Gay Rights

[Jonouchi Katsuya]

Gay men and women are fighting for legal recognition for marriage NOT religious recognition. The reason why it is important to correctly identify this is because Churches CAN marry anyone they want with no legal confirmation (which is why some marry dogs to each other it is kind strange!). It is just a ceremony. Not legally binding in it of itself. Churches can keep gay marriage out of the church as much as they want. Nothing says you must use someone religious for it to be marriage (though Christian weddings are pretty!).

However, when we speak of the legal contract of marriage, it would be against other laws we currently have on file in the United States to not allow two people to enter into a consensual contract. The constitution protects people from experiencing bias due to race, religion, sex, etc. Notice the word "sex". And I mean that as gender.

Now what prevents people from marrying animals? Well animals can't give consent. Children? Nope. They can't give consent so why are you worrying about this?

What about multiple people? Well, marriage is a contract between two people. (though we are assuming these are consenting adults... I guess why not? it is in the bible and smiled on by God even... sooooo)

So I really don't see the big deal. I am happily married to my husband and I don't see how someone else getting married and being happy would make my marriage suck or something.

I dont think anyone here is denying them the same legal rights as straight people, but the concept of "marriage" is a Christain/Judeo one meaning the union of a man and woman. Homosexuals in my country can have a civil union and will have all the same legal right's as myself and my wife, atheists also if they so choose can have a civil union. The act of a homosexual marriage directly mocks and riddicules what i believe and hurts me deeply, why does their right to use our ideal out weight my right to practice my religion freely. Why are they arguing about a word that hold's no meaning to them and directly affects people for who it does hold meaning, from a Christain standpoint i know the answer but if i was to look at it objectively they would have no claim on marriage and should settle for a civil union or call it somthing completely different.
Your Friend in Christ
Daniel

You seem to be under the impression that marriage is a Christian creation, when it most definitely is not. Take China, for example. It is the oldest continuing civilization in the world, and it had marriage long before it even know of the existence of Christianity or Judaism. Then there's Japan. Japan is definitely not a Christian nation - less than 1% of its population is Christian, and yet they have marriage. They were closed off to the world for so long, yet they developed their own marriage customs. They have a wedding ceremony for their own religion, Shinto. It's beautiful, it's definitely a marriage, and it's most definitely not Christian. What I'm trying to say is that marriage can hold any spiritual and personal connotation that the individual wants it to, but in the end, it is still just a legal document. If marriage were solely a Christian ideal, it would not be possible for non-Christians to get married. As I'm sure you're aware, that's not the case.
I would like to ask you how exactly homosexual marriage threatens your right or ability to practice your religion freely. If someone else's relationship, the relationship of two people completely unrelated you, somehow keeps you from worshiping God, I'd like to know how. In my country, the United States, Civil Unions do not necessarily hold all the same rights as a marriage. A marriage is a federally recognized document while a civil union is recognized only by certain states, often only the state in which it is administered. That hardly seems fair and is most definitely impeding on the couple's civil rights.
If you want to take the word "marriage" out of it, then no marriage, regardless of who it is between, should be legally recognized. It should exist in the eyes of the Church only. If the couple wants the legal benefits, then that couple must get a civil union in addition to their Church-sanctioned marriage. Does that sound better? I would be behind. That way, all people are equal regardless of sexual orientation, religion, or whatever else.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi
As far as i can see from scripture there is no mention of Homosexual marriage being acceptable infact the opposite is actually mentioned to do with homosexuality being immoral, also "marriage" in other cultures is not mentioned in scripture either but i would assume that those would also not be a true Christain marriage. God created man and woman in his image he created them, if homosexuals are given the right to marry this will have a direct effect on me and what i believe as it mocks my God and his creation and makes a mockery of the union of myself and my wife, this is God's creation not ours and should remain so.
As i have stated in my previous posts i am happy for them to have all the same legal rights as myself and my wife in the eye's of the law, but to call it marriage is wrong.

[kmr]

Well, as a christian, I believe that marriage was instituted by God when He created man, even before modern Judaism was founded but certainly still a christian concept. But not everyone believes that, so....

[Proinsias]

Hi
As far as i can see from scripture

I think this is a big part of the issue, as far as you can see marriage should be defined by scripture. And that scripture must be Christian scripture. The issue is that many don't agree that marriage should be defined by Christian scripture.

[DannyM]

Hi
As far as i can see from scripture

I think this is a big part of the issue, as far as you can see marriage should be defined by scripture. And that scripture must be Christian scripture. The issue is that many don't agree that marriage should be defined by Christian scripture.

The Bible's where Christians start. We wouldn't even be able to reason without God. So I'll take authority from the very source who gives me the ability to reason and make sense of anything.

[kmr]

This is where the problem comes: the Bible makes it clear that decision to sin or follow God's word is completely and utterly a choice of ours. The United States is a nation where we are allowed to make that choice of our own accord, to follow scripture or to follow the World. If marriage is defined by scripture in a free nation, it takes away from some of that choice. Which is why I am not fond of legally recognized marriage. However, the social and political aspects of it are indisputable assets to our system of living, so I honestly would just leave it up to individuals to choose what they think via their own state democracies. Which, by the way, I believe we should all endorse... democracy as opposed to republic, as often as we can. But let's not go off on a tangent.

[cheezerrox]

Okay, I know this is an old thread, but I just read through this, and I have to say I disagree with my fellow Christians here. To define the legal institution of marriage by a religion is a violation of separation of church and state. There's simply no legal reason why gays shouldn't be able to be married in the U.S. You can quote Scripture all you want, but that has nothing to do with our secular government. This is not a Christian nation. To say it is is false. Even if the majority of citizens are Christian, that doesn't give them the right to take away rights of others. It's unconcstitutional. Now, if churches are being sued for not performing gay marriages, that's wrong. They're not owned or run by the state, they're privately owned institutions that should be allowed to choose who they marry or not. To condemn a church for not performing a gay marriage is violation of the freedom of religion. But, for what reason should secular weddings between two consenting homosexual adults not be legal? To say that it leads to things like beastiality and pedophilia is simply incorrect. It's absurd. Marriage is defined legally, as someone previously stated, between two consenting adults. Animals and children can't give consent.

I get bothered when I see so many Christians place homosexuality ahead of almost all other types of sin, as if it's so much worse, or God looks down on it more. Last time I checked, all sin is the same in God's eyes. If we want to say that only marriages that are done under God are legitimate, then marriages between atheists/people of a different faith and interfaith marriages shouldn't be recognized by the state either. Why place one sin so high above another? Aren't they all condemned by God? Where does the Bible say that those who aren't followers of Christ are to be subject to our laws and morals?

Now, do I agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle? No, I believe God spells it out that it's detrimental for us. But, do I apply my beliefs and morals to everyone else? No. Especially when we don't have a theocracy, but a democratic republic. Marriages between homosexuals doesn't hinder my freedom of religion, nor anyone elses. It may offend you, but you can be offended by someone using swear words, or someone who likes a different sports team as you, or by music you don't like. Being offended doesn't mean that it hinders your ability to practice.

Also, about the Catholic orpganages that closed down rather than let married gays adopt, while I understand them not wannting to compromise their beleifs and morals, was the right to decision really to just throw all the kids on the street? Can the gay couples be blamed for that? What was the lesser of two evils?

[Proinsias]

Now, if churches are being sued for not performing gay marriages, that's wrong. They're not owned or run by the state, they're privately owned institutions that should be allowed to choose who they marry or not. To condemn a church for not performing a gay marriage is violation of the freedom of religion.

I can't quite agree here. The issue I see is that whilst a church is a privately run institution it is also empowered by the state to register marriages in a legal sense. It's a private institution but it's also functioning in part as a civil servant, this is where I believe the discrimination argument gains some momentum. I suppose it's also about how attached the church is to the idea of not just people being married before God but also being legally bound when they leave the place of worship. If the place of worship is offering some sort of religious ceremony with no legal implications I think things would calm down a little. When someone dies or when someone is born the legal/state side is generally dealt with separately to the religious side of it. When people get married in a church it all merges into one.

[cheezerrox]

Now, if churches are being sued for not performing gay marriages, that's wrong. They're not owned or run by the state, they're privately owned institutions that should be allowed to choose who they marry or not. To condemn a church for not performing a gay marriage is violation of the freedom of religion.

I can't quite agree here. The issue I see is that whilst a church is a privately run institution it is also empowered by the state to register marriages in a legal sense. It's a private institution but it's also functioning in part as a civil servant, this is where I believe the discrimination argument gains some momentum. I suppose it's also about how attached the church is to the idea of not just people being married before God but also being legally bound when they leave the place of worship. If the place of worship is offering some sort of religious ceremony with no legal implications I think things would calm down a little. When someone dies or when someone is born the legal/state side is generally dealt with separately to the religious side of it. When people get married in a church it all merges into one.

I understand what you mean. But, while the church is empowered by the state to register marriages in a legal sense, I don't believe that requires them to marry anyone who wants to be married. Churches are certainly open to all, but just like how one can't be a member of a church unless one is involved on at least some level (presumeably because they accept the churches beliefs), I believe the churches should have the right to choose who they marry or don't. If churches were the only institutions that could marry people, then it would be different, but since there are other places and ways individuals can be married, I don't believe they're required to perform marriages that disagree with their beliefs and therefore causes them to give up some of their freedom of expression of religion.

I imagine it's similar to expecting churches to marry people who aren't beleivers and aren't members of the church. For one, it would almost seem strange for the church to perform the marriage in that case, and for two, it's almost like, why even choose a church to be married? Not to say that there can't be gay Christians, as there certainly are, but they shouldn't be surprised if their church decides not to marry them when it's pretty easy to tell where a church stands on the issue, and if not, you'd imagine they'd ask if they didn't know. Seeking a secular means of getting married should be fine, even if they would prefer to get married in a church. As a Christian, I wouldn't expect a mosque or synagogue to perform my wedding, even if I would prefer to for some reason.

[cyanzachary]

God has created two kinds of man and that is no hidden to us, just having another one because humans wanted it is already wrong. Though having gays and lesbians in the society seems unchangeable all we can do is accept. Nevertheless, we can’t ask all people do the same way, in some point there is always be a contradiction to this issue. In marriage things are different; I can accept them in everything but not to this one. Marriage is a sacred ceremony asking for God’s blessing for the man and woman to become one.

[DannyM]

I can't quite agree here. The issue I see is that whilst a church is a privately run institution it is also empowered by the state to register marriages in a legal sense. It's a private institution but it's also functioning in part as a civil servant, this is where I believe the discrimination argument gains some momentum. I suppose it's also about how attached the church is to the idea of not just people being married before God but also being legally bound when they leave the place of worship. If the place of worship is offering some sort of religious ceremony with no legal implications I think things would calm down a little. When someone dies or when someone is born the legal/state side is generally dealt with separately to the religious side of it. When people get married in a church it all merges into one.

Pro, how are you defining discrimination? And why is it ‘wrong’?

[Byblos]

I can't quite agree here. The issue I see is that whilst a church is a privately run institution it is also empowered by the state to register marriages in a legal sense. It's a private institution but it's also functioning in part as a civil servant, this is where I believe the discrimination argument gains some momentum. I suppose it's also about how attached the church is to the idea of not just people being married before God but also being legally bound when they leave the place of worship. If the place of worship is offering some sort of religious ceremony with no legal implications I think things would calm down a little. When someone dies or when someone is born the legal/state side is generally dealt with separately to the religious side of it. When people get married in a church it all merges into one.

Technically a couple can get married in church without having gotten married civilly. They won't be married in the eyes of the state or the federal government so they won't enjoy the civil or legal aspects of being married. But they are married in the eyes of God.

[Proinsias]

I can't quite agree here. The issue I see is that whilst a church is a privately run institution it is also empowered by the state to register marriages in a legal sense. It's a private institution but it's also functioning in part as a civil servant, this is where I believe the discrimination argument gains some momentum. I suppose it's also about how attached the church is to the idea of not just people being married before God but also being legally bound when they leave the place of worship. If the place of worship is offering some sort of religious ceremony with no legal implications I think things would calm down a little. When someone dies or when someone is born the legal/state side is generally dealt with separately to the religious side of it. When people get married in a church it all merges into one.

Pro, how are you defining discrimination? And why is it ‘wrong’?

I'm not saying it is wrong. Discrimination is part and parcel of life, I can't get a kids meal in the local pub as I'm over 10. Same sex marriage is a current issue and I'm trying to look at the factors and understand what is causing it. As I look into this I do think part of the issue is the crossover in the current climate of religious and civil marriage. It tends to be that people either obtain a civil marriage with no religion involved or they obtain a religious marriage and the civil part is lumped in with this. Just thinking out loud but if the church took nothing to do with civil marriage and only provided religious sacraments I don't imagine there would be as much fuss.

Technically a couple can get married in church without having gotten married civilly. They won't be married in the eyes of the state or the federal government so they won't enjoy the civil or legal aspects of being married. But they are married in the eyes of God.

Well yes, but generally that's not the way it happens. I was more looking to explore the possibility of the church technically being unable to register a civil marriage on the premises, as births and deaths are registered separately to the religious rites which often accompany them. If the church had no power to legally marry people would they be coming under as much fire for refusing to marry people from the legal system? Would a court case against the church hold as much weight if the church was not providing a legal service alongside the religious one?

[DannyM]

Just thinking out loud but if the church took nothing to do with civil marriage and only provided religious sacraments I don't imagine there would be as much fuss.

I understand your point. Trouble is the Church let’s herself be steamrollered into all kinds of nonsense:

Registration of Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises

The decision by Parliament in March 2010 to remove the prohibition on the registration of civil partnerships in places of worship was championed partly by a small number of religious organisations that already offered services of blessing and wished to go further by offering their premises for the registration itself. It was also strongly supported by those gay and lesbian people who wished for both the registration and the religious service to be able to happen at the same location.

Clear assurances were, however, given in Parliament that the arrangement would operate by way of opt-in. There was Church of England support for amendments made at Third Reading to enable the necessary regulations to be drafted to achieve that.

Against that background, the present objective, so far as the Church of England is concerned, is to ensure that the Regulations that the Government intends to make under the amended provisions of the Civil Partnership Act continue to provide unfettered freedom for each religious tradition to resolve these matters in accordance with its own convictions and its own internal procedures of governance. For most Christian denominations as well as other faith groups the issues involved are set to remain sensitive and, to varying degrees, contested.
We judge that the approach taken in the consultation paper should be capable of delivering the opt-in approach that we support, given the decision Parliament has already taken. The points raised in the attached appendix are, therefore, essentially of a technical kind. Given the complexity of the legal issues, not least in relation to ecclesiastical law it will be particularly important that there is an opportunity for our lawyers to study the drafting of the regulations before they are laid before Parliament since by then they will be unamendable.

William Fittall

Secretary General

General Synod and Archbishops' Council

Church of England

23 June 2011

Church of England comments on consultation document questions

8. We agree with the principle that individual religious premises should be able to apply to be authorised premises for the purpose of registration of civil partnerships only once consent has been given by the specified body or person for that organisation.

Read more:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media-ce ... mises.aspx

And yet all of this is completely unnecessary considering:

35 In English law, all parish churches of the Church of England and a number of other ecclesiastical buildings are subject to the jurisdiction of the consistory court of the diocese. This aspect of the court's jurisdiction is called "the faculty jurisdiction". It extends to controlling not only the making of physical alterations to a church building and to the introduction or removal of articles to or from the building, but also the uses to which a church building may lawfully be put with the consent of the bishop through his chancellor.

36 Any non-sacred use of a church building which is subject to the jurisdiction of the consistory court (other than a use which is expressly authorised by legislation) requires the authority of a formal permission - called a 'faculty' - from the consistory court in order for that use to be lawful.

37 The registration of civil partnerships in a church building would, as a matter of law, amount to a non-sacred use of that building. It would, accordingly, require the authority of a faculty. The regulations need therefore to be drafted in a way that leave no doubt that that they are without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the consistory court of the diocese.

http://www.churchofengland.org/media-ce ... mises.aspx

The Church only has herself to blame, for she has willingly complied in the secularisation of the Church in Great Britain.

Sorry if this was long-winded, but I wanted to get the points out of a lengthy link.

[Byblos]

Technically a couple can get married in church without having gotten married civilly. They won't be married in the eyes of the state or the federal government so they won't enjoy the civil or legal aspects of being married. But they are married in the eyes of God.

Well yes, but generally that's not the way it happens. I was more looking to explore the possibility of the church technically being unable to register a civil marriage on the premises, as births and deaths are registered separately to the religious rites which often accompany them. If the church had no power to legally marry people would they be coming under as much fire for refusing to marry people from the legal system? Would a court case against the church hold as much weight if the church was not providing a legal service alongside the religious one?

As far as I know (at least in the churches I've attended over the years), none do civil marriage registrations. Couples marry civilly first, then marry in the church. That's what I did. If there are churches who do civil marriage registrations, I suspect it is done as a courtesy and not as an obligation.