I Hope this never happens....

[mrsimperless]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Awww...we Catholics took care of that long time ago. There a tons of rules about who can get married in the Catholic Church, and if you fail even one of them, it's a no-go. Let them try to sue the Pope! He isn't gonna change the rules for anyone! Sheesh, get with the program people!




I think I've done enough sarcasm for today...

Sachmo is exactly right on this point. You have to be a member of the Catholic church (and provide proof of this fact, among other things) for them to marry you. I don't see the government forcing anyone to marry anyone. As was previously stated, they can always just go to a justice of the peace.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Awww...we Catholics took care of that long time ago. There a tons of rules about who can get married in the Catholic Church, and if you fail even one of them, it's a no-go. Let them try to sue the Pope! He isn't gonna change the rules for anyone! Sheesh, get with the program people!




I think I've done enough sarcasm for today...

Don't even get me started, I have to do a hell of a lot of lying to the priest in order to get married in the catholic church. Where to start...

[Easy Mac]

dola, its more than proof of being a catholic by the way. Basically, you have to be as pure as evian water in order to get married there.

[WSUCougar]

Qualifier: I am not trying to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I am mistating your position.

Skydog, would it follow then that any act defined as "sinful" in the Scriptures is therefore a barrier to marriage? In other words, that willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc., would ellicit disqualification?

[sachmo71]

Well, one positive effect of any law allowing gays to marry might be an increase in the number of gay/lesbian churches. Supply and demand and all of that.

[Anrhydeddu]

he was not going to perform a marriage ceremony unless he was satisified that the couple was right with the Lord, according to his beliefs.

No, according to the Scriptures, which makes it clear on what is right and wrong, if you choose to put your faith in that. If you have been chosen to minister the Gospel to others, as Ben and pastors have been called to do, then that is the authority in spiritual matters. However, many can say the right words and act all godly in front of others (even faking out a pastor) while not putting their faith into the principles of the Scriptures. There is no way to avoid that but those that have been called, esp. in performing a sacred marriage ceremony, you have no choice but to adhere to the truth of the Gospel - as best as we can.

[MIJB#19]

Do I understand correctly that in the USA people can only marry if they are part of a religion?

That's sad...

[ISiddiqui]

Guys should be allowed to be married, but no church should be forced to marry them. It is simply contrary to the spirit of America to deny equal rights to a certain group simply because some people's morals get in way. Weren't we supposed to protect the minority rights from the majority's mob rule?

[Daimyo]

No MIJB, that is not the case at all. Any (hetero) couple can get married (aside from relatives, underaged, already married, etc)

[digamma]

Originally posted by SkyDog

...and back to my original point, Marmel, my Ordination Credential Card states that Ben Lewis "is authorized to perform, as prescribed by law, the duties of the ministry in all the common Evangelical churches." I'll be performing my first wedding soon, and the ceremony will be 100% Christ based, and 100% legally binding. Rather odd.

Actually, as someone alluded to above, the wedding isn't 100% legally binding unless the couple has taken the steps necessary under the law of the state to apply for and be granted a marriage license.

I don't want to belittle the roll of the minister, but I think the a wedding officiant (minister or otherwise) may be similar to that of a notary. They are "licensed" by the state to officiate and witness the wedding and sign the marriage certificate, which will ultimately result in the grant of the marriage license.

[/b]I strongly believe that the lines of Church and State could VERY much get blurred here. If gay marriages are legalized, then the natural next step is that those who perform marriages would be required by law to perform such ceremonies. I wouldn't perform a wedding ceremony for a straight male and female who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures, and the Imperial Federal Government has NO RIGHT to force me to perform a wedding ceremony for two males who exhibit an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures. [/b]

I'm not sure this is a "natural next step." The legalization of gay marriages would have little if any effect on religious organizations, who would still be free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they choose. As sachmo pointed out, there are already rules (Catholics certainly come to mind) about who can get married in certain denominations. The legalization of gay marriages would serve to grant spousal benefits to partners in the eyes of the law, but not necessarily in the eyes of the church.

[WSUCougar]

The issue I have with this concept is that it puts the burden of marital "sanctity" onto a Church-defined punch-list, instead in the hearts of men and women where I feel it should ultimately reside. Rather than compelling people to meet the standards of a Church-authorized marriage, I feel that the Church should encourage those who wish to get married to follow scriptural laws or Jesus' teachings or (fill in blank) as they live their lives together. Would Jesus have rejected anyone from getting married if the foundation of that marriage was love?

[ISiddiqui]

Do I understand correctly that in the USA people can only marry if they are part of a religion?

That's incorrect. There are civil ceremonies for atheists and those that do not wished to be married in a church.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Daimyo
I don't understand how legalizing gay marriage equals forcing churchs to marry gay couples. I'm sure that there would be lawsuits to that effect, but I doubt very much any church would be forced to marry a gay couple if they didn't want to.

It doesn't "equal" forcing at all, but my fear is that it is the next step. For some reason, "separation of Church and State" (a phrase from Marx's Communist Manifesto) has replaced "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the minds of many in this country.

IMO, everyone should have the right to a legal marriage status. Individual churches should still have the right to provide or not provide the service of a wedding ceremony to whatever clients they choose.

I could live with an agent of the government (such as a Justice of the Peace) performing some sort of legally binding ceremony that confers the status of domestic partnership upon two people.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Qualifier: I am not trying to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I am mistating your position.

Skydog, would it follow then that any act defined as "sinful" in the Scriptures is therefore a barrier to marriage? In other words, that willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc., would ellicit disqualification?

If I can answer in part. Being sinful (which we all are) is not the barrier to marriage but in the authority of those performing the sacredness of a marriage ceremony in upholding the Scriptures. Anyone can point out the hypocracy of priests and others throughout history (what else do you expect from sinful man?) but I would also point out the very many that were the opposite.

[heybrad]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
No, according to the Scriptures, which makes it clear on what is right and wrong

Thats a pretty bold statement.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Qualifier: I am not trying to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I am mistating your position.

Skydog, would it follow then that any act defined as "sinful" in the Scriptures is therefore a barrier to marriage? In other words, that willful accumulation of wealth, gluttony, etc., would ellicit disqualification?

No. Absolutely not. I'd marry anyone who expressed a desire to submit to the authority of Scriptures to the best of their abilities. What I am saying is that I wouldn't marry anyone who flat-out states that they plan to continue a lifestyle defined by a particular transgression of God's Law.

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Any (hetero) couple can get married (aside from relatives, underaged, already married, etc)

Originally posted by ISiddiqui There are civil ceremonies for atheists and those that do not wished to be married in a church.[/b]

Than what is the discussion about?

I mean, if your job is to marry people for the law (not for the Chruch), then your religion should be totally ignored. Don't like two men getting married? Find another job.

I don't understand why a man-and-woman can marry and a woman-and-woman can't, entirely based on the fact that one of the two has the wrong gender.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by digamma
I'm not sure this is a "natural next step."

I have a very strong suspicion that the push for this will begin shortly after gay marriages are legalized. I hope I'm wrong.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
Than what is the discussion about?

I mean, if your job is to marry people for the law (not for the Chruch), then your religion should be totally ignored. Don't like two men getting married? Find another job.

I don't understand why a man-and-woman can marry and a woman-and-woman can't, entirely based on the fact that one of the two has the wrong gender.

If you don't put your faith in the principles of the Scriptures or don't have any principles that you live by (besides what you make up as you go along), then it really would not matter and can be much debate.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
Than what is the discussion about?

I mean, if your job is to marry people for the law (not for the Chruch), then your religion should be totally ignored. Don't like two men getting married? Find another job.

My point of discussion has nothing to do with marrying people for the law, but those of us licensed to marry people on behalf of the Church. I hope you hear this clearly.

[albionmoonlight]

MIJB--

SkyDog, and others, want the freedom to be a minister and to perform legally binding marriages without the government forcing them to accept beliefs that go againt their religion. Our constituion protects those rights as "the free exercise of religion."

Just as it was no answer to the people in Texas to say "if you want to perform sodomy, go to another state," it is no answer to a minister to say "if you do not want to endorse this type of marriage, find another job."

In both instances, the constitution gives the person the right to perform their act right there, right then--even if 99.99% of the population does not agree with it. That's personal liberty over the "tyrrany of the majority" and it almost still brings a tear to my eye.

[Anrhydeddu]

hey brad

Only in those areas the Scriptures makes it clear (like saying something is a sin or something that glorifies God). Things like driving a SUV is sinful does not fall into this. Too many churches and religions fall into the trap of legalism which goes beyond the simple teachings of the Gospel.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I have a very strong suspicion that the push for this will begin shortly after gay marriages are legalized. I hope I'm wrong.

Skydog, if this did happen, I would be strongly opposed to it.

Everyone talks about keeping the church out of the state, but we also need to be on guard to keep the state out of the church.

Hope that makes sense.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
MIJB--

SkyDog, and others, want the freedom to be a minister and to perform legally binding marriages without the government forcing them to accept beliefs that go againt their religion. Our constituion protects those rights as "the free exercise of religion."

Just as it was no answer to the people in Texas to say "if you want to perform sodomy, go to another state," it is no answer to a minister to say "if you do not want to endorse this type of marriage, find another job."

In both instances, the constitution gives the person the right to perform their act right there, right then--even if 99.99% of the population does not agree with it. That's personal liberty over the "tyrrany of the majority" and it almost still brings a tear to my eye.

Well said but there still have to be restrictions to personal liberty, otherwise there would be no laws. It is a fine line.

[heybrad]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
hey brad

Only in those areas the Scriptures makes it clear (like saying something is a sin or something that glorifies God). Things like driving a SUV is sinful does not fall into this. Too many churches and religions fall into the trap of legalism which goes beyond the simple teachings of the Gospel.

I guess you could say there is some clear cut things, but you pointed out the trap yourself. Most churches go way beyond the obvious but if you were to ask them, they wouldnt feel that way.

[Silver Owl]

Originally posted by mrsimperless
Sachmo is exactly right on this point. You have to be a member of the Catholic church (and provide proof of this fact, among other things) for them to marry you. I don't see the government forcing anyone to marry anyone. As was previously stated, they can always just go to a justice of the peace.

Not true, I am not Catholic and was married in a Catholic church.

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by SkyDog
My point of discussion has nothing to do with marrying people for the law, but those of us licensed to marry people on behalf of the Church. I hope you hear this clearly.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up to me.

I completly agree with you if your job is to marry and you don't want to marry couples for the Church.
If the couple is not willing to live by the rules they say they believe is the only true way to live by, then why do they want to join a group they truly do not want to join?

All,
I think I wasn't clear enough in my original question.
Now I have the perception that in the USA you have to choose:
- religious marriage
- non-religious marriage

That sounds different as what "we" have in the small and overpopulated Netherlands, as we have only one choices:
- marriage for the law
- marriage for the law and a seperate ceremony for the religious group

[albionmoonlight]

A--

I agree. I am certainly left of center, but I do not fall into the camp of far leftists that believe that the right to scratch my ass is a fundamental right under the constitution. There is a line to be drawn for sure--and it is a pretty fine one.

[Frozenrope]

I just don't believe gays should be able to get married... What do you all think?????

Gays should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it's consentual and not hurting anyone. Two men or two women expressing life long love and commitment is perfectly acceptable to me, and should be acknowledged by some diocees. I think that churches have the right to refuse to marry couples if that's their feeling, but I don't think it should be banned.

I feel the same way about bi-racial, bi-sexual, bi-lingual and bi-bi Miss American Pie or any other consenting adults. Adults should be allowed to love whomever they choose without having to catch crap from the rest of us.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Silver Owl
Not true, I am not Catholic and was married in a Catholic church.

I think he meant that one of the pair has to be a Catholic.

[Anrhydeddu]

By the way, most evangelical churches (which is different than the fundamental churches) do not have a problem with gays marrying. As I pointed out before, it is not the act of being gay but in engaging in homosexual acts that the Scriptures calls a great sin. In the debates on whether to allow gays to marry in a denomination-sanction ceremony, the evangelicals proposed that it must come with a vow of chastity. This truly separates the couple (which it can support) from the act (which it cannot support). But I do wonder how realistic that is?

[Frozenrope]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
In the debates on whether to allow gays to marry in a denomination-sanction ceremony, the evangelicals proposed that it must come with a vow of chastity. This truly separates the couple (which it can support) from the act (which it cannot support). But I do wonder how realistic that is?

Allowing two people to get married but not allowing them to get busy.... don't think it's very realistic.

[ISiddiqui]

I think I wasn't clear enough in my original question.
Now I have the perception that in the USA you have to choose:
- religious marriage
- non-religious marriage

That sounds different as what "we" have in the small and overpopulated Netherlands, as we have only one choices:
- marriage for the law
- marriage for the law and a seperate ceremony for the religious group

Um... it's basically the same thing, only you've just changed the words around . However, the church marriage is ALSO a marriage for law.

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by Frozenrope
Allowing two people to get married but not allowing them to get busy.... don't think it's very realistic.

As if two people can't love eachother so much that they do not want to do things with eachother.

[ISiddiqui]

As if two people can't love eachother so much that they do not want to do things with eachother.

But you have to admit having two people get married and believing they won't have sex is just silly.

[MIJB#19]

Um... it's basically the same thing, only you've just changed the words around . However, the church marriage is ALSO a marriage for law.

I think it's far from the same.

In the Netherlands you get married in the morning for law.
(Truly) religous people go to their Church/Mosque/whatever in the afternoon and have additional ceremonies there to marry again, though this time in the name of The Lord/Allah/whomever.

If I understand correctly now, SkyDog (and others) do(es) the two seperate things in one.

Here I can see SkyDog's concern to see religous marriages turn into theatre marriage only to make the scene cooler, make the attandance report look better and have a better dressed person with possibly more experience in enthausiastic speaching.
From other replies, I get the feeling it's already a common way of marrying, though with the extra aspect of having two women in white, the scene getting even cooler.

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
But you have to admit having two people get married and believing they won't have sex is just silly.

Well, duh.
Mind the ...

[ISiddiqui]

If I understand correctly now, SkyDog (and others) do(es) the two seperate things in one.

Yes.

Here I can see SkyDog's concern to see religous marriages turn into theatre marriage only to make the scene cooler, make the attandance report look better and have a better dressed person with possibly more experience in enthausiastic speaching.

Why? I can't see it at all. After all, no one has to get married in the religious setting. They can go down to City Hall and get a marriage just as legal. So I don't see a concern with making religious marriage a 'theatre marriage', because it basically already is (since it is extra stuff you don't HAVE to do).

[Easy Mac]

The government can't and won't force a church to marry 2 people they do not want to marry. tell me 1 thing the government makes churches do that goes completely against their beliefs (along the lines of forcing a church to marry 2 people). The government doesn't force you to include particular members. It doesn't force the Catholic church to offer everyone the eucharist.

I get the feeling people using this argument are actually trying to find an easy way to veil their fear of homosexuals, and it is a very weak argument being presented.

And I'd argue well over half of Americans who get married in churches don't do so out of their love for religion, but do so because of the show it involves (the grand church, looks good for the family...)

[Blackadar]

Shit, I got married by a Justice of the Peace in a Hotel. My wife and I are vastly different religions and so we decided to do it on neutral ground by a neutral party.

The government can't and won't require Churches to marry anyone they don't want. It flies in the face of over 200 years of US law and hundreds of years before that of English Common Law. Not to mention it's entirely against the 1st Ammendment. That's just fear tactics used to scare people into making a knee-jerk reaction to this issue. Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted that some folks have even brought it up or are arguing it. Unless you receive federal funds, there's not a damn thing the government can do to you. If you're holding your hand out for money, I (as a voting citizen) have a right to start to impose rules on your group. If you don't want the rules, don't take the money.

As for gay marriages, I have no problem with that. One of the common "slams" against gays is that they're all promiscuous. Well, allowing them to get married and form a legal union takes away a lot of that bias. Then, if they want to share property, get loans together, get joint health benefits, etc. - they have to be legally joined. And go through the same pain of divorce that any normal married couple has to go through to separate. The door swings both ways.

[ISiddiqui]

One of the common "slams" against gays is that they're all promiscuous.

I always thought that was funny, since straights seem to be fairly promiscuous as well .

[JPhillips]

This argument about marriage is why I favor civil unions. They would have all of the same legal standings, but wouldn't be a marriage as defined by religions. Any couple would be free to enter a civil union if they did not want to go through a religious marriage ceremony. This mmakes civil unions and marriage seperate and allows straights to enter into civil unions if they choose to forgo the teachings of religions.

I realy hope that the Constitution will not be soiled by a bigoted amendment. The Constitution should not be used as an exclusionary document.

[sabotai]

" This argument about marriage is why I favor civil unions. They would have all of the same legal standings, but wouldn't be a marriage as defined by religions. "

...Not all religions beleive that it is wrong to be homosexual.

[JPhillips]

Sabotai: True, but enough do that it would solve some problems. Churches would of course still be free to marry whomever they choose, but te civil union would be issued from the state and not connected to any religion. While I don't think a minister is ever going to be forced to marry anyone by the state, I do think there will be a bunch of lawsuits and fighting re gay marriage. This is a way to get past some of that. Of course some will still see it as a portend of the end times, but those people will never be happy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I can't see it at all. After all, no one has to get married in the religious setting. They can go down to City Hall and get a marriage just as legal.

Of course you're 100% right. However, I just think I can see this lawsuit coming from a mile away.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Of course you're 100% right. However, I just think I can see this lawsuit coming from a mile away.

On what grounds? Sorry to disagree SkyDog, but this is ludicrious. There's no basis at all for the suit. None. Chucked out of court in a heartbeat.

It's just a scare tactic to deflect attention away from the real discussion.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Blackadar
There's no basis at all for the suit. None. Chucked out of court in a heartbeat.

Well, that's what I think too. However, I don't have the confidence in the government that you do.

[ISiddiqui]

However, I just think I can see this lawsuit coming from a mile away.

As a law student, I don't see it. Not a chance in Hell. Firstly, there is no standing by anyone who doesn't agree with churches being able to perform legal marriages.

It's just a scare tactic to deflect attention away from the real discussion.

I agree.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by A-Husker-4-Life
I just don't believe gays should be able to get married... What do you all think?????

Why not?

It is just a legal contract. Adults should be able to enter into marriage contracts with anyone that they want to, and the government should recognize that contract. Besides, married people are taxed higher than single people, so the government stands to increase their revenue by getting off the religious soapbox.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Why is a faith-based ceremony considered a legal contract in our system???

Seriously, I've ALWAYS wondered this.

(Side note: Also, ever gone to ANY "Christian" wedding (no matter what denomination)??? Listen to the words said in the ceremony. I always leave wondering how in the world ANYONE who isn't serious about Jesus Christ can go through that ceremony and enter into that covenant with any integrity whatsoever.)

Before I get the wrong idea here, can you elaborate on what you mean? Are you saying that people get married in ceremonies that mention Jesus Christ but are not "serious" about him? What do you mean by "serious about Jesus Christ" exactly?

The wedding ceremony in the church is not the marriage. It is a ceremony surrounding the marriage. You sign the paperwork that gets you married. I was not married in that kind of setting, but my best friend was and as Best Man I had to make sure those things were taken care of. The ceremony did not get them married. The paperwork signed in the back before it ever started was what got them married.

You can be just as married as anyone else without any mention of prophets, deities, or religious references at all.