate with sinners, you are also guilty of that sin.
So, while I disagree with homosexuality/gay marriage, I realize that, with the way the "marriage system" is handled in the US, sticking to my personal beliefs will result in the denial of rights to others. I have reached a point when I've realized that this is just not okay. It still creates a huge spiritual dilemma for me...but that's my problem.
I truly do not understand this dilemma at all. Civil marriage has nothing at all do with religion. Civil marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one.
Would it create such a huge spiritual dilemma if you were open to the idea that the entire notion of where you get your immoral stance of homosexuality were wrong?
I believe I've explained to you the issues of the famous 5 "clobber" passages of the Bible and you dismissed them, but your entire dilemma stems on 5 mistranslated verses from thousands of years ago that Jesus never even mentioned.
5 out of over 37,000 verses and something Jesus Christ himself never addressed, has become the biggest issue in all of Christianity.
You don't see an issue with that?
If I believed my stance was wrong, it would mean that I believe the Bible is wrong. I do not. There is no negotiation on this issue. It does not matter how many links who provide to articles about someone's interpretation of a verse. I believe that the Bible is God's word and is truth.
If you have a translation from a Bible to show that the Scripture, as it has been written re: homosexuality, has been altered and perverted to have another meaning, please provide it. Otherwise, this is not a grey area for me.
I truly do not understand this dilemma at all. Civil marriage has nothing at all do with religion. Civil marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one.
It is still marriage (with many taking place within churches). I believe in marriage as it is defined in the Bible. So, clearly there is a dilemma for me. So, while I say I support gay marriage, am I now not even allowed to have a personal/spiritual dilemma about it?
If overnight, civil unions are provided the exact same benefits and rights as marriage, would you be okay with it?
I probably wouldn't care, because the term civil union will not stick. No couple will claim, "We're civilly unionized". They will say, "we're married". So it will end up being marriage anyway just by societal integration of linguistics.
My point, however, is marriage is not a religious term. Words are not owned by certain subsets of humanity. And marriage only applies to the English speaking world. Most countries do not call it marriage. As I pointed out, the Netherlands calls it "huwelijk", which also applies to gay couples.
That proves the arbitrary nature of clinging to a word. The concept of same-sex marriage has existed for thousands of years. This isn't a new concept (an equal partnership is, but not same-sex relationship).
Not in the legal world there isn't. They are nearly identical. So identical in fact, Marin Luther King Jrs widow supports the comparison.
Oh, Coretta supported it? OK, then we're all good. I guess I haven't gotten my "One black person agrees with this, so fall in line" memo yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
