[kenberg]

PassedOut, on Oct 12 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 12 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

This, together with a substantial donation to the church, provided him with the desired annulment. I will not express any cynical view I may have about the relative importance of the letter and the donation.

Constance's first husband got an annulment to marry a Roman Catholic woman from a wealthy family in Minneapolis. In that case, too, a large donation from the prospective bride's family seemed to provide the necessary grounds. Perhaps things are different now though.

Actually my case comes from Minneapolis also. Maybe it's a Minnesota thing.

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Oct 12 2008, 02:41 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 12 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

Of course churches should be free to set their own rules about marriage without government interference. But the government is a different matter, and should not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Churches should be banned, they are a bigotted load of idiots and they are the ones we should make laws against

wow, wayne... that sounded ... well, bigoted

[han]

Elianna, on Oct 12 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 12 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

I believe the US affords gays the right of a Civil Union.

I thought civil unions were state-by-state.

I think Elianna is correct, in Wisconsin anything resembling civil unions were banned four years ago.

[TimG]

sceptic, on Oct 12 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

Why should they not have the same rights as you or I?

You make it sound like none of us are gay, like the discussion involves people that never show up here.

[matmat]

TimG, on Oct 12 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

sceptic, on Oct 12 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

Why should they not have the same rights as you or I?

You make it sound like none of us are gay, like the discussion involves people that never show up here.

everyone knows gay people can't read or write.

[y66]

I support same-sex marriages.

It is way past time to change laws that deny same-sex couples the legal rights of marriage, as defined by civil law.

[awm]

In fact there is a US federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. This law states that marriages (or civil unions) between same-sex couples in one state need not be recognized by other states, and also that no federal rights will be extended to such couples.

So under federal law, committed homosexual couples have none of the special rights of married heterosexual couples.

State law is a different matter. Three states have legalized gay marriage, all through court rulings (MA, CA, recently CT). Several other states have legal civil unions or domestic partnerships with most or all the rights associated with marriage.

The United States has a long and unfortunate history with the idea of "separate but equal treatment" (see the civil rights movement). Granting homosexual couples civil unions is another example of this idea; this is one of the main reasons that gay rights groups continue to pursue "marriage" rather than just unions and why the courts in California (which already extended domestic partnership rights) recently ruled that gay marriage should be legal here.

[matmat]

awm, on Oct 13 2008, 12:00 AM, said:

The United States has a long and unfortunate history with the idea of "separate but equal treatment" (see the civil rights movement). Granting homosexual couples civil unions is another example of this idea; this is one of the main reasons that gay rights groups continue to pursue "marriage" rather than just unions and why the courts in California (which already extended domestic partnership rights) recently ruled that gay marriage should be legal here.

what i would like to see is the state not issuing marriages at all, but rather civil unions to everyone, heterosexual, homosexual, alienosexual, whatever, and have the "marriage" be purely a religious matter.

[barmar]

I believe that most people who are against gay marriage are generally homophobic, and don't believe in gay rights in general. They consider homosexuality to be immoral, probably based on their archaic religious doctrines. Gay rights, gay marriage, and teaching tolerance in school is viewed as condoning, and perhaps even promoting, immoral behavior.

50 years ago most Americans had similar views about interracial couples. While they're still relatively uncommon, most people no longer have a problem with them. Hopefully we'll get past this in time as well.

It's also similar to why decriminalizing marijuana and drug use is so difficult: many people can't see the difference between decriminalizing something and promoting it.

[sceptic]

luke warm, on Oct 12 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

sceptic, on Oct 12 2008, 02:41 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 12 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

Of course churches should be free to set their own rules about marriage without government interference. But the government is a different matter, and should not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Churches should be banned, they are a bigotted load of idiots and they are the ones we should make laws against

wow, wayne... that sounded ... well, bigoted

[mike777]

I may have missed your post but is there some reason why the Central government is even issuing marriage cert? If you want hospital rights or estate rights ok...but why marriage is best over other? Why is the central govt and only the central govt in this issue? In other words why do you need to be married rather than other to have these rights?

If marriage=rights and nonmarriage =no rights that is an issue.

If you must be married to have some rights...that is clear discrimination!

[Codo]

It is really amusing to hear all these liberal thoughts. But I wonder, how you would answer these questions:

1. What is a marriage in the sense of your governement?

2. What is a marriage about in your mind?

3. What is a marriage in the mind of your church, if you have one?

Of course it is absolute possible to have an opinion about the question of gay marriage without even knowing what marriage is about. But maybe in that case, the opinion is quite stronger then the facts backing this opinion up.

It is absolute possible to say: Hey a marriage is there because you promise in front of god (or your state) that you belong together till the end of your days ( or till you are divorced..) and that you have the right to share your income taxes and last wills etc. A marriage has to do with love and understanding and staying together. We want to show anybody: We are one.

If this is your view, a gay marriage is mandatory in any country.

But maybe there is more to a marriage for other people who cannot accept a gay marriage because their view of a marriage is different?

I wouldn't be so harsh with people who have another idea about what is good and right.

And my own opinion: I would like them to have the same rights in the governement sense and in a religious sense. the first part is easy but the second case is not what my stomach want. It feels wrong but should be right.

[helene_t]

>> 1. What is a marriage in the sense of your government?

A contract between two people. It probably implies that they have a shared economy, that any children born or adopted by either of the partners during the marriage will be legally parented by both partners.

>> 2. What is a marriage about in your mind?
Not applicable. I am not married and what other people make of their marriage is not my business.

>> 3. What is a marriage in the mind of your church, if you have one?
Not applicable, but I am happy with non-government organizations (including churches)defining marriage according to their own traditions. For example, some religious societies allow polygamy. And I read recently about an Indian girl who got married to a dog. This is not compatible with legal marriage in most countries but that need not be a problem. Of course it would help if two completely different words were used for "legal marriage" and "clerical marriage" to avoid confusion. But it's just semantics.

[han]

Codo, on Oct 13 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

And my own opinion: I would like them [= people in a same-sex relationship I assume] to have the same rights in the governement sense and in a religious sense. the first part is easy [skip].

Apparently it is not so easy because in many states in the US two people who are in a same-sex relationship have no rights. It is good to see that almost everybody posting here, both the more "liberal" and the more "conservative" agree that this is not the right.

Quote

If marriage=rights and nonmarriage =no rights that is an issue.

If you must be married to have some rights...that is clear discrimination!

Nice to agree with you on this issue Mike.

[pclayton]

1. A marriage is a union between two (not more, not less) consenting adults (this definition varies; I'm pretty sure a 16 year old can get legally married in Utah, for instance). You can't marry your golf clubs (though I've been accused of that), your dog, or your 10 year old cousin. There is no distinction between the financial and social benefits of a heterosexual couple and a gay couple.

2. Marriage in my mind is the same as the government's.

3. Marriage in my church is between a man and a woman. I'm catholic, so I don't expect this definition to change anytime soon. In practice, many parishes welcome gay couples, even though the union isn't formally recognized by the church.

Before you start typing madly in response to this last comment, understand that the catholic church also doesn't recognize marriages between two formerly divorced people. But they are generally welcome, although I woudn't be surprised if there are some hard core parishes somewhere in the world where they wouldn't be. I don't see a contradiction here. Just because Rome has certain rules, doesn't mean that the rank and file are following them.

[han]

Quote

Before you start typing madly in response to this last comment, understand that the catholic church also doesn't recognize marriages between two formerly divorced people. But they are generally welcome, although I woudn't be surprised if there are some hard core parishes somewhere in the world where they wouldn't be. I don't see a contradiction here. Just because Rome has certain rules, doesn't mean that the rank and file are following them.

I can't imagine typing an angry response to this. I pretty much agree with what Helene wrote about it, how churches define marriage is not the least of my worries. There are important things at stake here, like employers being able to give benefits to spouses in same sex couples. Yes, law suits have been files against employers who wanted to give health care, can you believe that?!?


(by this I don't mean that I wouldn't like it if churches were more tolerant and less discriminating, but that is much less important to me)

[hrothgar]

As I've noted in the past, I think that the US made a dreadful mistake when we started to blend religious ceremonies like marriage with contract law. I think that the most elegant solution is to completely sever the link between the two.

In my mind, the government should not be allowed to use civil rights legislation to force or coerce a church to perform a same sex marriage.

At the same time, I also don't think that the tax code should recognize sacraments.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Oct 13 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Before you start typing madly in response to this last comment, understand that the catholic church also doesn't recognize marriages between two formerly divorced people. But they are generally welcome, although I woudn't be surprised if there are some hard core parishes somewhere in the world where they wouldn't be. I don't see a contradiction here. Just because Rome has certain rules, doesn't mean that the rank and file are following them.

OK, I'm not a Christian, so this is purely a view from the sidelines...

Surely a parish can welcome gay couples, and formerly divorced couples, without actually saying you are breaking a rule set by Rome? Can't you (one) believe that what someone does is a sin, but welcome them into your church anyway? If the Catholic church refused to accept anyone who has committed what the church sees as a sin, and has not repented of it, then I would have thought that you would run out of congregation fairly quickly.

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 13 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 13 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Before you start typing madly in response to this last comment, understand that the catholic church also doesn't recognize marriages between two formerly divorced people. But they are generally welcome, although I woudn't be surprised if there are some hard core parishes somewhere in the world where they wouldn't be. I don't see a contradiction here. Just because Rome has certain rules, doesn't mean that the rank and file are following them.

OK, I'm not a Christian, so this is purely a view from the sidelines...

Surely a parish can welcome gay couples, and formerly divorced couples, without actually saying you are breaking a rule set by Rome? Can't you (one) believe that what someone does is a sin, but welcome them into your church anyway? If the Catholic church refused to accept anyone who has committed what the church sees as a sin, and has not repented of it, then I would have thought that you would run out of congregation fairly quickly.

I think it is a matter of not being allowed to take the sacrament; you are welcome in the church, you just aren't welcome to participate in all of the ceremonies.

[TimG]

Codo, on Oct 13 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

1. What is a marriage in the sense of your government?

3. What is a marriage in the mind of your church, if you have one?

Not everyone sees these as two separate questions. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard here: government should not be recognizing (giving legal weight to) religious ceremonies.