First California gay couples wed
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, January 11, 2025 17:44
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 6 of 9
Thanks for the Amen Rue.
,
Back to the debate at hand...
I went straight to bed after making my post with something niggling at the back of my mind. A little research this morning confirmed the niggle.
Being faintly offended by the suggestion that my my marriage wasn’t one because it was a civil ceremony my mind was on that rather than the specific ins and outs of same sex unions.
Much as it irritates me to add grist to Wulfenstars mill, (though it’s UK grist rather than US grist, so maybe it doesn’t count in this argument) a civil partnership (which is all that is available to same sex couples in the UK) is not considered to be a marriage.
From the Citizens Advice Bureau Website (A free form of legal advice available to all in the UK)
Quote:
"Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.
There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example,
• a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words.
• Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure."
It seems that despite my union with my husband being completely godless I am married, yet two people of the same sex are not regardless of having the same rights and obligations from the union.
Simply because I got to say my vows.
I think this is completely bonkers. If I'm married then as far as I am concerned they are.
Wulfenstar might argue that I’m not married because of the lack of religion in my ceremony, however the Church of England would not agree. They recognise civil marriage ceremonies. If I was to divorce and wanted to remarry in church (perish the thought) the Church of England reserves the right to refuse my request as have already been married. It seems I am a little bit godly and righteous even though I didn’t want to be. If it wasn’t for my personal commitment to my marriage and the fact that the idea gives me the heebie jeebies I’d make a lifestyle choice and go shag the first girl who’d have me just out of sheer contrariness (to be clear I don’t give a hoot who anyone else wants to bed as long as they are consenting adults, I just… no, not for me).
If the church wants to reserve the word Marraige for religious unions only then fine, once they have convinced everyone to go along with this I want another word to define my legal and personally binding relationship with my husband.
I did a little reading about the situation in California and as I understand it this right to a same sex marriage may be repealed. I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.
Care to guess which side I'm rooting for?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, what's the count on the number of times that Wulfenstar has been asked to back up the "marriage is soley a religious institution" point, and refused to provide anyting but a "because I said so"?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, to contradict the suggestion that a marraige ceremony is purely a religious thing...
Quote:
MARRIAGE
To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.
These marriage vows have been recited at church weddings since 1552, whenever two individuals have willingly pledged to enter into a relationship for life. But before the wedding service was written into the Book of Common Prayer, marriages were much more informal: couples could simply promise themselves to one another at any time or place and the spoken word was as good as the written contract.
No religion involved, a civil matter.
Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20020321.shtml
Wiki says the same thing but I thought everyone might be more inclined to believe the BBC.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, joining the discussion:
To start, let me make it clear. I'm a Christian (I won't say which denomination because I don't want to spark a 'you're not Christian' argument, since there are some people out there who believe that the members of the faith to which I belong AREN'T Christians despite the fact that we believe in Christ), and, although I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and that God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman, I also believe that it is not my place to judge a person's choices. Every person who has ever lived on this planet has been given the gift of freedom of choice, and that includes the people on the California Supreme Court. Although my religious beliefs may tell me that the choice those judges have made is wrong morally, they nevertheless have the right to make the choice and judgment they have, as do the people who are taking advantage of the benefits given to them by that decision.
At any rate, for me this issue isn't about whether or not the word 'marriage' is attached to what's happening in California and has already happened in the home state of the new NBA champions (I'm not gonna even attempt to spell it, and can't look it up right now); it's about equality. I think it's a positive thing that at least some people are recognizing that we need to have equal treatment for everyone, even if they are engaging in conduct which could be considered immoral (which is all that can be said about the practice of homosexuality). Since the term 'marriage' has become irreversably connected with certain legal and social rights, that is the term that the Supreme Court in California is using to ensure that a certain portion of the population of this planet receive said rights.
Check out the continuing adventures of the Big Damn Heroes of Joss Whedon's Firefly in [url= http://www.stillflying.net]Virtual Firefly: Here's How It Might Have Been[/url]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the other hand, maybe we should just coddle the zealots for another generation or two.
It's no different, really, than waiting for bigots to die off.
--WhoDied
_______________________
Okay. Blah, blah, blah, misogynistic. Blah, blah, 'I do however entrust you ... um, with my heart. Take care of my heart, won't you please? Take care of it because, it's all that I have. And, if you let me, I'll take care of your heart too.'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....
Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!
Grow up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....
Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!
Grow up.
Ha Ha! Funniest thing all day! Nice marriage of the unrelated and off topic...
--WhoDied
_______________________
The walls separating realities will crumble. Dimensions will bleed into each other. Order will be overthrown and the universe will tumble into chaos ... all dark ... forever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh sweet irony.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....
Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!
Grow up.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....
Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!
Grow up.
Uh... you realize you are the one saying what some people should and should not be able to do. We're all saying equal rights for everyone, you are the one being exclusionary based on what YOU want.
So, take your own advice, and grow up.
(Appologies to Citizen - but I think your irony comment might have flown right over, under the circumstances.)
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DigificWriter wrote:
Quote:
I also believe that it is not my place to judge a person's choices.
And I have to respect you for that even if I don't agree with your religious standpoint on homosexuality. I agree that personal ethics should be between the individual and God or in my case my own conscience as long as they do not negatively effect anyone else.
Someone at this point is bound to argue that same sex marriage negatively affects others but I don't see how.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME