Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on February 1, 2010 at 2:50pm

I really couldn't give a good rip about a religious marriage ceremony. Were I ever to get married again, gay or straight, it would be a civil ceremony, presided over by a JotP or someone with the appropriate qualifications.

Point being, marriage is a Civil Contract which can optionally have a religious component to it. There ARE those churches which invite and support the GLBT community and I applaud them for their open-mindedness, though there are other problems involved there. Put simply, civil marriage should not discriminate regarding the sexes of the participants ... PERIOD.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asa Watcher on July 4, 2010 at 12:36pm

Loren Miller observed:

***"Point being, marriage is a Civil Contract which can optionally have a religious component to it."

Loren;
I am of the notion that it is just the opposite:

Marriage is a religious sacrament which can optionally have a civil component, like unto a Civil Contract.

My question has always been something like: “Why do religious people turn to the state to give one of their sacraments legitimacy?
Why should the state be involved in “marriage” at all?

The state should have nothing to do with church sacraments. The word “marriage” should be removed from every state constitution, state law, state ordinance or rule.


The state should concern itself with enforceable, contractual agreements of the civil/legal kind. (This doesn’t mean that it couldn’t, or shouldn’t recognize the advantage society receives when “households” are established and maintained via the current incentives that are on the books that encourage “marriage”)

The right wing is constantly ragging about social engineering, and I feel that the state, intervening in religious family organizing (marriage), is just that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on July 4, 2010 at 3:22pm

Marriage is a contract. It's all about obligations and property. If you don't believe me, go check out a divorce court.

It's the religious part that's a superfluous option.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asa Watcher on July 4, 2010 at 4:29pm

Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments of the catholic church.
Marriage (in one form or another) has been institutionalized (rendered "holy") by religions all over the world.
It is not incumbent upon the state to sanction a religious ceremony or ritual or religious commitment.
The obligation of the state is to sustain a civil procedure to protect agreements among individuals (contracts). A church ritual is not contractual in nature, rather, it is obligatory to the religion.
The state oversteps its bounds when it legitimizes a religious procedure.
the church oversteps its bounds when it expects the state to license a religious sacrament.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olga Spelts (Human Bean) on July 10, 2010 at 1:02am

Actually marriage has been going on long before religion. In the beginnings religion wasnt even a part of it. It was religion that tried to intervene.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olga Spelts (Human Bean) on July 10, 2010 at 1:03am

lol!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on February 1, 2010 at 3:02pm

In the spirit of personal liberty and respect, this bill takes away any ambiguity about religious freedom when it comes to marriage for same-sex couples.

Which should have been addressed in the bill that supported the Constitutional right of marriage by same sex couples.

But it wasn't, therefore, the article is wrong. This bill properly protects those who disagree, but "could" have otherwise been subject to civil prosecution under anti-discrimination statutes of the State of California. Considering the kind of human refuse that receives authorization to practice law, it seems only logical.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on February 1, 2010 at 4:21pm

Umm... there was no bill supporting the constitutional right of marriage by same sex couples.

Same sex marriage became legal thanks to a California Supreme Court interpretation of the state constitution. The Court saw nothing in the constitution forbidding it, therefore it became legal... Until, that is, Proposition 8 changed the constitution.

The only way the "human refuse" that practises law would have been able to attack those who disagree with same-sex marriage, is if those who agree with it were equally vulnerable to such attacks. Since lawyers can be found to litigate for whomever is willing to pay them and such litigation against the freedom to speak against s-s marriage never occured, it seems only logical to conclude that such a vulnerability didn't exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on February 1, 2010 at 4:44pm

"As verbosity increases, veracity diminishes".

That's the problem of the "law". Given any part of legislation, with the intended vagaries of legalese, there is always a door open for "reinterpretation". Until someone locks that/those door(s) closed.

Only a fool trusts the words of authority to remain protected from individual agenda. As a matter of fact, only a fool trusts, period.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on February 1, 2010 at 9:15pm

Just to show you how far off base I can be ... oh look, E-Harmony is getting sued for not catering to gays and lesbians.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eharmony27-2010jan27,0,2498...

Read the story, you actually believe that the law doesn't have to be hard coded/chiseled into fucking stone to prevent individual agenda ... and this is a class action suit, in California, over absolutely fucking nothing. But it won't stop the gays and lesbians from getting they're much desired validation.

Anyone wonders what's wrong with this country with fucking sheep whose only agenda is validation at all costs, over irrefutably nothing at all ...

I can't fucking wait for social collapse and anarchy to hit, I'm going to have a field day.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olga Spelts (Human Bean) on July 10, 2010 at 1:05am

?? Are you a homophobe or something? Its not "catering" anymore than they do to heterosexuals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne on July 4, 2010 at 1:58am

Wow... well that's actually good; that way homosexuals trying to get married can have someone they trust marrying them, rather than someone trying to get it over with.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page