Other Stuff that may Digress into Tempermental Discussions of Religion and Politics.

[LastGent]

I overheard on the radio, not more than two weeks ago, a comment made by Archbishop George of Chicago (who, I assume, knew he was being publicly broadcast) that pride parades and other activities for sexual minority equality are similar to Ku Klux Klan rallies....because...he never explained why. How does that comparison actually work? I don't socialize much so I don't know if they wear buttock shaped hoods, burn giant dildos on lawns of Catholics, lynch monks, support legislation that would ban Catholics from marrying non-Catholics and whatever else the alleged Gay Glux Glan is supposed to do. Any thoughts on that?
Another thing I became aware of about five hours ago is how one-sided politicians' arguments about same-sex marriage are. These folk kept asking whether Christian marriage would still be legal after HB whatnot got passed and whether Christian clergymen would be defrocked if they didn't perform same-sex ceremonies, and so they talked about amending the law to make religious exemptions so that Christian churches would not be affected by the law, to protect Christians from reverse discrimination.
Well, I want to say some things about "religious exemption". Several religions have been exempt from having their marriages recognized by the government for a while. So many, and for so long, I think we need to sponsor a "Freedom From Christian Marriage" Bill, instead of a same-sex marriage bill. The constitutional right to be united in a non-Christian way. Imported religions (to this country) like Wicca, Old Catholics, Asatru that allows 'blood siblinghood', and the suppression of indigenous religions (for this country) like Native American tribes that have 'berdaches', Eckankar, Adidam, Church of Satan, Church of All Worlds, Unitarian-Universalism that permit same-sex and/or poly unions. They've been trying to get married off for decades and it's no going. And politicians are worried about religious discrimination? It's been going ON, elected bros. Time to stop the exemptions.
Apparently politicians are unaware of the fact that this country was never a Christian nation, and that a lot of citizens may not want a Christian marriage. Never having been a Christian I find this blindness stupid, and, of course, discriminatory. The Freedom of Religion Amendant is a sham I think at times. Feel a little better getting that out.

[pepperjack]

I overheard on the radio, not more than two weeks ago, a comment made by Archbishop George of Chicago (who, I assume, knew he was being publicly broadcast) that pride parades and other activities for sexual minority equality are similar to Ku Klux Klan rallies....because...he never explained why. How does that comparison actually work? I don't socialize much so I don't know if they wear buttock shaped hoods, burn giant dildos on lawns of Catholics, lynch monks, support legislation that would ban Catholics from marrying non-Catholics and whatever else the alleged Gay Glux Glan is supposed to do. Any thoughts on that?
Another thing I became aware of about five hours ago is how one-sided politicians' arguments about same-sex marriage are. These folk kept asking whether Christian marriage would still be legal after HB whatnot got passed and whether Christian clergymen would be defrocked if they didn't perform same-sex ceremonies, and so they talked about amending the law to make religious exemptions so that Christian churches would not be affected by the law, to protect Christians from reverse discrimination.
Well, I want to say some things about "religious exemption". Several religions have been exempt from having their marriages recognized by the government for a while. So many, and for so long, I think we need to sponsor a "Freedom From Christian Marriage" Bill, instead of a same-sex marriage bill. The constitutional right to be united in a non-Christian way. Imported religions (to this country) like Wicca, Old Catholics, Asatru that allows 'blood siblinghood', and the suppression of indigenous religions (for this country) like Native American tribes that have 'berdaches', Eckankar, Adidam, Church of Satan, Church of All Worlds, Unitarian-Universalism that permit same-sex and/or poly unions. They've been trying to get married off for decades and it's no going. And politicians are worried about religious discrimination? It's been going ON, elected bros. Time to stop the exemptions.
Apparently politicians are unaware of the fact that this country was never a Christian nation, and that a lot of citizens may not want a Christian marriage. Never having been a Christian I find this blindness stupid, and, of course, discriminatory. The Freedom of Religion Amendant is a sham I think at times. Feel a little better getting that out.

I find your pseudo-intellectual "trollness" stupid. Feel a lot better getting this out. Gute nacht!

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually, LastGent, I can see his point, curse of being able to actually understand both sides of a situation. For him the Ku Klux Klan are people trying to force others to say whites are best. So he equates the Pride rallies to people trying to force others to say alternate sexualities are best.


I really do wish more people in this world would think like me. I can sum my thoughts up in one sentence. I believe in gay marriage but I also believe in gay divorce. :)

I don't believe someone should be married in one state and move to another and told they can't divorce because they aren't really married. I don't believe anyone should have anything more or less than anyone else due to a relationship situation.

[Diva667]

I imagine he is talking about how it "persecutes" his particular brand of religion by accepting something they deem to be "sin".

Similar to the wank currently in vogue with fundie and other religiously conservative types "if I can't discriminate against you, you aren't accepting me."

They would rather we(the GLBT) remained in the closet, don't see how hetero sexist privileges (like mentioning your wife, or husband ) affect those of us in same sex relationships. Or just plain would rather we didn't exist (because this is all a choice, right - if it is a choice then it can be a "sin" since you have to choose to sin.)

Some straight folks complain that theydon't have a straight pride parade - not true Mardi Gras could be seen as one big straight pride orgy.

Also I suppose it could be seen as an expression of free speech that is allowed , but that he, personally, doesn't agree with.

[keefer201]

I overheard on the radio, not more than two weeks ago, a comment made by Archbishop George of Chicago (who, I assume, knew he was being publicly broadcast) that pride parades and other activities for sexual minority equality are similar to Ku Klux Klan rallies....because...he never explained why. How does that comparison actually work? I don't socialize much so I don't know if they wear buttock shaped hoods, burn giant dildos on lawns of Catholics, lynch monks, support legislation that would ban Catholics from marrying non-Catholics and whatever else the alleged Gay Glux Glan is supposed to do. Any thoughts on that?
Another thing I became aware of about five hours ago is how one-sided politicians' arguments about same-sex marriage are. These folk kept asking whether Christian marriage would still be legal after HB whatnot got passed and whether Christian clergymen would be defrocked if they didn't perform same-sex ceremonies, and so they talked about amending the law to make religious exemptions so that Christian churches would not be affected by the law, to protect Christians from reverse discrimination.
Well, I want to say some things about "religious exemption". Several religions have been exempt from having their marriages recognized by the government for a while. So many, and for so long, I think we need to sponsor a "Freedom From Christian Marriage" Bill, instead of a same-sex marriage bill. The constitutional right to be united in a non-Christian way. Imported religions (to this country) like Wicca, Old Catholics, Asatru that allows 'blood siblinghood', and the suppression of indigenous religions (for this country) like Native American tribes that have 'berdaches', Eckankar, Adidam, Church of Satan, Church of All Worlds, Unitarian-Universalism that permit same-sex and/or poly unions. They've been trying to get married off for decades and it's no going. And politicians are worried about religious discrimination? It's been going ON, elected bros. Time to stop the exemptions.
Apparently politicians are unaware of the fact that this country was never a Christian nation, and that a lot of citizens may not want a Christian marriage. Never having been a Christian I find this blindness stupid, and, of course, discriminatory. The Freedom of Religion Amendant is a sham I think at times. Feel a little better getting that out.

Move to fucking China and espout your shit. They will love you.

[æonpax]

1) I overheard on the radio, not more than two weeks ago, a comment made by Archbishop George of Chicago (who, I assume, knew he was being publicly broadcast) that pride parades and other activities for sexual minority equality are similar to Ku Klux Klan rallies....because...he never explained why.

2) How does that comparison actually work? I don't socialize much so I don't know if they wear buttock shaped hoods, burn giant dildos on lawns of Catholics, lynch monks, support legislation that would ban Catholics from marrying non-Catholics and whatever else the alleged Gay Glux Glan is supposed to do. Any thoughts on that?

3) Another thing I became aware of about five hours ago is how one-sided politicians' arguments about same-sex marriage are. These folk kept asking whether Christian marriage would still be legal after HB whatnot got passed and whether Christian clergymen would be defrocked if they didn't perform same-sex ceremonies, and so they talked about amending the law to make religious exemptions so that Christian churches would not be affected by the law, to protect Christians from reverse discrimination. Well, I want to say some things about "religious exemption". Several religions have been exempt from having their marriages recognized by the government for a while. So many, and for so long,

4) I think we need to sponsor a "Freedom From Christian Marriage" Bill, instead of a same-sex marriage bill. The constitutional right to be united in a non-Christian way. Imported religions (to this country) like Wicca, Old Catholics, Asatru that allows 'blood siblinghood', and the suppression of indigenous religions (for this country) like Native American tribes that have 'berdaches', Eckankar, Adidam, Church of Satan, Church of All Worlds, Unitarian-Universalism that permit same-sex and/or poly unions. They've been trying to get married off for decades and it's no going. And politicians are worried about religious discrimination? It's been going ON, elected bros. Time to stop the exemptions.

5) Apparently politicians are unaware of the fact that this country was never a Christian nation, and that a lot of citizens may not want a Christian marriage. Never having been a Christian I find this blindness stupid, and, of course, discriminatory. The Freedom of Religion Amendant is a sham I think at times. Feel a little better getting that out.


1) I don’t either but I do know this interesting tidbit;




According to the report, which was based on several surveys, 43% of Catholics support same-sex marriage and another 31% support civil unions, while only 21% of Catholics oppose all legal recognition of same-sex unions. By comparison, 16% of white evangelicals, 23% of black Protestants and 36% of mainline Protestants support same-sex marriage - http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/new-report-catholic-attitudes-towards-lgbt-issues

2) Piss poor analogy.

3) Politicians are only good as bellwethers and even then, they lie. Regardless of political affiliation, to get elected, they’ll say and do anything even if they don’t believe in it and frequently change their platform according to the ebb and flow of popular opinion.

4) The concept of what we call “marriage�, predates Christianity and even Judaism. From a secular perspective, in ancient times, women were merely chattels or property. Fact is, it was the Babylonians who instituted the practice of the government registering married couples, so those females (whom were considered property) could be taxed. Also, from a secular viewpoint, a “marriage� is also legally binding contract. If one or both parties breaks the terms of the contract (‘no-fault’ aside) you go to divorce court.

From the spiritual world, marriage started off as what some still call, “pagan rituals�. They invoked the names of a pantheon of different gods and goddesses, inter-dimensional manifestations and transcendent beings, to bless or look favorably on their union. For some reason, the Christians (in particular), think they own both the word and spiritual ceremony of “Marriage�.

5) Them is fighting words for the fanatical and zealot Christians, many whom sincerely but mistakenly believe that the formation of the US was done by Gods hand, Herself, and use bible verses to base that claim on. The real danger here is that many want to change this country into a theocracy according to their belief in Christian Reconstructionism (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html) Scary stuff.

[bityme]

Discrimination, in fact and in theory, will always arise when government adopts definitions used by less than 1005 or the people.

Marriage is a religious institution with it's parameters established by each individual religion. Governments should get out of the marriage business.

Instead, governments should regulate only civil unions, allowing any individuals to enter into their own contract in establishing their relationship without regard to religious constraints.

Pappy

[tenni]

"Marriage is a religious institution with it's parameters established by each individual religion. Governments should get out of the marriage business."

Pappy
Wow ...wait just a minute.:eek:

In Canada, marriage is a secular arrangement and the government institutions govern the rules and parameters of marriage. No religious minister, priest, rabbi etc. may perform a marriage unless that person is licensed by the state. All requirements of marriage must align with out Constitution including section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with equal rights including gender in marriages that permit same sex marriage. All marriages have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

No religious person (priest etc.) is forced to marry any couple that violates their religious beliefs as that would violate the freedom of religion but nor may they prevent anyone from marrying in the society. Only the state may create the conditions of divorce and not a religion or religious person(minister, Mulla etc.)

Marriage is not a religious institution in Canada. :) No one religion controls the state. Church and State are and should be separate. Religions are in some? kind of business connected to marriage but only if licensed by the state. Otherwise any marriage is legally void and null.

[darkeyes]

"Marriage is a religious institution with it's parameters established by each individual religion. Governments should get out of the marriage business."

Pappy
Wow ...wait just a minute.:eek:

In Canada, marriage is a secular arrangement and the government institutions govern the rules and parameters of marriage. No religious minister, priest, rabbi etc. may perform a marriage unless that person is licensed by the state. All requirements of marriage must align with out Constitution including section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with equal rights including gender in marriages that permit same sex marriage. All marriages have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

No religious person (priest etc.) is forced to marry any couple that violates their religious beliefs as that would violate the freedom of religion but nor may they prevent anyone from marrying in the society. Only the state may create the conditions of divorce and not a religion or religious person(minister, Mulla etc.)

Marriage is not a religious institution in Canada. :) No one religion controls the state. Church and State are and should be separate. Religions are in some? kind of business connected to marriage but only if licensed by the state. Otherwise any marriage is legally void and null.

No person in the UK can conduct a legal marriage unless recogised as a registrar in law.. a priest or minister or rabbai or mullah does not conduct marriages as a religious representative but as a legally recognised registrar.. all religions in the UK are subservient to the law and the state.. even the one established church which is established only in one part of the UK and is not the established church of the state. There is no established church or recognised religion of the state. Religious weddings may be in religious form but they are civil ceremonies of marriage for unless the priest, minister or whatever is a legal registrar in law any marriage ceremony is invalid... and that is as it should be and any who argues to the contrary gives religion a place in our society that it does not merit and becomes dangerous to freedom of expression, speech, thought and even religion itself...... it is one small step in the door to making a state a theocracy...

[æonpax]

1) Discrimination, in fact and in theory, will always arise when government adopts definitions used by less than 1005 or the people.

2) Marriage is a religious institution with it's parameters established by each individual religion. Governments should get out of the marriage business.

3) Instead, governments should regulate only civil unions, allowing any individuals to enter into their own contract in establishing their relationship without regard to religious constraints.
Pappy

1) Unless you live in a theocracy, marriage in the western world is regulated by government laws for a) tax purposes and b) contractual purposes. It bypasses the religious. If you propose government get out of the lucrative business of marriage, good luck. The US Constitution does not and cannot recognize any religion or religious ceremony as constituting a definition for marriage. Multi-millions have gotten legally married by a civil "Justice Of The Peace" and that is hardly religious.

2) Who owns the word and the definition of the word, "Marriage?" Etymologically, the English word first appeared in the 12th century, CE, and was used in the secular sense, not religious.

3) I see you make a sharp delineation between "marriage" and "civil union". Why is that? Are you saying that people getting married under civil law, without a religious ceremony, is somehow wrong? Do you mean they should not say they are married? Please explain.

[jamieknyc]

In the United States, laws vary from state to state, but in New York at least, a clergyman who performs a marriage without a marriage license from the state is liable for a $50 fine but the marriage itself is valid. Almost all such marriages are done by Jews and Moslems, who do not believe in civil marriage or civil divorce.

[jamieknyc]

1) The US Constitution does not and cannot recognize any religion or religious ceremony as constituting a definition for marriage. Multi-millions have gotten legally married by a civil "Justice Of The Peace" and that is hardly religious.

.
Not so: every state recognizes religious marriage ceremonies, and has its own laws defining what constitutes a legally recognized religious marriage ceremony.

[tenni]

Jamie
Who licenses people to perform the marriage ceremony so that it is legal (regardless whether it is a religious ceremony or not)?

[jamieknyc]

Jamie
Who licenses people to perform the marriage ceremony so that it is legal (regardless whether it is a religious ceremony or not)?

I can only speak for New York. New York law states that a marriage can be performed by a clergyman of any faith, and requires only that a religious ceremony be performed in accordance with the marriage procedures of that faith. Strike out the 'so it is legal' part: a marriage performed by a clergyman without a state-issued marriage license is valid in the United States, or at least in New York.

Under the First Amendment, the state cannot 'license' a clergyman to perform marriages, because the state is barred from making any person or sect into an officially recognized religion, or denying recognition to anyone. The state's power is limited to determining whether a religious belief is sincerely held and isa bona fide faith and not some type of scam. That differs from the law in many other countries, where religious sects are required to be officially licensed by the state..

[tenni]

Thanks Jamie
So, that in New York state all marriages must be a religious ceremony and there are no civil marriages done outside of religious ceremonies by say a Justice of the Peace? Or is that another option to have a non religious ceremony?

[jamieknyc]

Thanks Jamie
So, that in New York state all marriages must be a religious ceremony and there are no civil marriages done outside of religious ceremonies by say a Justice of the Peace? Or is that another option to have a non religious ceremony?

No one said that. You were asking what the requirements are for a religious ceremony to be valid under secular law. In New York and most other states, marriages can be performed by judges, by the city clerk (the proverbial 'going to City Hall" or by a religious ceremony of any faith. Ship's captains cannot marry people. That is only in the movies.

The countries in the world that do not have civil marriage and only allow religious marriages are: every country in the Middle East except for Turkey and Iraq, and also Indonesia, Malaysia and Mauritania.

[jamieknyc]

Thanks Jamie
So, that in New York state all marriages must be a religious ceremony and there are no civil marriages done outside of religious ceremonies by say a Justice of the Peace? Or is that another option to have a non religious ceremony?

No one said that. You were asking what the requirements are for a religious ceremony to be valid under secular law. In New York and most other states, marriages can be performed by judges, by the city clerk (the proverbial 'going to City Hall" or by a religious ceremony of any faith. Ship's captains cannot marry people. That is only in the movies.

The countries in the world that do not have civil marriage and only allow religious marriages are: every country in the Middle East except for Turkey and Iraq, and also Indonesia, Malaysia and Mauritania.

[LastGent]

Greetings, Mr. Keefer201 and Mr. Pepperjack. Your comments would come under my consideration if they were not irrational emotional outbursts. Mr. Pepperjack, you provide no reasons for why a statement I have made, which you declined to identify, should be raised to a trollness level of stupidity. Mr. Keefer201, you also fail to provide reasons for why I, who is not a member of the Communist Party, does not speak a Chinese language, is not of Chinese descent, does not practice a Chinese religion, does not like Chinese cuisine, and does not approve of policies implemented by the Chinese government, would want to emigrate to China. As with Mr. Pepperjack, you do not provide evidence to support your claim that one or more of my statements is on the shit level.

God natt!-Herr Pepperjack

[darkeyes]

Greetings, Mr. Keefer201 and Mr. Pepperjack. Your comments would come under my consideration if they were not irrational emotional outbursts. Mr. Pepperjack, you provide no reasons for why a statement I have made, which you declined to identify, should be raised to a trollness level of stupidity. Mr. Keefer201, you also fail to provide reasons for why I, who is not a member of the Communist Party, does not speak a Chinese language, is not of Chinese descent, does not practice a Chinese religion, does not like Chinese cuisine, and does not approve of policies implemented by the Chinese government, would want to emigrate to China. As with Mr. Pepperjack, you do not provide evidence to support your claim that one or more of my statements is on the shit level.



Tee hee..:bigrin:

[pepperjack]

Tee hee..:bigrin:

Also chuckling.:smilies15

[pepperjack]

Greetings, Mr. Keefer201 and Mr. Pepperjack. Your comments would come under my consideration if they were not irrational emotional outbursts. Mr. Pepperjack, you provide no reasons for why a statement I have made, which you declined to identify, should be raised to a trollness level of stupidity. Mr. Keefer201, you also fail to provide reasons for why I, who is not a member of the Communist Party, does not speak a Chinese language, is not of Chinese descent, does not practice a Chinese religion, does not like Chinese cuisine, and does not approve of policies implemented by the Chinese government, would want to emigrate to China. As with Mr. Pepperjack, you do not provide evidence to support your claim that one or more of my statements is on the shit level.

God natt!-Herr Pepperjack

You responded, so apparently our "irrational emotional outbursts" DID come under your consideration. :rolleyes:

[Canticle]

i think I'll come back to this when I am sober (yes fran...I drinks...lol)......civil union...all the way and religious ceremony separate...but that is just my personal opinion.

[æonpax]

Not so: every state recognizes religious marriage ceremonies, and has its own laws defining what constitutes a legally recognized religious marriage ceremony.


I should have been more specific, in Wisconsin, we have no "Justice of the Peace" to perform a marriage but it is done by a "court commissioner." - http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/wisconsin/index.shtml - For a religious cleric to be authorized to marry, all he/she has to do is prove they are "ordained" in any particular faith.

In New York, by the way, there are a number of people who can perform a marriage, outside a religious cleric - http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4210/

[void()]

In West Virginia you may have a judge officiate a civil marriage. Me and the wife had civil service, without mention of God, wrote our own vows as well. We had it in a church to appease and honour respect of family. But our marriage is a civil one, not religious. It is still a legal and legitimate union.

[tenni]

I should have been more specific, in Wisconsin, we have no "Justice of the Peace" to perform a marriage but it is done by a "court commissioner." - http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/wisconsin/index.shtml - For a religious cleric to be authorized to marry, all he/she has to do is prove they are "ordained" in any particular faith.

In New York, by the way, there are a number of people who can perform a marriage, outside a religious cleric - http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4210/

If a religious cleric needs to be authorized, I would assume the "authority" granting the ability to perform a marriage ceremony is the "state" government?

Where I come from this is considered "proof" that proves marriage is state controlled and not church. Marriage is not (necessarily) a religious ceremony. Both marriage and divorce are controlled by the government. This is perhaps a matter of perspective (potato/potaato) for those who keep stating that the government has no right to be involved in marriage, it is a religious ceremony. NOPE..it isn't...:tong:

I also think that it is a matter of perspective (or I don't understand) how certain religions believe that they are being persecuted for not being able to express their religious beliefs? If a religious group believe that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman, they do not have to perform same sex marriages. They do not have to marry a person of the same sex. HOWEVER, they do not have a "right" to deny those with differing beliefs from marrying same sex couples. They do not have a "right" to prevent same sex couples their equal rights of marriage. That would be discrimination and inequality. Its getting their minds around the fact that they do not have the right to prevent another citizen of equal rights that they get stuck on. Perspective. Not preventing them from religious freedom.

[elian]

Ahh yes, I missed one while I was talking about "manifest destiny" in the other thread.. "The one TRUE church".

I believe the dude retracted his statement..apparently he has "homosexual" members of his family, hopefully they knocked some sense into him.

It is true that just as we feel fundamentalists are infringing on our human right to love others, so do the Christians believe they are still being "persecuted" for not being able to fully express their religious belief..I've heard it more than once. I can see their point, but I have to stare in wonder at the evangelical corporate Christian church up over the hill.

That church seats 10,000 with stadium seating, has a theatrical stage, a choir rehearsal room, a cafe, a recording studio, downstairs classrooms equipped with video projectors, a gymnasium and if sitting in an auditorium isn't your thing the service is broadcast on closed circuit TV into the lobby where there are many comfortable couches. Their service is pumped into TV sets down the street in the local Catholic run hospital. Their OLD church is now a completely separate set of rooms inside the bigger facility that are used for a "children's church".

One has to wonder in awe when the group of folks once considered "heretics" now own the crystal cathedral. It's a glorious facility..and yet when I went there I felt there was still something missing. They say over and over again that "Jesus loves everybody" but for all of their wealth they still can't teach tolerance of others and acceptance of diversity the way a poor carpenter and fisherman could a very long time ago.

Now I hope you'll pardon me, I have to go or I'll be late for church..

[jamieknyc]

[QUOTE=tenni;219134]If a religious cleric needs to be authorized, I would assume the "authority" granting the ability to perform a marriage ceremony is the "state" government?

Where I come from this is considered "proof" that proves marriage is state controlled and not church. Marriage is not (necessarily) a religious ceremony. Both marriage and divorce are controlled by the government. This is perhaps a matter of perspective (potato/potaato) for those who keep stating that the government has no right to be involved in marriage, it is a religious ceremony. NOPE..it isn't...:tong:

QUOTE]
You aren't listening. The courts have held that you have a constitutional right to marry and also a constitutional right to have a religious marriage or any other religious ceremony. No state can impose a requirement that a clergyman have a state authorization to perform marriages, because that violates several different provisions of the Constitution. The state can impose a small fine on a clergyman who performs a marriage without a state-issues marriage license, but the marriage is legally valid. Some states, by the way, still have common-law marriage.

[LastGent]

Mr. Pepperjack, regarding your post of the seventh, at 6:35 p.m., I was giving you the right to make your case. If you are incapable of providing reasons for your outbursts against me, then I shall be forced to ban your posts until such time as a representative you may choose can inform me that you have received training in polemics, as such outbursts offer nothing to this website.

[pepperjack]

This discussion triggered a memory involving my former mother-in law. As the story went, when she divorced my wife's father & remarried, the ceremony was performed in the basement of a local church by an ordained minister who also owned a janitorial business. I happened to know the man and relayed this info to my wife who then passed it on to her mother who "freaked" exclaiming, "You mean we were married by the janitor?" Word of mouth & misunderstanding.:bigrin:

[LastGent]

Mr. tenni, about your post today at 8:58 a.m. about the right to marriage, not everyone sees it that way. In the Sunday paper of the Chicago Tribune there was an article on Mr. Santorum's speeches in New Hampshire. He made comments that marriage is not a human/civil right but a privilege that the government bestows on citizens who practice the correct lifestyle. He told the folk, who had voted for civil unions, that deep down in their hearts they knew same-sex marriage and gay parenting was wrong and that they would one day realize he was right. I really do not want this man to be president; I dare not imagine him, as president, meeting a future Swedish ambassador and his husband and what international incidents would ensue do to Mr. Santorum's tactlessness.

[tenni]

Mr. tenni, about your post today at 8:58 a.m. about the right to marriage, not everyone sees it that way. In the Sunday paper of the Chicago Tribune there was an article on Mr. Santorum's speeches in New Hampshire. He made comments that marriage is not a human/civil right but a privilege that the government bestows on citizens who practice the correct lifestyle. He told the folk, who had voted for civil unions, that deep down in their hearts they knew same-sex marriage and gay parenting was wrong and that they would one day realize he was right. I really do not want this man to be president; I dare not imagine him, as president, meeting a future Swedish ambassador and his husband and what international incidents would ensue do to Mr. Santorum's tactlessness.

Mr LastGent
Thank you for sharing what your politicians are interpreting as marriage rights. The world is bigger than your country and perhaps your politicians are in need of a more global education? Alas, your politician Mr Santorium just can not seem to get it correct. I wish you well with such difficulty in your society when it comes to human rights.

On a more cheeky foreign aid, Canada is offering the people of the USA another party to vote for. It is the Canada Party. (please remember that this is in jest but does point out our arrogance :bigrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM

Its a joke!!!! :bigrin: I hope that you see the funny side.

Jamie
In Canada, common law marriages longer than three years (I think) have most of the same rights as any other form of marriage. Sad, that any of your states don't.

[pepperjack]

Mr. Pepperjack, regarding your post of the seventh, at 6:35 p.m., I was giving you the right to make your case. If you are incapable of providing reasons for your outbursts against me, then I shall be forced to ban your posts until such time as a representative you may choose can inform me that you have received training in polemics, as such outbursts offer nothing to this website.

I already pointed out something on another thread. Ban all you desire. I invoke Void's mighty power to ignore you. As far as my "emotional outburst", some of us are passionate people and it is, after all, the week-end of the full moon.:smilies15

[æonpax]

If a religious cleric needs to be authorized, I would assume the "authority" granting the ability to perform a marriage ceremony is the "state" government?

Where I come from this is considered "proof" that proves marriage is state controlled and not church. Marriage is not (necessarily) a religious ceremony. Both marriage and divorce are controlled by the government. This is perhaps a matter of perspective (potato/potaato) for those who keep stating that the government has no right to be involved in marriage, it is a religious ceremony. NOPE..it isn't...:tong:

I also think that it is a matter of perspective (or I don't understand) how certain religions believe that they are being persecuted for not being able to express their religious beliefs? If a religious group believe that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman, they do not have to perform same sex marriages. They do not have to marry a person of the same sex. HOWEVER, they do not have a "right" to deny those with differing beliefs from marrying same sex couples. They do not have a "right" to prevent same sex couples their equal rights of marriage. That would be discrimination and inequality. Its getting their minds around the fact that they do not have the right to prevent another citizen of equal rights that they get stuck on. Perspective. Not preventing them from religious freedom.

I agree with you on all points except to add these things,


I have no idea how WI, or any state, proves someone is an ordained clergy. You can buy a "Doctor Of Divinity" certificate online or through the mail, complete with some bogus religion.

Marriage is both secular and religious however in the US, a religious ceremony is not enough to be legally married. One still has to get a marriage license, vis-Ã*-vis, just having a religious hootenanny.





The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage. - http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

The "Loving" case is important as among other things, it now established a person's "right to marry." Given the fact that the majority of of US citizens are Christian, I'd be interested in seeing how they can prove they are being persecuted for blocking a gay/bisexual or not recognizing a bisexual/gay persons "freedom of marriage."

[jamieknyc]

I agree with you on all points except to add these things,


[

in the US, a religious ceremony is not enough to be legally married. One still has to get a marriage license, vis-Ã*-vis, just having a religious hootenanny.



."[/SIZE][/FONT]

As one of my professors in law school used to say, you're entitled to your opinion, but it ain't the law.