Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Prop8 case, as with the 'gay marriage movement', is focused on equal access to a government issued marriage *license*, which has nothing to do with the numerous religious ceremonies just called 'marriage'.

I don't want to derail the discussion, but this isn't exactly true, and points to part of the problem, IMO.

In fact, priests, ministers, etc. conducting the religious ceremony called marriage are recognized as agents of the state to execute marriage licenses. I think that confusion of two very separate things is partly to blame for the confused position that the religious notion of "marriage" is somehow threatened by gay marriage.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't want to derail the discussion, but this isn't exactly true, and points to part of the problem, IMO.

In fact, priests, ministers, etc. conducting the religious ceremony called marriage are recognized as agents of the state to execute marriage licenses. I think that confusion of two very separate things is partly to blame for the confused position that the religious notion of "marriage" is somehow threatened by gay marriage.

Clergy are not 'agents of the state', that would be exactly what the 1st amendment forbids.

There is a distinction between the *issuance* of the marriage license, and the *solemnification* of the marriage. Nothing about acquiring a marriage license requires any particular church to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

 

[RandFan]

Clergy are not 'agents of the state', that would be exactly what the 1st amendment forbids.

There is a distinction between the *issuance* of the marriage license, and the *solemnification* of the marriage. Nothing about acquiring a marriage license requires any particular church to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

But there is a blurring of the lines. I think in that there is a problem. At least as far as perception goes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But there is a blurring of the lines. I think in that there is a problem. At least as far as perception goes.

Exactly.

I never claimed there was a requirement to have a ceremony in a church or in any particular church. The problem is that the actions of clergy are given civil recognition as executing the marriage license.

We all know the traditional marriage phrase, "by the authority vested in me by the State of. . . . " IMO, this means they are acting as agents of the state.

[ETA: Here's just one example. In Hawaii, the license is what permits a marriage to take place. "The marriage certificate indicates that a legal marriage has been performed. The marriage certificate is prepared and filed by your licensed marriage officiant or performer with the Department of Health." Linky.]

[ETA: Another example: a lawsuit in NC over the issue of clerics acting as agents of the state in performing marriage ceremonies. "Under current law, when Peeples [a church minister] performs a marriage, she's required to act as an agent of the state and could face punishment if she weds a couple the state has not licensed." Linky.]

[ETA: Another example. I know for sure how it is in the State of Missouri, and I suspect it's this way in most states. The religious ceremony conducted by a state recognized officiant is a valid substitute for having a marriage ceremony in the civil courts building before a justice of the peace. The actions of the religious officiant are granted equal civil status to the actions of the judge. IMO, one solution is to do away with the requirement for a ceremony at all, then your argument that the license is the marriage would make more sense. But as it is now, we do recognize religious clerics as agents of the state.]

While it's true that other non-state employees are given this authority as well (in some states, anyway), in most states, the easiest way to get that authority is to be a religious cleric of some sort. There is a definite blurring of the two distinct types of "marriage" (one that is a religious sacrament or whatever, and the one that has civil/secular meaning).

We no longer require baptism or christening ceremonies to name a baby. (In fact, we require no ceremony whatsoever. It's just paperwork.)

And for Catholics, the distinction is already clear between a religious annulment and a civil/secular divorce.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Humans, on average, apparently did not evolve to pair bond for life. Our Oxytocin and Vasopressin production is closer to that of animals who don't pair bond for life. So this idea of "until death do you part" is also unnatural.

Sweetheart? Come here and look at this...

 

[RandFan]

Sweetheart? Come here and look at this...

I should note that I've been in a monogamous marriage for 25 years and hope to be in the same one when I die. It can happen.

 

[crimresearch]

But there is a blurring of the lines. I think in that there is a problem. At least as far as perception goes.

A perception that is based on facts not in evidence.

*Issuance*, not solemnification of a marriage license is a secular matter, and that is the nexus of gay marriage on the legal front, not what happens after it is issued.

 

[RandFan]

A perception that is based on facts not in evidence.

? We are talking about perception based on the facts we both agree on. You are looking for a controversy where there is none.

*Issuance*, not solemnification of a marriage license is a secular matter, and that is the nexus of gay marriage on the legal front, not what happens after it is issued.

Doesn't address the point at hand.

 

[Peephole]

Hopefully it goes to the Supreme Court so gays in the US might finally have a shot at being free and equal.

 

[cwalner]

In fact, there is. I've been to several same-sex wedding ceremonies. Two of which were performed in churches by religious leaders.

In college, on of my professors married the rabbi of the school's interfaith center (both female). It was performed in a synagogue, but my professor had to convert to Judaism before they would marry them there.

 

[BenBurch]

Hopefully it goes to the Supreme Court so gays in the US might finally have a shot at being free and equal.

Not until the balance of power changes there.

 

[Peephole]

Why the presumption that Kennedy will side with the bigots?

 

[crimresearch]

? We are talking about perception based on the facts we both agree on. You are looking for a controversy where there is none.

Doesn't address the point at hand.

You aren't making sense.

I said that the Prop8 case was *not* argued on the basis of religions being able to deny marriage ceremonies to gay couples.

Reading the actual wording (which I posted a while back), shows that to be obvious. The topic at hand is the state denying *issuance* of a government piece of paper on the basis of gender.

I'm not the one stirring up controversy by arguing against that.

 

[RandFan]

You aren't making sense.

I said that the Prop8 case was *not* argued on the basis of religions being able to deny marriage ceremonies to gay couples.

Reading the actual wording (which I posted a while back), shows that to be obvious. The topic at hand is the state denying *issuance* of a government piece of paper on the basis of gender.

I'm not the one stirring up controversy by arguing against that.

No, you are simply confusing things. I made an aside. I said it blurs the lines. It does. There is a perception based on the facts we both agree on. That's hardly controversial. Your discussion with Joe is between the two of you.

 

[TheAnachronism]

... All of whom were actually playing "Let's Pretend."

What's to pretend about?

It may horrify you for reasons I don't entirely comprehend, Robert, but gay people are not going to disappear. There are 15, 12, 8, 5 year old kids alive at this very moment who are, through no fault of their own, going to grow up gay. There are people not yet born who will grow up to be gay, and there are going to be gay people long after you and I have left this Earth. As human beings, they will naturally form relationships, get a job, have friends, fall in love, buy a house, dream of raising a family, and do most of the things that human beings are generally wont to do.

As someone who has been in a happy, loving, fulfilling same-sex relationship for the past 6 years (that's 25% of my life, for some perspective), I'd like to encourage young people, both gay and straight, to form stable, long-term, fulfilling relationships. To give same-sex relationships the legal protection of marriage, an institution whose dignity they are entirely capable of upholding, seems wholly reasonable.

 

[SezMe]

Well said, TheAnachronism. I can only conclude that having one of the most horrifying avatars in the western hemisphere is no impediment to an excellent command of the King's English.

 

[Robert Prey]

So, your version of Christianity is right and other people's version of Chritianity is wrong?

You never did respond to my point that gay marriage was contemporary with Jesus and, yet, he never spoke out against gays or gay marriage.

In those days such a ridiculous idea wasn't even considered. But...

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

 

[Upchurch]

In those days such a ridiculous idea wasn't even considered. But...

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

Those are not Jesus's words, they're Paul's.

Although you refuse to acknowledge it, not only was the idea considered, it was practiced and Jesus says nothing about it.

You, however, did not answer my question. Why is your version of Christianity correct and those Christian churches that marries gay couples "pretending"? Do they not have the authority to say what is or is not marriage in their religious faith?

 

[RandFan]

In those days such a ridiculous idea wasn't even considered. But...
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

in those days talking snakes, talking donkeys, witches, giants, sun revolving around the Earth, etc. were not only considered but believed (some today still believe).

We exchanged superstition and ignorance for truth.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

In those days such a ridiculous idea wasn't even considered. But...

...raping your wife, and bigamy, and sex slavery were totally fine.

"But", indeed.

Has Robert Prey told us why he's against gay marriage in the first place yet, or is it "untraditional", "icky", and "unnatural" all the way down?​