It's funny, because as a Catholic I actually understand what 'the other side' are on about (well, the church's side, dunno about those that are just 'traditionalists'). But there is already a wide, wide gulf between Christian marriage and secular marriage, so I can't see why they're having such a fit concerning expanding the latter. It's... oooh it's like a Venn diagram, with the term 'marriage' in the middle, shared, and Christian marriage in one circle and secular marriage in the other.
(I have no idea if this will make sense to anyone except me. *g*)
Makes sense to me. I'm a devout and church-going Lutheran. What I believe religiously is one thing. What I believe is right and fair to people of different beliefs in the secular world is another. Churches can decide the matter for themselves within their own church bodies, but the state is wrong to muddy the two. I lived in Britain for a year, in Austria for 6 months, and in Germany for 4 years. All have state supported religions. Thank God we don't here. It's bad enough as it is from the religious right, and I'm a religious person.
I'm a devout and church-going Lutheran. What I believe religiously is one thing. What I believe is right and fair to people of different beliefs in the secular world is another. Exactly. And you can't impose one onto the other.
This is excellent! We have so very far to go in this country and in my home country of Canada.
(Did they ever figure out what to do with that clause in the legislation that made it illegal for C of E clergy to preside over marriages? Apparently they put it in as a sop to what they thought top CoE people wanted, but the new Archbishop thinks it's codswallop and lot of the church's own rank and file thought so too. I haven't read what came of that.)
And you're right, of course, about the difference between secular and church marriage. Should different faith communities have problems with the idea of homosexual or mono-gender marriage, fine ... no one's forcing them to accept wedding parties at gunpoint. It's a piece of logic that apparently hasn't sunk in to the skulls of North American clergy.
Did they ever figure out what to do with that clause in the legislation that made it illegal for C of E clergy to preside over marriages? I was wondering this too, but I've not heard anything so far. Will have to sit down and watch the 10 o'clock news. I'm guessing it'll be covered.
Should different faith communities have problems with the idea of homosexual or mono-gender marriage, fine ... no one's forcing them to accept wedding parties at gunpoint. It's a piece of logic that apparently hasn't sunk in to the skulls of North American clergy. It's more a battle over the word/meaning of marriage itself, but that's been lost (if ever it existed) long, long ago. Heck, just look at [traditionalist] Mormons & Muslims and polygamy.
no one's forcing them to accept wedding parties at gunpoint
Indeed; most churches even reserve the right not marry heterosexual couples for various reasons, e.g., they're not members of the congregation. I would never argue that any religious organization shouldn't have the right to marry who they want.
Equal protection under the law is a different thing. Considering that any hetero couple can go to Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator--and have their union considered valid pretty much everywhere else in the US--I think there's a strong argument to be made that gay marriage is not inherently "unnatural" or harmful to society.
Equal protection under the law is a different thing. This.
Considering that any hetero couple can go to Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator--and have their union considered valid pretty much everywhere else in the US--I think there's a strong argument to be made that gay marriage is not inherently "unnatural" or harmful to society. *nods* The way hetero couples treat marriage as a disposable thing, is far more against basic Christian principles.
Quite right. Although things are changing, my devout Anglican mum had a registry office wedding when she married my dad, because he's her second husband. Now I personally think that is bollocks but it's absolutely down to the vicar's discretion. And so is marrying same-gender couples. But that has nothing to do with the legal situation at all.
So happy to hear this! Meanwhile, the US is being dragged toward marriage equality, kicking and screaming. Only a handful of the 50 states have legalized gay marriage, and those marriages sadly aren't recognized by a lot of the other states. And some states have passed legislation to ban gay marriage outright (a pox on them). It makes me so happy every time I hear another country has legalized same-sex marriage. It makes me feel there is some hope for humanity.
The funny thing is that we currently have a right-wing government - and a lot of people [who are against gay marriage] are accusing them of just pandering to populist sentiment...
You'd think that in the 21st century, this would be a non-issue, at least for the supposedly progressive industrialized western nations. I swear there are some here in the US who would like to see us back in the 16th century somewhere, living under the Christian version of Sharia law.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
(I have no idea if this will make sense to anyone except me. *g*)
no subject
no subject
Exactly. And you can't impose one onto the other.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Did they ever figure out what to do with that clause in the legislation that made it illegal for C of E clergy to preside over marriages? Apparently they put it in as a sop to what they thought top CoE people wanted, but the new Archbishop thinks it's codswallop and lot of the church's own rank and file thought so too. I haven't read what came of that.)
And you're right, of course, about the difference between secular and church marriage. Should different faith communities have problems with the idea of homosexual or mono-gender marriage, fine ... no one's forcing them to accept wedding parties at gunpoint. It's a piece of logic that apparently hasn't sunk in to the skulls of North American clergy.
no subject
I was wondering this too, but I've not heard anything so far. Will have to sit down and watch the 10 o'clock news. I'm guessing it'll be covered.
Should different faith communities have problems with the idea of homosexual or mono-gender marriage, fine ... no one's forcing them to accept wedding parties at gunpoint. It's a piece of logic that apparently hasn't sunk in to the skulls of North American clergy.
It's more a battle over the word/meaning of marriage itself, but that's been lost (if ever it existed) long, long ago. Heck, just look at [traditionalist] Mormons & Muslims and polygamy.
no subject
Indeed; most churches even reserve the right not marry heterosexual couples for various reasons, e.g., they're not members of the congregation. I would never argue that any religious organization shouldn't have the right to marry who they want.
Equal protection under the law is a different thing. Considering that any hetero couple can go to Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator--and have their union considered valid pretty much everywhere else in the US--I think there's a strong argument to be made that gay marriage is not inherently "unnatural" or harmful to society.
no subject
This.
Considering that any hetero couple can go to Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator--and have their union considered valid pretty much everywhere else in the US--I think there's a strong argument to be made that gay marriage is not inherently "unnatural" or harmful to society.
*nods* The way hetero couples treat marriage as a disposable thing, is far more against basic Christian principles.
no subject
no subject
*nods* I'm all for separation of church & state.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Oh and glad to hear that everything went well. You've been in my thoughts.)
no subject
Ohhhh....thank you, honey.
*Cuddles from me and the bitty*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject