North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I joined late: But could someone explain to me why the easiest solution isn't:

A) A contract open to any-ones who love each other and want to spend their lives together, signed by both partners.

B) If someone after that want to go to church and have the marriage blessed by god - They are free to do so if the church approve.


Can anyone, Christians as well as atheists, say this isn't a workable solution? And if so, what is this whole thing all about?

I'll give you to problems.

A) If two people can get married regardless of gender, what about 3, 4, 8 or 20? What is the practical reason not to allow this? I can't see one, but many people who support Gay marriage pour scorn upon other living arrangements - no matter how enduring.

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".

the problem is if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it IS a duck - the Civil Partnership should be called a Marriage because basically that's what it is...

Unless it's a goose, which walks like a duck but honks slightly differently.

Civil Partnerships do actually have a few different legal paramaters:

http://www.spainwilliams.com/family/...ersh.html#more

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governme...iage/DG_193751

Not the same - just very similar.

They are different because the practicalities are different, slapping a "marriage" label on the tin won't change that any more than calling rain hail will freeze it.

[Sir Moody]

A) I think I have said this before but so long as all parties concerned are consenting and in agreement, why not? of course the next argument the "anti" crowd brings up is Marriage with animals or inanimate objects - Animals cant consent and frankly who cares if someone marries an inanimate object (they are just saving us time in declaring them mentally unstable...)

B) I disagree with the ECHR on a number of rulings - this being one of them - I don't see how a Church which has the right to Worship cant chose who it marries based on the tenants of its faith... there are already Churches in UK that will only marry couples who follow their guidelines (i.e. attending Church on Sundays for x number of Month's before the marriage) how is this different?

I wasn't aware of those differences - though they do seem to only concern the "ending" of the Partnership - I still think they are close enough to each other that calling them both Marriages is fair enough

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wasn't aware of those differences - though they do seem to only concern the "ending" of the Partnership - I still think they are close enough to each other that calling them both Marriages is fair enough

That's basically the same emotional appeal.

"Well, they deserve to have it called marriage."

A "marriage" is a yoking-together of a man and a woman, a reflection of basic biology. A Civil Partnership is two people choosing to live together because they love each other.

Yes, it is the Bible which describes a man and a woman becoming "one flesh", but it says that because that is exactly what happens when a man and a woman have children. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman for that reason, even when men have contracted multiple marriages it has been with women - even the examples HoreTore linked to centre around a heterosexual couple even as both in the couple aquire new (heterosexual) partners.

That's not the same, it's just very similar.

[Sir Moody]

but Marriage was around before the Church - and you can get Married without ever seeing a priest or the inside of a Church

trying to claim the Marriage is purely Religious and using that to say Gay couples cant marry is ignoring the fact that in out Modern world, it isn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

but Marriage was around before the Church - and you can get Married without ever seeing a priest or the inside of a Church

trying to claim the Marriage is purely Religious and using that to say Gay couples cant marry is ignoring the fact that in out Modern world, it isn't.

That's absolutely true - but I didn't say that.

I merely quoted the Bible - I'm allowed to do that in support of the argument, the opinions of the Biblical authors are not invalidated by their being Christians.

Also, until around 1750 odd the Church in England was not legally involved in marriage, and whether you were married or not was covered by Common Law. Marriage statutes were introduced to clear up legal confusion in the 18th Century and the Church became involved as an arm of the State.

[Sir Moody]

That's absolutely true - but I didn't say that.

I merely quoted the Bible - I'm allowed to do that in support of the argument, the opinions of the Biblical authors are not invalidated by their being Christians.

Also, until around 1750 odd the Church in England was not legally involved in marriage, and whether you were married or not was covered by Common Law. Marriage statutes were introduced to clear up legal confusion in the 18th Century and the Church became involved as an arm of the State.

which is another bone of contention with me... its about time we separated the Church of England and the State... that's just a pipe dream however - I cant see the Government letting go of their control of the Church...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

which is another bone of contention with me... its about time we separated the Church of England and the State... that's just a pipe dream however - I cant see the Government letting go of their control of the Church...

It won't happen before we become a Republic - and despite what ideaological opinions you might or might not hold regarding monarchy, that is not a process you are going to want to live through.

[ajaxfetish]

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".

IMO, the ECHR is clearly in the wrong here, as long as they consider that discrimination wrong. On the surface of course, it is discrimination, pretty much by definition, but we consider plenty of discrimination to be perfectly acceptable, and allow religious institutions to discriminate in many ways (they don't have to accept anyone as a member, for instance). This is another way they should be allowed to discriminate, in line with their moral stance.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IMO, the ECHR is clearly in the wrong here, as long as they consider that discrimination wrong. On the surface of course, it is discrimination, pretty much by definition, but we consider plenty of discrimination to be perfectly acceptable, and allow religious institutions to discriminate in many ways (they don't have to accept anyone as a member, for instance). This is another way they should be allowed to discriminate, in line with their moral stance.

Ajax

Law in the UK and Europe doesn't work that way - if Gay Civil marriage is the same institution as marriage then refusing to perform a marriage for a Gay couple is discrimination. If, on the other hand, it is simply a very similar institution with a different name then it is not discrimination, but it can't be a different instition with the same name - because that would be discrimination.

In the same way you can't have "white alchohol units" and "asian alchohol units" and call both "alchohol units" on the basis that different ethnic groups have different tollerances.

[Conradus]

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".

Seriously? Could you link me that judgment?

Because we have the gay marriage for quite some time now in Belgium and I've never heard of churches being forced to perform a gay marriage.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Seriously? Could you link me that judgment?

Because we have the gay marriage for quite some time now in Belgium and I've never heard of churches being forced to perform a gay marriage.

Well yes, but the UK case may be a bit different due to the fact that the CofE is part of the English state. Also if religious marriage is deemed equal to marriage before a civil servant then that would tend to complicate it further.

By contrast since in Dutch (and presumably Belgian) law only marriage before the civil servant "counts" and religious marriage rituals have no legal significance whatsoever (except in the case where you get the order of ceremonies wrong, in which case the conduct of the religious rituals constitutes a crime), so the religious rites can be denied to couples that don't fit the institution's dogma.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well yes, but the UK case may be a bit different due to the fact that the CofE is part of the English state. Also if religious marriage is deemed equal to marriage before a civil servant then that would tend to complicate it further.

By contrast since in Dutch (and presumably Belgian) law only marriage before the civil servant "counts" and religious marriage rituals have no legal significance whatsoever (except in the case where you get the order of ceremonies wrong, in which case the conduct of the religious rituals constitutes a crime), so the religious rites can be denied to couples that don't fit the institution's dogma.

Bingo.

2010 Austria: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...l-partnerships

Mar 2012 France:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...an-ruling.html

Ah, but it seems Thinking Anglicans dissagree: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/...es/005436.html

I am not convinced - but it all depends on the legal relationship between heterosexual and homosexual marriage in the UK.

CofE lawyers have already expressed concerns because CofE priests can officiate at legal weddings.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, but it seems Thinking Anglicans dissagree: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/...es/005436.html

'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

It was recently suggested by certain Canadian parties that they might like their own Royal Family, starting with King Henry I. I'm all for that, Harry to Canada, Andrew to Australia, Edward of Kent to New Zealand, Michael of Kent to.... etc.

If the Americans rejoin the Commonwealth they can have the Earl of Wessex.

'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

That would be to your loss.

[Lemur]

If the Americans rejoin the Commonwealth they can have the Earl of Wessex.

Counter-offer: Britain can become the 51st state. We'll even throw in two senators. It's a bargain!

-edit-

If Scotland and N. Ireland want to be their own states, I guess we would allow that. Might ask N. Ireland to be a territory, like Puerto Rico or American Samoa, until they get themselves sorted out. Gibraltar does not get statehood, neither do Maldives/Falklands.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That would be to your loss.

If you didn't like the tone of the article on the Dali Lama, surely you got to be offended by what they are implying by deeming themselves to be the "thinking Anglicans"?

[Kralizec]

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".

B) The whole "Churches won't have to" won't fly - the ECHR has already ruled that if the UK passes a "same sex marriage" law religious institutions will be guilty of discrimination if they refuse to perfom such services, but not if they refuse to perfomr "Civil Partnerships".

Did they? Source?

[Kralizec]

Apparently, this ruling (GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE) is the one PVC intended. I had to use Google Translate because I can't read French very well (or quickly); but I haven't been able to find anything in the ruling that suggests that churches can't refuse to hold ceremonies for gay couples.

In the Daily mail:

An earlier version of this article included the paragraph 'The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.' This was in fact an implication of the judgement rather than a statement contained within it.

Except that I'm not seeing where such a thing is implied, at all. Maybe it has something to do with the UK's idiosyncracies in regards to marriage procedures and the state-church relationship in general that I'm not particulary familiar with.

[Lemur]

Of interest: longtime conservative pollster explains why GOP should moderate on gay marriage.

Implications:

[Jan van Lohuizen] goes on to say that this is consistent with conservative principles: “As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment, and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government, we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to decide how you live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

The pollster is not arguing morality or public policy. He is, however, suggesting his party recognize that it has staked out positions on this constellation of issues that fly in the face of rather rapidly changing public attitudes. Not unlike warnings from other strategists about Republican positions and rhetoric that have hurt them badly with the growing Latino vote, the GOP here risks being on the wrong side of an issue where the world is moving in a different way.

To be sure, political parties are not supposed to be weather vanes, changing whenever the wind blows in a new direction. When they choose to fly in the face of evolving public attitudes, though, they need to think about it long and hard; they need to decide if it’s really worth it and consider that times might have changed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently, this ruling (GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE) is the one PVC intended. I had to use Google Translate because I can't read French very well (or quickly); but I haven't been able to find anything in the ruling that suggests that churches can't refuse to hold ceremonies for gay couples.

In the Daily mail:


Except that I'm not seeing where such a thing is implied, at all. Maybe it has something to do with the UK's idiosyncracies in regards to marriage procedures and the state-church relationship in general that I'm not particulary familiar with.

Well, for one thing, any citizen of the UK has the automatic right to Church wedding and burial, and christening but that's less an issue. Individual Vicars can get tetchy about non-communicants but you just wave the Canon and Statute under their noses and they'll wilt.

If Gay people can have actual wedding ceremonies you can't justify denying them a Church wedding if it's available to anyone else.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/u...agemeasure.pdf

Note the complete lack of "man" or "woman" because they are assumed - but not there stipulated.

The worst part of this is that Parliament can legislate for the Church.

[Lemur]

Well, for one thing, any citizen of the UK has the automatic right to Church wedding and burial, and christening but that's less an issue.

Well then, that's your own fault for having a state church. What a foolish, anachronistic institution to maintain! That's almost as silly as paying to keep royalty around ... oh, um, nevermind. Best to the queen and all of that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well then, that's your own fault for having a state church. What a foolish, anachronistic institution to maintain! That's almost as silly as paying to keep royalty around ... oh, um, nevermind. Best to the queen and all of that.

Call me silly, but I'm not a fan of the bloody insurrection needed to change to a Republic, and I don't find France, the US, Italy or Greece encouraging models.

[Kralizec]

Call me silly

You're silly.