NY Court Says NO! To Gay Marriage - Page 4

xoxoxoBruce · 06-17-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

... Any politician saying otherwise is, well, the Church ordered American politicians to impose Church doctrine on all Americans. Says how much respect that Church really deserves. Made even more damning because that Church all but condoned pedophilia.....

"Church" or "the church", does not, or at least should not, mean Roman Catholic.

Happy Monkey · 06-14-2011, 06:07 PM

Marriage hasn't always been a religious contract, and isn't solely one now. It usually involves inheritance rights, which in a non-theocracy is a non-religious state matter.

Civil marriage and religious marriage exist now, and can be done independently of each other. You can be civilly married without clergy, and you can be religiously married without the state. In both cases, if you try to claim the benefits of the other when you only have the one, you may be subject to the penalties (whatever they may be) of the other.

Getting the government "out of the marriage business" would do nothing but make up a new name for civil marriage. That would be OK, but I doubt colloquial use would change. People married by a justice of the peace would still call themselves married. All that renaming would do is let some people tell them "but you're not, really".

piercehawkeye45 · 06-14-2011, 06:23 PM

It would also make people's religious views completely obvious. Religious views are a personal matter and I doubt many people would like to have them publicly displayed in that manner.

classicman · 06-17-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

“You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing,” McDonald, 64, told reporters. “You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing. “I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this.”

Senator Roy McDonald(R).

06-14-2011, 06:07 PM	#2
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Marriage hasn't always been a religious contract, and isn't solely one now. It usually involves inheritance rights, which in a non-theocracy is a non-religious state matter. Civil marriage and religious marriage exist now, and can be done independently of each other. You can be civilly married without clergy, and you can be religiously married without the state. In both cases, if you try to claim the benefits of the other when you only have the one, you may be subject to the penalties (whatever they may be) of the other. Getting the government "out of the marriage business" would do nothing but make up a new name for civil marriage. That would be OK, but I doubt colloquial use would change. People married by a justice of the peace would still call themselves married. All that renaming would do is let some people tell them "but you're not, really". __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

06-14-2011, 06:23 PM	#3
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	It would also make people's religious views completely obvious. Religious views are a personal matter and I doubt many people would like to have them publicly displayed in that manner. __________________ I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)