|
New Danish law lets homosexuals wed in church (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
...!?
Wait, that's precisely how it works in Brazil (religious weddings have no legal right) and I've always assume it's the same everywhere else in the world (with Denmark being a case in which the appropriate legal official is a priest subordinate to the government). Does the American legal system recognise religious ceremonies? |
The exact procedure varies so widely between U.S. states that it's difficult to generalize, but generally you have to obtain a marriage license, then perform a marriage "ceremony" (which may or may not be religious--and may be nothing but a quick visit to a judge's chambers) at which the parties, an officiant, and one or more witnesses sign a form to be submitted to the appropriate state office.
Who has the authority to act as an officiant is specified in the statutes of each state, but it generally includes religious officials provided they have jumped through whatever hoops are set forth in the statute. Since officiants are essentially acting as administrative or quasi-administrative officials on behalf of the state, I think that role should generally be restricted to those holding some official office--be it a judge, magistrate, justice of the peace, or someone appointed to or employed by a relevant state administrative agency--and not extended to members of the general public on the basis of their status within a religious organization. Furthermore, I think permitting religious officiants becomes even more problematic when they exercise their statutory authority in a manner inconsistent with the state's obligations toward equal protection under the law.
But, since I don't approve of civil marriage in any event, I can't say that I feel too passionately about any of it. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seandroid
Gay people should be allowed to marry. Gay people should be allowed to marry in churches. The pastors should not be forced into marrying gay people if they don't want to, they should simply be allowed to.
You have a right to be a religious piece of if you want to be. |
You aren't allowed to get remarried if you are divorced. NOt in a catholic church. They are their rules. It is their property. It isn't public If you want to have a catholic marriage, you have to prepare for it. YOu agree to the terms of the ing club. nobody is forcing you to get a catholic marriage. This is beyond silly. What ing claim can a person make that they can just commandeer a church and basically commit an act that the church deems sinful. YA it is ing silly but those are their beliefs, and it is their churches and they should have every right to say ya, no thanks.
So if churches are fair game, why not mosques. This is the very thing gays have been bitching about. The church meddling in affairs that do not pertain to them. To do the same ing think is sort of ass backwards. I wouild like my abortion in the church right over the holy water. |
|
|
| Blake |
| Reminds me of a story I heard out of NYC, in which a woman tried to marry a building in order to protect it from being demolished. This was no big deal, but as soon as she declared the building as being female, making it clear that she intended to get gay-married to it, there was a huge uproar about it. WTF society, wtf!? :rolleyes: :wtf: :stongue: |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by tanta
Marriage is a Christian tradition between man and woman and not between same sex.
Marriage is sacred and should not be legislated. |
 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
...!?
Wait, that's precisely how it works in Brazil (religious weddings have no legal right) and I've always assume it's the same everywhere else in the world (with Denmark being a case in which the appropriate legal official is a priest subordinate to the government). Does the American legal system recognise religious ceremonies? |
The same is true in Canada. The religious ceremony has no legal standing. Generally, at the end of the ceremony the couple will sign the legal documents that then need to be filed with the provincial government... the legal marriage begins when the forms are signed, not slightly before when the presider declares the couple wed. It is entirely possible to have no ceremony at all, just sign the papers. I suspect the same is true in the US. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
my thoughts on this whole thing are pretty simple... a church wedding generally consists of two things; the entering into a marriaged as defined by the state and the sacrament of marriage being bestowed upon a couple. The legal relationship between two parties termed a marriage is the exclusive dominion of the state. The religious sacrament of marriage is the exclusive dominion of the church performing the sacrament. If the state wishes to include homosexual marriage within it's definition than good on them... I agree they should. If the church chooses to bestow the sacrament of marriage on homosexuals then good on them as well, if they choose not to bestow that sacrament then that is their perfect right and no body (other than the body of the church) has right to oppose them.
I would urge anyone denied a sacrament by their church to consider whether or not they wish to remain a member of that church. |
|
|
| Blake |
| quote: | Originally posted by Euforix
The debates about people marrying in church have been around for many many years and I'm always wondering why do people want to get married in church in the first place? |
fixed.
when are we going to completely do away with the religious aspect of this archaic tradition, anyway? the institution itself is practically a fairy tale. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, you're in the wrong here |
I can't quite see why i am in the wrong here.
The examples you show don't say marriage necessarily is between a man and a woman, they just give examples of marriages that are.
Of course, I am well aware of when the Old Testament is against homosexuality in general, it also means it's against same sex marriage.
But that wasn't the point. The point is, the Bible never explicitly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman - Therefore the argument for marriage doesn't work. You have to argue from the Bible's dislike of homosexual relationships and from that, infer that marriages are also excluded. If we accept homosexual relationships, then you can not use the Bible to support marriage being wrong and relationships being okay - because the bible doesn't directly say that. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Euforix
The debates about gay people marrying in church have been around for many many years and I'm always wondering why do gay people want to get married in church in the first place? |
There are many gay people that are Christians of one denomonation or another. There are Christian denomonations that allow and preform the sacrament of marriage for homosexuals. |
|
|
| Seandroid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
You aren't allowed to get remarried if you are divorced. NOt in a catholic church. They are their rules. It is their property. It isn't public If you want to have a catholic marriage, you have to prepare for it. YOu agree to the terms of the ing club. nobody is forcing you to get a catholic marriage. This is beyond silly. What ing claim can a person make that they can just commandeer a church and basically commit an act that the church deems sinful. YA it is ing silly but those are their beliefs, and it is their churches and they should have every right to say ya, no thanks.
So if churches are fair game, why not mosques. This is the very thing gays have been bitching about. The church meddling in affairs that do not pertain to them. To do the same ing think is sort of ass backwards. I wouild like my abortion in the church right over the holy water. |
You realized what I posted agreed with your sentiments, right? |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, you're in the wrong here (the rest seems okay though). The Bible always describes marriage as being between a man and a woman, as the sheer thought of having other possibilities was unthinkable at the time:
|
.. to the jews. You wouldn't need many days of wind to reach Greece where they'd rather just little boys. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
The examples you show don't say marriage necessarily is between a man and a woman, they just give examples of marriages that are. |
Exactly, because that's how many things are defined in the Bible. By praxis.
It isn't a legal document that contains definitions and detailed philosophical justifications. It was a document originally made for God's people (the Hebrews), so most definitions were taken for granted, and no one thought it would be necessary to change that when Christianity expanded.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Of course, I am well aware of when the Old Testament is against homosexuality in general, it also means it's against same sex marriage. |
Precisely, it never had to go as far as making this explicit because there were already quite many restrictions before this was considered.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
But that wasn't the point. The point is, the Bible never explicitly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman - Therefore the argument for marriage doesn't work. |
Actually, that is the point. Find me one quote in the Bible that mentions a single instance of marriage without a bride and a groom.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
You have to argue from the Bible's dislike of homosexual relationships and from that, infer that marriages are also excluded. |
This, and what I've already told you.
The Bible doesn't mention, for example that marriage does not include all of the groom's brother. Yet that's how traditional marriages have always been carried out in Nepal. Saying the Bible doesn't say anything about gay marriage is just like a conservative Nepalese saying the Bible does not forbid polyandry. It's so obviously out of touch with their tradition that they even bother to consider it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
If we accept homosexual relationships, then you can not use the Bible to support marriage being wrong and relationships being okay - because the bible doesn't directly say that. |
That's like saying you can't use the Bible for the existence of a common belief in God because it doesn't explicitly define what God is without a string of complicated metaphors, doesn't explain how God came into being (he's just, like, there!), how he came to be what he is (why is he omnieverything?), and the like. |
|
|
|
|
