Go Back   Fratching! > General > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 05-05-2015, 12:16 AM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andara Bledin View Post
Whatever various religions want to call it is up to them. Everybody just needs to recognize that, along with terms like "holiday," the word "marriage" has been fully co-opted by secular concerns and at this point, there is not a single chance in hell of going back.
Frankly, the government construct of marriage is closer to what marriage originally was ( a legal contract ensuring property rights and inheritance ) than the current religious definition ( which is very much a modern invention despite all this nostalgic waxing bullshit they trot out ).

I'm not even going to touch this golden calf of Traditional Marriage(tm) they trot out. Traditional Marriage(tm) from a biblical perspective involved you owning your wife as an asset ( and indeed, several wives if you were so inclined. And some slaves! Just in case. )

I am, however, a ad horrified that some states require a religious sign off to grant a marriage license. However, changing the language is not a morally acceptable solution to this. This requirement should be decoupled from marriage to begin with as, you know, indicated by that whole Constitution thing.

Just changing the language creates separate but equal whether you intend it that way or not. Thats how it will be viewed and how it will be treated. LGBT will still be considered legally lesser than their straight counterparts.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 05-05-2015, 12:42 AM
NecCat NecCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
I am, however, a ad horrified that some states require a religious sign off to grant a marriage license. However, changing the language is not a morally acceptable solution to this. This requirement should be decoupled from marriage to begin with as, you know, indicated by that whole Constitution thing.

Just changing the language creates separate but equal whether you intend it that way or not. Thats how it will be viewed and how it will be treated. LGBT will still be considered legally lesser than their straight counterparts.
I agree about being horrified requiring a religious sign off to grant a legal state of being. Even with the explanations from those posters who are state side about internet pastors and so forth it seems incredibly discriminatory. I'm just not sure the result is automatically going to be viewing an LGBT marriage as lesser.

In places where there is legal gay marriage there are some churches, including versions of Christian churches, that are happy to perform such marriage ceremonies. Some LGBT marriages will be religiously sanctioned and I think that the result will be that those marriages will be considered just as desirable as the religiously sanctioned homosexual marriage, while the legal only non-religious marriages of any configuration will be viewed as the inferior.

Still winding up with an 'separate but equal' mindset though. I could be wrong but it seems that any place that requires a religion to grant a state of being will view a religious backing as necessary to take that state of being seriously.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 05-05-2015, 01:38 AM
Andara Bledin's Avatar
Andara Bledin Andara Bledin is offline
Accepting of Differences
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: sou Cali
Posts: 7,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
I'm not even going to touch this golden calf of Traditional Marriage(tm) they trot out. Traditional Marriage(tm) from a biblical perspective involved you owning your wife as an asset ( and indeed, several wives if you were so inclined. And some slaves! Just in case. )
Hey, now, don't forget that for a while, "traditional marriage" also included members of the clergy marrying each other so that when they passed, all of their worldly good would get passed on to the Chruch. >_>

But, hey, while they're trying to claim that 'marriage' is some magical state that can only be conferred by people attached to some version of a Christian churck, they're not about to admit that they actually sanctioned gay marriage for a while.
__________________
Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 07-05-2015, 04:31 PM
Jester's Avatar
Jester Jester is offline
Soapbox Adventurer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 407
Default

Not sure how many of you noticed this, but the Episcopalian Church announced last week that they would begin officiating same sex marriages throughout their congregation. I noticed that story particularly, because my friends (different sexes) just got married in the local Episcopalian church last weekend.

Myself, I am completely opposed to gay marriage. I have no intention or desire to marry a man. But hey, if other people wanna do it, that's their business.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:45 AM
HYHYBT's Avatar
HYHYBT HYHYBT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,191
Default

Not "throughout their congregation," no. Both any bishop and any priest can block it within their respective jurisdictions. If your priest is against it, well, going to the next parish over isn't so bad. If it's the bishop, well, some dioceses are huge.
__________________
"My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 07-18-2015, 06:09 PM
BlaqueKatt BlaqueKatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andara Bledin View Post
We already have language separation.

The civil construct is marriage, as is reflected in hundreds of thousands of laws across the US alone.

Whatever various religions want to call it is up to them.
normally it's called a "wedding ceremony"

sorry I get irked by the conflation of the terms, just for this reason.
Reply With Quote

About American government (rambly)
  #17  
Old 01-20-2016, 02:28 PM
Mental_Mouse Mental_Mouse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 11
Post About American government (rambly)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion View Post
Anyone able to clarify this for me please?
As noted above, marriage rules are mostly handled state-by-state, and sometimes at even more local levels. There is a set of Federal (national) rules, but most of those apply to direct Federal (not state) territory, which is mostly Washington D.C. itself.

It's worth noting that in the U.S., social progress and "rights" are deeply constrained by the federal/state/local structure of government. Theoretically, the federal government can try to declare new standards from the top, but if there isn't local support, they will be stymied or overwhelmed by pushback from below. In practice, any major change has to come from below: first local sentiment builds to the state level, then individual states start breaking with federal policy. Eventually, either enough states "go over" to either force a change at the federal level, or interstate relations come into play and the minority states start needing to deal with the fact that they're not on the same page as the rest of the country (and they need to do business with other states).

This process has been on display several times since the Civil War (where it essentially failed outright): Both the beginning and end of alcohol Prohibition, voting and civil rights for women, racial civil rights, and others. It's currently happening on at least two major fronts: Gay rights (including marriage), and the pushback on the Drug War, primarily regarding hemp/marijuana.

However, it's worth noting that even after a change takes hold, local control means there can be pockets of resistance remaining -- for example, many states still have "dry counties", where alcohol can't be sold. Similarly, enforcement of racial and gender protections is markedly uneven -- there are whole states that are actively subverting or undercutting the federal rules, and others where enforcement is spotty at best.

Changes at the federal level can start with any of the three branches of government:
(1) The Supreme Court has lifetime terms, which normally makes it the most "conservative" (least changeable) branch, but it's also composed of only nine people, and that can produce surprises.
(2) Congress is supposed to be the most responsive to public opinion, since all members face re-election every 2 or 6 years (the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively). Gerrymandering and machine politics protect a lot of the Congressfolk, but they can still be replaced if their "safe" constituency changes position.
(3) The Executive Branch is trickiest: The President gets elected every 4 years, and can only serve twice (technically, 10 years, which covers partial terms due to assassinations and such). But the President's primary power is through the bureaucracy that actually performs government functions -- all those departments and agencies, including the several Armed Forces. Technically the President can "smite" the bureaucracy -- they appoint the chief officials, and can order those officials to do purges or major rearrangements. But they need Congressional approval for those appointments... and more importantly, if you purge a bureaucratic agency too harshly, you break it. The agency loses institutional memory, and the new people won't have the standing relationships (favors given, personal aquaintance, etc.) with other agencies and outside groups. So it loses both expertise and power. So the bureaucracy itself has a certain amount of power to impede or encourage changes, simply from the sheer number of Federal employees involved.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 01-21-2016, 06:05 AM
Rapscallion's Avatar
Rapscallion Rapscallion is offline
Some balding guy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mental_Mouse View Post
As noted above, marriage rules are mostly handled state-by-state, and sometimes at even more local levels. There is a set of Federal (national) rules, but most of those apply to direct Federal (not state) territory, which is mostly Washington D.C. itself.
Basically, what I wanted to have confirmed is that to perform a wedding as an officiator, you needed to have approval/licence from the state authority, right?

Rapscallion
__________________
Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
Reclaiming words is fun!
Reply With Quote

Basically, yeah.
  #19  
Old 01-21-2016, 12:32 PM
Mental_Mouse Mental_Mouse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 11
Post Basically, yeah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion View Post
Basically, what I wanted to have confirmed is that to perform a wedding as an officiator, you needed to have approval/licence from the state authority, right?
In general, the marriage license itself is issued by a government official: City clerk, judge, mayor, governor, president , etc, who could also perform a marriage directly. A "license to perform marriages" amounts to the authority and responsibility to receive a blank or partly filled-in marriage license, and fill it out as proxy for those officials. The job includes:
(1) Perform various tests for suitability and provide any mandated counsel.
(2) Certify the signed oaths and witnessings.
(3) Submit the resulting paperwork back to the gov't as "this is done".

"Tests for suitability" (my wording, I forget the official phrase) include issues of consent and competency, age requirements, and prohibitions on incest or bigamy. Other tests have gone by the wayside (race, "good character", livelihood), or remain controversial (disease, genetic conditions, and of course gender). In modern times, most of these are reduced to the couple simply confirming that their marriage does indeed follow the rules, but some places still do require a "doctor's note" covering medical issues.

Last edited by Mental_Mouse; 01-21-2016 at 02:19 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM
Rapscallion's Avatar
Rapscallion Rapscallion is offline
Some balding guy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,715
Default

Thanks. See, my thought is that since the state sanctions that some people can conduct marriage services and without that permission the marriage isn't legal, and the state has to look after the aftermath of a failed marriage (divorce courts etc), then religions do not own marriage, especially not its definition.

My local MP is against gay marriage and all about the separate but equal (if I remember his website on this correctly). He's been hanging around various public places of late and I'm sort of hoping that I'll accidentally see him in the future and be able to explain why his religious claims of the rectitude of his bigotry are bullshit.

Rapscallion
__________________
Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
Reclaiming words is fun!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.