If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Yeah, but I don't think that's their real concern (If it was, they'd have done this before). Anyway, I look forward to seeing how good they are about referring to civil married people as 'unionized'. Or gays married in a church as married.
I just realized, Tennessee will still have to recognize out of state marriages. So it has limited use.
Nope, they'll need to be converted to civil unions if people move here (married visitors to the state will be extended the courtesy of being considered to be in a civil union).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yeah, but I don't think that's their real concern (If it was, they'd have done this before). Anyway, I look forward to seeing how good they are about referring to civil married people as 'unionized'. Or gays married in a church as married.
Partners, partnership, joined... Not sure why you're obviously irritated. I know that some want to force others to conform to their way of thinking, it makes you ache because you feel you're so right, but I dropped that desire ages ago. Anyhow, I've been working this out (and on it directly) for nearly a decade and for true liberty this outcome is for the best, for everyone. There's no good reason for gov't to be involved in holy matrimony (re. marriage), ever.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There's no good reason for gov't to be involved in holy matrimony (re. marriage), ever.
So after all that it really is just a matter of semantics?
If the holy part of matrimony is so crucial, it surprises me that any religion recognises marriages from other religions so freely. I would have thought having your union blessed by a false god would be every bit as offensive (or at least as invalid) as a union with "non-traditional" participants.
This whole runaround to replace governmental matrimony with civil unions seems petty and rather pathetic given the timing. Not to mention a waste of taxpayer-funded resources.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
So after all that it really is just a matter of semantics?
If the holy part of matrimony is so crucial, it surprises me that any religion recognises marriages from other religions so freely. I would have thought having your union blessed by a false god would be every bit as offensive (or at least as invalid) as a union with "non-traditional" participants.
This whole runaround to replace governmental matrimony with civil unions seems petty and rather pathetic given the timing. Not to mention a waste of taxpayer-funded resources.
Religion in gov't isn't semantics, it shouldn't be there at all.
and no, many (most) religions do not recognize the marital unions of others. Not sure how why you would believe that, I guess you never attended Catechism.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Religion in gov't isn't semantics, it shouldn't be there at all.
Ordinarily I'd agree wholeheartedly, but it feels like marriage transcended religion a long time ago. It spans most of them, predates most of the ones still practised, and government has acknowledged rights afforded via marital status for centuries if you count Royal families.
Its semantics because the claim is nothing to do with trying to claim the concept belongs to religion, but merely the word marriage. Like I say, most versions of the word, ceremony and concept predate any religion in the modern US so its baffling they feel they can take ownership of it all. They are now happy to let the government version have a different name rather than admit defeat. It just complicates everything for everyone and it seems like such petty wastefulness.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and no, many (most) religions do not recognize the marital unions of others. Not sure how why you would believe that
Let me rephrase, I don't see Christians protesting that Muslim or Jewish couples are recognised by the government. Or any combination of vice versa. They are all only up in arms about the gays.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I guess you never attended Catechism.
I'm surprised you'd even wonder about that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Ordinarily I'd agree wholeheartedly, but it feels like marriage transcended religion a long time ago.
Maybe in the UK, in the US it's still largely a religious institution. If it wasn't you wouldn't have all the shit flying around.
Let me rephrase, I don't see Christians protesting that Muslim or Jewish couples are recognised by the government. Or any combination of vice versa. They are all only up in arms about the gays.
That doesn't mean they consider them to be married, it's just as contentious within the eyes of the religion (the Roman Catholics in particular), it just doesn't make the news.
I'm surprised you'd even wonder about that.
I know a lot of lapsed Catholics.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That doesn't mean they consider them to be married, it's just as contentious within the eyes of the religion (the Roman Catholics in particular), it just doesn't make the news.
Still begs the question why they can't just quietly "not consider the gays to be married" too.
Are you saying religious groups in the US regularly (or even occasionally) protest that your government recognises the marriages of other religions? Does anyone protest against these protestors for their anti-american views? (Freedom of religion)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I believe it's rather obvious. Because other religions aren't trying to change the core foundation of what marriage has traditionally always been (and what their doctrine teaches): one man and one woman. Christians (the vast majority) get just as riled over plural/communal unions, though they're generally accepted (if not openly embraced) in other belief systems.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
One could argue that the core is join two people together with certain rights and obligations for the purposes of raising a family. If the participants are more important than the sanctioning deity, this says a great a deal about certain believers.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
One could argue that the core is join two people together with certain rights and obligations for the purposes of raising a family. If the participants are more important than the sanctioning deity, this says a great a deal about certain believers.
One could, but that isn't the traditional view in the western world, obviously. And I never said it was more important, it's just less publicized, for obvious reasons.
(The deity isn't looked at as the sanctioning authority, within holy matrimony that would be the church. God joins them together and the church solemnizes it.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
To help cut through the confusion, let’s define the relevant terms:
A sacramental marriage is the only kind of marriage that can exist between two baptized people. Thus the Code of Canon Law states that “a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament” (can. 1055 §2).
A natural marriage is valid but not sacramental. For a natural marriage to exist, one or both parties must be unbaptized.
A valid marriage is genuine, authentic, or real. It can be sacramental or natural, depending on whether both parties are baptized.
An invalid marriage is not genuine, authentic, or real. As a result, it is neither sacramental nor natural, because it has no objective reality.
A civil marriage is contracted before the civil (state) authorities. It can be valid or invalid, depending on the circumstances.
Marriage is the only Sacrament that the priest or deacon is a witness. The man and woman confer the Sacrament upon each other. This is why they both must be baptized for it to be a valid, sacramental marriage.
Nope, they'll need to be converted to civil unions if people move here (married visitors to the state will be extended the courtesy of being considered to be in a civil union).
I wonder if that'll stand-up in court. I have a feeling it'll be challenged (Really going out on a limb here).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Partners, partnership, joined...
I look forward to seeing how that terminology is adopted by the general populace.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Not sure why you're obviously irritated.
You don't understand why I might be suspicious of changing how definitions are recognized the moment the institution is extended to homosexuals? This is hard to fathom? We've covered this numerous times.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There's no good reason for gov't to be involved in holy matrimony (re. marriage), ever.
I wonder if that'll stand-up in court. I have a feeling it'll be challenged (Really going out on a limb here).
It should, the rights are identical and it's not like it's an issue of segregation, everyone in TN will have civil unions (which is a far better solution anyway).
I look forward to seeing how that terminology is adopted by the general populace.
Me too. They'll just call it all marriage eventually anyway, even if there's officially a different term.
You don't understand why I might be suspicious of changing how definitions are recognized the moment the institution is extended to homosexuals? This is hard to fathom? We've covered this numerous times.
I think you just want to force others to conform and are mad that they're being stubborn (which only makes them resist even more). I'd simply take this obvious win (for both gay and general civil rights) and let it rest, people are changing their minds as society evolves without the need for more pressure.
Holy matrimony ≠ marriage.
Yeah it is, it's even written on my state-issued marriage license.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It should, the rights are identical and it's not like it's an issue of segregation, everyone in TN will have civil unions (which is a far better solution anyway).
I mean forceable changing out-of-state unions. I don't know if there are other examples of conversion between states.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yeah it is, it's even written on my state-issued marriage license.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. But please, pretend civil marriage doesn't exist.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said the state supreme court today issued an order that effectively keeps probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days.
That's the interpretation of Moore, who recused himself.
"As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for 'marriage' between only one man and one woman," the order issued in March stated. "Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty."
I mean forceable changing out-of-state unions. I don't know if there are other examples of conversion between states.
But everyone would be required to change, so not seeing how that would be a problem.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. But please, pretend civil marriage doesn't exist.
Then don't say marriage isn't a religious institution in the USA (actually it's some absurd religious/civil hybrid), because it has been for a very long time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
But everyone would be required to change, so not seeing how that would be a problem.
Well, everything is a problem nowadays. I'll be shocked (impressed) if it both makes it through and goes unchallenged.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Then don't say marriage isn't a religious institution in the USA (actually it's some absurd religious/civil hybrid), because it has been for a very long time.
It's not. Do you have some kind of constitutional or legal text to the contrary?
I think it bears noting that while Scalia, the Catholic, voted against same-sex marriage, Kennedy, the author of the decision is also a Catholic. Perfect illustration of conservative and liberal catholicism.
Edit: I didn't realize the entire court is made up of Catholics and Jews. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Sotamayor are all Catholics.
(
Last edited by The Final Dakar; Jun 29, 2015 at 04:16 PM.
)
One could, but that isn't the traditional view in the western world, obviously. And I never said it was more important, it's just less publicized, for obvious reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that you said it was more important.
I'm reasonably sure there is more in the bible about worshipping or tolerating false gods or idols than there is about gays. Seems to me they ought to have bigger problems marriages from other religions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I think it bears noting that while Scalia, the Catholic, voted against same-sex marriage, Kennedy, the author of the decision is also a Catholic. Perfect illustration of conservative and liberal catholicism.
Edit: I didn't realize the entire court is made up of Catholics and Jews. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Sotamayor are all Catholics.
One is either an orthodox or heterodox Catholic, and faithful or unfaithful to the Magisterium,. Conservative and Liberal are political terms. I know how some of you love the videos I post, but this one explains several things better than I can. Father Fitch explains that the Church is neither Liberal, nor Conservitive, that she is simply Catholic.
Attacking peaceful protestors is never good, that just leaves openings for people to do that to them when the roles are reversed.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
An East Tennessee hardware store has a strong message on its front door: "No gays allowed."
He'll still sell to gay customers as long as they "behave" and keep their opinions to themselves.
"Would you let a child molester come in your home, around your kids? Of course not. So why would I let a homosexual hang around me? It's against my nature, it's against my way of life, it's against my religion," he says.
Homosexuals, they're just like child molestors.
"Homosexuality is not a nationality, it's not a race of people, it's a group of people who practice a sinful lifestyle," he says.
"I'm ok with fornicators, divorcees, drunks, though," he added.
Gays get a pass for racism, all "protected classes" do.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
“I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist toward white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
Which of course is utter hoseshit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It would seem some people are cutting him some slack and others aren't. I understand his outburst, but I'm glad he apologised. I don't know if it is clear, but George was obviously reacting to Thomas' comments that the government cannot take the dignity of citizens based on it's actions. He cites slavery and interment camps as well as denying marriage equality as examples. Takei, affected by two of these three circumstances, spoke out against someone who's ancestors were effected by the third. Thomas' argument was without question inflammatory and, to some, incomprehensible. Takei lashed out, understandably but inappropriately. He apologised, which was correct.
That took 5 minutes, and going back to 1984? Kinda proves my point.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Just so it's clear, here is the part of Justice Thomas' dissent in question.
Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28.[8] The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
The majority’s musings are thus deeply misguided, but at least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of the persons the majority demeans. Its mischaracterization of the arguments presented by the States and their amici can have no effect on the dignity of those litigants. Its rejection of laws preserving the traditional definition of marriage can have no effect on the dignity of the people who voted for them. Its invalidation of those laws can have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage. And its disdain for the understandings of liberty and dignity upon which this Nation was founded can have no effect on the dignity of Americans who continue to believe in them.
Justice Thomas should have gone for the Trifecta and included Aboriginal Americans and reservations.
Since there has been a call to revoke the tax exempt status of religious institutions, should the Feds disolve those Tribes that prohibit same sex unions if they do not rescind thier bans? A list of tribal laws prohibiting gay marriage
I wouldn't vote for one, at least not one who toes the church line.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I wouldn't vote for one, at least not one who toes the church line.
I don't think they realize how out of step with America they've become. Yes, America is 'going to hell in a hand basket' but I think they think (can't blame anyone for checking out after those words) that there's a silent majority of god-fearing americans they represent, rather than that they are extremist theocrats who's appeal is pretty limited.
The Boy Scouts just announced they are removing *their* ban on homosexual leaders... note that sponsoring organizations (ie, churches) will still have the ability to block gay leaders if they feel like it.
The hateful things I saw posted on Facebook are so opposite to how our local Troop is run, so opposite to the meaning of "a scout will be kind" and have extremely narrow views of what the word "moral" means.
Top