Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?

[Kaitlyn]

My proposal would, state out of marriage and religion outta the state. Someone wants to get "married" go to church, but the tax-exemptions would only be available with a civil union. "Marriage" would be a strictly religious state, a sacrament.

I agree, but only 90%.  I don't think the state should be certifying ANY kind of union or offering any benefit because of it.  That'd just start the whole problem over again.

[tekla]

So marriage ought to be treated the same as membership in the Elks, Moose or Odd Fellows.

[Kaitlyn]

Then marriage, the religious institution of it, should be stripped of all legal benefits.  Everyone or no one.  This is the way of balance. 

Exactly.  Anything else and you need to justify unequal treatment.

[Suzy]

The beauty is the State wouldn't "control" the clergy. The clergy, like the rest of the citizens would have to control themselves. All they'd have to do is if they're authorized to conduct civil unions for anyone, they'd have to conduct them for anyone, at all. As long of the people met the state requirements.   They could always refuse to allow a gay, a wiccan or even a marriage anong their own flock if they wanted to.

It wouldn't be a matter of "forcing" anyone. Instead, merely granting them the right to do as they saw fit. If they couldn't "in good conscience" wed two men -- then don't apply to an ability to wed people. Fairly simple and would maintain, actually separate for good this church/state thing....
They could preform whatever they wished or not within the precincts of their temples or churches.

Well I understand where you are coming from.  But you need to understand that in America it has always been the view that the church (or any other religion for that matter) has never derived its powers and rights from the state.  Since in Christian and Jewish theology, marriage is not seen as primarily a civil union, but a spiritual covenant, your proposal, in essence, would be dictating a change in doctrine.  The state recognizes this, and has since the founding of the country.  In some states clergy are required to register and show proof of ordination.  But nowhere is there a theological examination by the state to decide who is in the union.  Such would be extremely unconstitutional.

Further, this is not seen as some kind of right or privilege granted by the state.  It is a recognition of a reality.  Your proposal would be removing the rights of a group of people because of their particular beliefs.  I would be against it for the very same reason I was against "Proposition 8."  When someone's beliefs differ from ours, the best way to deal with it is never to begin whittling down their rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Kris, but isn't there some bit in the Bible about "giving the state what's the state's and the diety what's the deity's?"

I really didn't want to get into throwing verses around, but I think you are referring to Luke 20:25 which reads, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." 

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning:  Try as you might, you will never convince the church or the synagogue that marriage belongs to Caesar (i.e., the government.)  The very same verse would probably be used against your opinion, rather than for it.

FWIW, the church has always recognized the validity of marriage not performed within its bounds.  Nothing will change that.  The simplest solution is, again, to use whatever legislative will there might be out there to change society as you wish.  There are some things the church may or may not ever accept, and even that will vary within the spectrum of Christendom.  If you are not part of it, what do you care?  But you will certainly run into many legal problems if you try to take rights or beliefs away from the church or synagogue, or set doctrinal standards for its clergy.  The status of marriage and the recognition of marriage as a religious ritual is certainly one of those areas.  It is a deeply and sincerely held belief for far too many people.  Your proposal would no doubt be welcomed by many people here.   It would just be highly unconstitutional.

Kristi

[Hazumu]

I know I get flamed every time I say this, but I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, even if it is nothing at all.  So long as no violence is done to another person, I do not think we should try to silence one another.  America was founded on this principle, and if we want it, we have to allow it for those we do not agree with.  There is no other option.  Else, we leave it up to the state to decide what we can believe and what we can say.  That idea makes me incredibly nervous.

Every law on every level is based on a moral judgment.  Like it or not, these things are based upon our own moral framework, including our religious perspective.  It is impossible not to legislate morality.  Those who claim to be doing so are ludicrous.  It is just time we come clean about this, and pick those whose moral framework matches best with what we hope to accomplish in society.

Kristi, may I stand with you on this?  "Live and let live" just seems so obvious -- why are there those who don't/can't/won't get it?

You are also right about there always being a morality.  Even atheists have a morality, and there are many moral people who are also atheists.

But those who believe in social fundamentalism see only THE morality, which must be defended at all costs -- any other morality is immoral and must be destroyed at all costs.

Karen

P.S.,  Maybe we as society will have to destroy marriage in order to save it...

p.p.s,  Kristi, I thought it should be "Render unto Caesar if line 56 is greater than line 64"...

[Purple Pimp]

Unfortunately, no.

Lia

[glendagladwitch]

SNIP
I never made any claim as to Rolexes or private jets.  All I said was this is not a theocracy and we should not be rewriting the Constitution or creating new laws based solely on one groups religious beliefs.  We shouldn't outlaw eating beef because the Hindu religion views them as sacred.  Women shouldn't need to be covered from head to toe because Muslim religion demands it.  I used Christians as the example because it was handy, but I'm not going to be forbidden to eat anything because one group's religious texts say no.  I'm not going to dress according to one group's dress code simply because their texts say it's how I should dress.  So no, I'm not going to chalk it up to free speech when one group wants the right to determine who I can or cannot marry and IF I can have the same rights as everyone else.  That's not free speech.  You're free to say whatever beliefs you have until you push those beliefs into legislation that impacts my life.  That's going too far.  I don't agree with a lot of people floating around this world, but I'll be the first one to defend their right to say it.

I've struggled this issue for years, and so have the courts.  How can it be practicable to strike down a law simply on the basis that it accords with religious views?  Couldn't a murderer avoid justice by pointing out that the law against murder promotes religion, with the smoking gun being that it is one of the ten commandments not to kill? 

The courts have been using the Lemon Test for a long time, but it is crumbling and will likely be replaced before long.  What should the new test be?

Under the Lemon Test, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test ) there are three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The secular legislative purpose prong is easy to pass.  For example, one could say that it is OK to make marriage only between one man and one woman because  the benefits of marriage are designed to promote effective childrearing, and the state can reasonably assume that a man and woman can have a child, while gay couples cannot.  And it's a whole "best interests of the child" argument about promoting biological parenting over alternatives.  As another example, one could say that anal intercourse between consenting adults is against the law because it has a higher liklihood of spreading disease, like HIV.

The third prong is usually also easy to pass.  It typically only comes up in the sense that the government would have to monitor how its funds are spent very closely to ensure that the money is not used to promote religion.

It is the second prong where things get interesting, but also very fuzzy.  It is very judge dependent on how that one comes out.

[glendagladwitch]

Wall of Text

I've struggled this issue for years, and so have the courts.  How can it be practicable to strike down a law simply on the basis that it accords with religious views?  Couldn't a murderer avoid justice by pointing out that the law against murder promotes religion, with the smoking gun being that it is one of the ten commandments not to kill? 

The courts have been using the Lemon Test for a long time, but it is crumbling and will likely be replaced before long.  What should the new test be?

Under the Lemon Test, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test ) there are three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The secular legislative purpose prong is easy to pass.  For example, one could say that it is OK to make marriage only between one man and one woman because  the benefits of marriage are designed to promote effective childrearing, and the state can reasonably assume that a man and woman can have a child, while gay couples cannot.  And it's a whole "best interests of the child" argument about promoting biological parenting over alternatives.  As another example, one could say that anal intercourse between consenting adults is against the law because it has a higher liklihood of spreading disease, like HIV.

The third prong is usually also easy to pass.  It typically only comes up in the sense that the government would have to monitor how its funds are spent very closely to ensure that the money is not used to promote religion.

It is the second prong where things get interesting, but also very fuzzy.  It is very judge dependent on how that one comes out.

For me, the test becomes "Is religion the only way this idea becomes valid?"  We'll take murder, as you said.  yes, religion says you shouldn't murder.  However, the act of murder, aside from religion, infringes on the rights of another person.  Therefore, I take no issue with laws against murder.  Religion says you can't steal.  Stealing infringes on the rights of another person.  Therefore, I take no issue with laws against stealing.  Religion says homosexuals cannot marry.  But wait.  Where is the infringement of rights?  If the parties are of consenting age, and are agreed on the act of marriage, then I fail to see why this should be made a law.  And until the day someone comes to me and says "This is why I feel they should not be allowed to marry, and it has NOTHING to do with any religious text, Bible or otherwise.", I will stand by my previous postings.  IF such an argument can be made, while I most likely will still disagree, I will be open minded to hear out the argument, weight its worth, and be open to the possibility of changing my mind.  And I say that because I truthfully do not believe such an argument exists and the only infringement of rights comes from those that would propose the legislation, not those that would marry.

Well, playing devil's advocate, the courts have long ago stated that marriage is not a religious institution.  In the U.S., it is a legal status that allows property to be passed on death without inheritance taxes coming into play, and that allows the couple to take advantage of one of the biggest tax benefits around (if the woman stays home and the man works).  The working person in that couple gets to go down several tax brackets and avoid paying lots of income taxes.

If anyone were permitted to marry, then rich guys could avoid taxes by marrying someone.  Of course, that can still happen if he marries a woman.  But the job of administering who can get married and who cannot is too burdensome.  The state can't afford to do fertility tests on everyone to prevent women who can't bear children from marrying.  A bright line rule that is easy to follow is best.

The assumption is that a man and woman can have children.  Preventiong same sex couples from marrying primarily prevents abuse of the tax and inheritance scheme for a non-intended purpose.  Thus, marriage should be between one man and one woman only.

So there is an argument for you to pick apart.  Go.

[soldierjane]

If only it were that simple.  Some see marriage as a civil institution.  Others see it as a religious one, subsequently endorsed by the state. 

I think this goes beyond a matter of who "sees" it which way. Marriage is a codified civil contract and is called marriage in the books, not anything else. I'm sorry but if the religious right wants to appropriate the word and all the semantics that come with it, that's just a hostile takeover that has no rights whatsoever and should be met with equal determination.

[glendagladwitch]

@ Emme:

Yes, this argument is based on the view that marriage's only purpose is for both the bearing and raising of children.

Single people can adopt too.  Should they be able to marry themsleves?

And as for the thing about fertility testing women, I should have said testing all women and men to see if they are capable of creating young to feed the nation's ongoing need for wage slaves and soldiers.

[NicholeW.]

O, Kris, your historical argument is absolutely spot-on with the history of this country. Pretty much every colony was established on a religious basis: Puritan (Massachusetts, Connecticutt, Rhode Island), Leveller (Plymouth), Anglican with Royal Authority(New York, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia), Catholic (Maryland, but for less than a complete generation and then the Catholics were persecuted there as well!), Calvinist (New Jersey through Swedish and Dutch settlement) and Quaker (Pennsylvania.)

Personally, I'd actually like to see American xtians experience a bit of persecution from someone other than themselves (which they have most gladly done throughout the histories of both the colonies and the states united.) That notion is not likely to receive any popular acclaim though and I have to admit it's a strictly atavistic dislike of xtianity in toto that  leaves me with that feeling. Individual xtians such as yourself and Karen bother me not in the least -- xtian denominations seem to me to be nothing other than politico-economic corporations that need to be taxed and held in check as much as possible just like their openly economic counterparts. Each is about exactly as trust-worthy as the other.

So, the very radical perspective that if one is religious that is all well. Be so. But leave your ideas about how everyone else HAS to live their lives at your door-step and there will be NO law that abridges my right to live my life as I choose when it comes to matters that have absolutely no rational bearing on how you live yours or on the establishment of social peace and conviviality. 

The rest of the "nunace" is simply xtians being required to no longer be the "definers" of the civic morality. Religious morality and civic morality can co-exist. It's normally the xtian side, for reasons of 1600 years of being "state-religions," that consistently gets in the way of that. We have this insane notion that belief in a god who recommended the slaughter of children and all living inhabitants of places where "he" wasn't worshipped as the standard of "morality."

No thanks, I prefer my blood-sacrifices to be willing to be sacrificed if they must exist. Xtians long ago abdicated any right or moral-force to be the "gold standard" of morality.

However, that one niggly generation of the Enlightenment after which (although we claim a lot of respect for them) the lights went out again in USA due to the "religious fervor" of the populace that was led about by their clergy (justifying and damning slavery, women's rights, and convinced that Winthrop's "City On A Hill" was the definite fact about USA coupled with a consistent Calvinist ethic of "the elect" being those who had monetary success and "the damned" those who didn't (our social provisions for charity, etc have always been problematic (for how the heck can you be "elect" and help those horrid "damned" to be as well-off as thee? You should not help those God has obviously turned his back on) has been in ascendance for close to two-hundred years. *sigh*

There have been more laws limiting the movements and settlement rights of "the poor" in this country than there ever were laws enabling "kind souls" to help them. Sorry, xtian "charity" here has almost no history at all.

I don't find it amiss to restrict religious participation in government to allowing individiual worshippers to vote. If ministers wanna be political powers then their churches need to be registered as political parties and their incomes levied as incomes rather than some vague and basically meaningless sop to "establishment." The current legal framework appears to actually encourage the rights of "churches" to be political entities.

That Americans have this notion about what separation "means" that is totally off-base with what Madison thought about it surprises me none at all. Like I said, the lights went out here long ago and have never managed to come back on. Our "best" generation died with almost no intellectual progeny as it was overwhelmed by the backwoods tent-revivals and the growth of know-nothing religious fervor: witness Southern Baptist, Church of God and Church of Christ and their even more jerk-knee hivings-off.


Add to that the top-down Catholicism inherent in the viewpoints of waves of Italian, Irish, Latino and German immigrants and you've a pure recipe for a "state-religious" enterprise that has never been curbed at all. It simply goes on and on and is adjudged by most to be "the way it has to be."   
Nichole

[Suzy]

soldierjane,
I would simply remind you that the church was performing marriages for almost 2,000 years before our government came into being.  The Jews have been at it for a good 3,000 more at least.  Given that fact, just who is appropriating and who is doing the "hostile takeover"?  The church does not owe its existence to the state and never will.  Are you aware that many congregations here in America predate the founding of the nation?  While I am not in favor of any kind of theocracy, you simply must allow for the fact that the government of the USA did not ever "give" rights to the church.  The constitution is is quite clear in its recognition of this pre-existing power.  As such it does much to preserve its powers without endorsing it.

Nichole,
I agree that Christians have done a pretty good job in the USA of persecuting themselves.  However, do know that historically, when the church has truly been persecuted, it has seen the greatest growth.  Be careful what you ask for. 

I also have a problem with churches who have become political.  For instance, the African American churches has historically been one of the favorite stops for candidates.  I am not trying to sound prejudiced when I say this.  I have always thought it wrong.

I also agree that I would prefer a blood sacrifice who was willingly sacrificed.  If you'd like, sometime I will tell you about one.

Now, would you really like the influence of the church taken from American society?  I would never attempt to justify all of the history and would agree that mistakes have been made.  There are, however, some things you do seem to enjoy which are part of our Christian heritage, whether you know it or not.  Read about John Calvin and John Knox, the two great Christian reformers in Geneva and Scotland.  From them come the principles of religious freedom, representative democracy, and checks and balances.  In fact, when our new constitution was first displayed, one of the principle objections was that it was a "presbyterian"  form of government, meaning representative democracy.  Read about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran pastor who led the beginnings of the revolt against Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party.  Although he was killed for his work, much of his work survives, incuding the Barmen Declaration, which is one of the most incredible documents written supporting the separation of church and state.  Here is an exerpt:

"We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfil the vocation of the Church as well.

"We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State."

Guess where these teaching came from??  From scripture.  Why not read it yourself:  http://www.ucc.org/faith/barmen.htm

The freedom we are right this minute enjoying, to be freely discussing this matter, or even criticizing the government, is a direct result of the influence of the church.  Read the story of the Trail of Tears and see who stood the Choctaws.  Take away every Ivy League college (yes, they were all church founded) as well as Cal Berkley and many, many others.  Take away the vast majority of the hospitals in the world's greatest medical system, and let those who are treated by them just die. 

So let's see...do you want a nation without major universities, without most of its health care, without the intellectual freedom to criticize anything and everything?  If so, then by all means enjoy your world without the influence of the church.  I haven't even gotten to the scientists whose work affects each of our lives daily, who did their work precisely because of their Christian commitment.  But that is for another discussion.

Peace, all.

Kristi

[NicholeW.]

I also agree that I would prefer a blood sacrifice who was willingly sacrificed.  If you'd like, sometime I will tell you about one.

Thanks, no. I've done all the reading there I wish to do. Besides, that rendition is what people managed to write about at least forty years after any fact was gone. The gospels and the letters of Paul present povs, often of wildly differing povs.

... Read about John Calvin and John Knox, the two great Christian reformers in Geneva and Scotland.

Seriously? Yes, Calvin's Geneva and Knox's Scotland were hotbeds of tolerance and democracy. Take a look at the works, not just some high-blown writings done before the rubber met the road.

So let's see...do you want a nation without major universities, without most of its health care, without the intellectual freedom to criticize anything and everything?  If so, then by all means enjoy your world without the influence of the church.  I haven't even gotten to the scientists whose work affects each of our lives daily, who did their work precisely because of their Christian commitment.  But that is for another discussion.

That an institution that has existed in more or less it's current form since Ireneaus of Lyon and his fellow bishops took charge of it in the early 2nd century has off-spring that managed to work their ways far from the planted seed is hardly amazing. No one suggested that historic influence be somehow made to disappear. That is simply impossible. As impossible as it was for the churches themselves not to use the models of Roman and Greek authority as the guidelines for their dioceses and arch-dioceses etc.

Yet, Oxford doesn't have monks in-charge anymore than Paris does or Bologna.

But traditions grow and are changed and I am sure there were similar laments among the philosophers when Justinian destroyed the School at Athens. To see a structure fall and be replaced by something else is simply the way of human history. The churches are as subject to that as any other human institution.

In the past certainly persecution made for more survivors of true believers, except when it didn't: the firebrands who souhgt martyrdom were not the ones who shaped the future church. The political closed-mouths who hid out were. So, the fires of martyrdom simply burnt the martyrs while the political realists shaped the faithful who remained.   


Our Senate is based on someone's idea of the Rman Senate, but there's a good deal of gap between the two and there's no direct connection between them.

[Suzy]

Besides, that rendition is what people managed to write about at least forty years after any fact was gone. The gospels and the letters of Paul present povs, often of wildly differing povs.

On that, of course, we completely disagree.

Seriously?

Quite.

No one suggested that historic influence be somehow made to disappear. That is simply impossible.

On the contrary, that is precisely what seems to be suggested here (though likely not by you).  The working premise is that the church is a bad influence on society.  Let's just be honest about that.  Its influence should be eradicated if it is bad.

To see a structure fall and be replaced by something else is simply the way of human history. The churches are as subject to that as any other human institution. ... In the past certainly persecution made for more survivors of true believers, except when it didn't: the firebrands who souhgt martyrdom were not the ones who shaped the future church. The political closed-mouths who hid out were. So, the fires of martyrdom simply burnt the martyrs while the political realists shaped the faithful who remained.   

Not so with the church.  This is very easy to prove historically but it would take more space than I would care to take here.  I do, however, have some reference works you could see, should you really be interested.

Our Senate is based on someone's idea of the Rman Senate, but there's a good deal of gap between the two and there's no direct connection between them.

Again, this is not historically accurate.  Yes, I would agree that there are some similarities.  But there are many more very important differences.  You might be interested to do a little word study on the Hebrew word "zaqen" and the Greek word "presbuteros" (both often translated elder)to see that this concept far predates Roman civilization.  And if you study the writings of Calvin and Knox (which I have quite extensively) you will see that these were precisely the concepts upon which they were building, not Roman ones.   Then read about Francis Mackemie, who started work around 1700 in the colonies, beginning to preach for religious liberty and against what he called the "establishment principle."  It is to this work that we owe our current freedom.

I am not asking anyone to believe what they believed.  But why is it that we seem prone to try to rewrite history?  Even if you do not share the faith of the church, why not give it credit for the positive ways in which it has shaped society, rather than just pointing out flaws which exist in the fringe element?

Kristi

[lady amarant]

I would simply remind you that the church was performing marriages for almost 2,000 years before our government came into being.

Actually no.

Early Christians regarded marriage as a purely private affair between the two consenting individuals, based on declaration of their intention to marry and subsequent physical union. It was a verbal promise between the two, and neither a priest nor witnesses were required. The church only really became involved during the middle ages, where it's sole function was to  record marriages along with births, deaths, etc. (So really, they were simply fulfilling the role the state has since taken on)

Marriage as a "holy institution" only really got going as a result of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation each trying to upstage the other - The Roman Catholic church decreed at the Council of Trent that a marriage would only be recognised if officiated by a priest in the presence of two witnesses, basically to force people to stay within the Catholic faith.

So let's be honest here: Marriage, even only considered within the narrow confines of Christianity, is not some covenant before God, except insomuch as the two individuals make it so. It has always been a political and economic football, and for Christians to now turn around and say that the family and by extension all civilization itself is somehow threatened because marriage may once again become a civil contract, or be made a purely private matter, or because same-sex couples are given equal rights - well, that's BS, IMO.

Interestingly, though rare, same-sex marriages were legal in Rome until the emperor Constantius (Constantine's son) declared them illegal. So technically same-sex marriage pre-dates Christian marriage.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

~Simone.

[Suzy]

Actually no.

Actually yes!  Please check your sources.  It's no wonder that even Wikipedia disputes that information you cite.

You are, however, correct about Roman marriage (including same sex) predating Christian marriage.  It is a simple matter of looking at dates to figure out that the Roman Empire was here before Christ was even born.   So what?

Evidence exists from Tertullian (2nd century) and others that by his time Christian marriage had been a formal institution for some time.   This is not even to mention the witness of scripture.  In fact, I find it quite charming that Jesus' favorite social activity seems to have been a wedding.  Moreover, he performed his first miracle at a wedding.  But I digress.

So do you truly want to try to explain away thousands of years of history of weddings within Judaism?  Do you really want to try to explain away several thousand years of Jewish understanding of blood covenant (and its Christian counterpart)?  Good luck.  It is true that only the Catholic Church considers marriage a sacrament.  All others regard it highly but have never considered it a sacrament.  But to say that the reformation and counter-reformation were the first time the church was ever really involved in marriage is totally ludicrous.

While I do agree with you that families are in no way threatened by same sex marriage, it is so hard to understand why people will not try to come up with a good argument against Christian marriage, rather than trying to rewrite history. 

However, let's assume, for just a minute, that your information is totally factual (I know what a stretch that is).  You still would have the church in America predating the constitution by more than 200 years.  Whose claim is prior?

As far as the Council of Trent, church councils were generally called to respond to some new kind of heresy.  They were not perfect.  Look at the records.  You will find that they did not codify marriage there.  Instead, they reaffirmed what, to them, had been a very long standing tradition.  This is marriage with the classic elements we know even today:  a priest, witnesses, etc.  Are you aware that these are essentially the elements of blood covenant, as taught beginning in Genesis?  Do you see how old this tradition is, and how important it is even today in the the lives of those of a Judeo-Christian heritage?

FWIW, many countries have two separate rites, the civil and the government marriage.  This is probably a better system.  But for now, NO ONE has to get married in the church.  So why not just leave it alone, and tell them to do the same to you?

Kristi

[lady amarant]

only considered within the narrow confines of Christianity

Kristi hon,

I wasn't trying to attack marriage as an institution, and an ancient one at that, I was merely saying that, under Christianity, it is a fairly recent legally binding thingee - I suppose we can argue how recent. My point is that marriage was, for a long time, a private affair that did not involve contracts and such, and that that is why there is a valid argument for same-sex marriage - by MAKING it an institution, the involved parties are afforded a number of rights and privileges. Denying those rights to others is absolutely discriminatory, and makes it mandatory for a society that protects equality to either afford those same rights to everybody or to remove them. That was essentially what was argued (and won) in South Africa's constitutional court, and that is why civil unions are in every way equal to marriages over here.

What I'm saying is that fine, marriage is something religion has first claim to, but in accepting the rights and privileges the state affords them under that institution, they must also necessarily cede some control over it.

PS. Sorry for the snippy "Actually no". It was uncalled for.

~Simone.

[Suzy]

Simone, please understand I am not angry, except at the crazy society we live in.

We do agree that denying rights to any group of individual is discriminatory and should not happen.  I think our only disagreement is how best to go about it.  My answer is, and always has been, let the church do her thing, and let society do it own thing.  But recognize and respect each other in the process.  I just don't think that's too much to ask.

BTW, I think part of the confusion has to do with the fact that the whole idea of a civil power separate from a religious one is a quite modern phenomenon.  Religious oaths and vows under a theocratic system were considered valid because there was no other authority.   We still do not know how to deal with this legacy very well.

Peace,

Kristi

[Kaitlyn]

FWIW, many countries have two separate rites, the civil and the government marriage.  This is probably a better system.  But for now, NO ONE has to get married in the church.  So why not just leave it alone, and tell them to do the same to you?

But doesn't the entire problem stem from the Christian objection to just that idea?

[lady amarant]

I'm just unsure about something you said. Hope you could clarify:

let the church do her thing, and let society do it own thing

Are you saying then that marriage should be a religious institution only? Sorry, I'm not exactly sure HOW you mean this to work - If you've explained it before, please forgive, 'cause I admit that I haven't read everything that's been posted in this thread.

~Simone.