First California gay couples wed
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, January 11, 2025 17:44
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 8 of 9
I haven't looked at too many posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been discussed already, but:
Quote:As far as I know, what Wulfenstar said isn't the way it is, but in my opinion, it's the way it should be. The only type of "marriage" sanctioned by the state should be a civil union, which can hold between any two people of whatever religion or gender or whatever (as long as they're old enough, obviously). If these two people want their union to be approved by the church as well, they can then get married in a church, but in the eyes of the state, the only thing that counts is the civil union between the two.
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.
This way, the whole stupid and pointless gay marriage non-issue gets transported out of the political sphere and the pressure to allow gay marriage is placed on the church, which is where it should be.
------------------------------
This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I haven't looked at too many posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been discussed already, but:Quote:As far as I know, what Wulfenstar said isn't the way it is, but in my opinion, it's the way it should be. The only type of "marriage" sanctioned by the state should be a civil union, which can hold between any two people of whatever religion or gender or whatever (as long as they're old enough, obviously). If these two people want their union to be approved by the church as well, they can then get married in a church, but in the eyes of the state, the only thing that counts is the civil union between the two.
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.
This way, the whole stupid and pointless gay marriage non-issue gets transported out of the political sphere and the pressure to allow gay marriage is placed on the church, which is where it should be.
------------------------------
This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.
Thank you. This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one. While "civil union" is not.
Again, im not against gays having a "civil union"...but I am against them having it be called a marriage. As, I believe, marriage is a church sanctioned affair.
It not an "equal rights" issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfenstar...answer how you prevent a gay couple from being married if they find a church that will marry them?
You're just saying that you and your church wont recognize it as such?
there's no problem at all there, really, and they don't have to care a hoot what you recognize either, that's mutual freedom of religion,
so long as, as you seem to be saying, it is not a state officiated term.
you have a terminology issue with that because it seems to have a meaning beyond what the law can provide...I don't really care what its called, but as soon as the state uses the word it has to be allowed to be applied to gay and straight couples alike as a matter of equality.
still not sure how this logic is going to prevent gay marriages though, it just seems like a complicated addition where you get married and apply for a civil-union lisense I guess.
Under this logic, gays will do the same. NO problem there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except it isn't. And even if it was, all they'd have to do is start the "non-denominational church of gay-marriage".
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one.
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 citizen:Quote:Except it isn't. And even if it was, all they'd have to do is start the "non-denominational church of gay-marriage".
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one.
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.
No shit. All this guy is doing is keep coming back with the same tired BS. Hey, Wulfenstar, just because you say it does NOT make it true. And most of the folks here won't believe you no matter how many times you say it. For that to happen you actually have to do thi sthing called bring up evidence, etc. Otherwise you got no chance.
But, then again, your response to this seems to have been a new thread with another nonsensical "argument" ( http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=34009). Seriously, if you've got nothing to add, then don't post.
----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfenstar wrote:
Quote:
The term "marriage" is a religious one. While "civil union" is not.
From "The Scottish Case That Led to Hardwicke's Marriage Act" by LEAH LENEMAN http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html
Quote:
First, a quick review of the marriage law of England and Scotland at the time (1753) sets the case in context. The only thing necessary for a legal marriage was the free consent of both parties, as long as they were of age (twelve for girls, fourteen for boys), were not within the forbidden degrees of kinship, and were free of any other marriage. Neither the consent of parents nor the presence of witnesses were required. A marriage could be established by verbal de praesenti, that is, the statement of consent by both parties, or by verba de futuro, a promise of marriage in the future, followed by sexual intercourse. Because such things happened in private, various types of evidence came to be accepted in disputed marriage cases, such as letters in which the man wrote, or referred, to the woman as his wife, "habit and repute" (that is, the couple cohabited and were considered by their neighbors and relations to be husband and wife), and so forth.
A marriage ceremony could be conducted in front of a priest but was not considered in anyway superior to the private kind. Marraiges moved exclusively into church as a practical matter to ensure that marriages were properly recorded to avoid disputes over inheritance and legitimacy. Regardless of which way you did it you were married and had therefore undergone a marriage.
At least that is what my research tells me. If anyone has anything to contradict this I would be genuinely interested.
Anyway, this seems to support the idea that marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one. Our understanding of what constitutes a marriage has already changed a lot over history, I can't see why it can't change again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PonyXpressInc:
Anyway, this seems to support the idea that marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one. Our understanding of what constitutes a marriage has already changed a lot over history, I can't see why it can't change again.
To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.
----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki wrote:
Quote:
To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.
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
That's absolutely beautiful
----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME