Oh woe is me....

[OperaTenor]

Where in the Constitution does it say marriages have to be performed in churches?

It doesn't. Many marriages are performed in courthouses, public parks, aboard cruise ships, and in private dwellings. Many of these are civil ceremonies, legal formalities that have nothing to do with Sacramental unions. I have attended more than one as a legal witness. The Judge spelled out very clearly that this was a legal ceremony, not a religious one. Nor does the license issued use the term "Matrimony" or "Holy Matrimony", as these are religious, rather than civil terms. Certificates issued by the Church generally use that term.

However, the Church has long held the importance of Marriage as a Sacramental union, and as the joining of a man and a woman. "Matrimony" has as it's root the term for "Motherhood", signifying the importance of Matrimony as a process for procreation. In fact, it is this that provides the reasoning for the sanctioning of marriage by the State - it provides (in theory and in general practice) the basis for a stable and nurturing environment for the rearing of children, who may otherwise become a burden upon the State. Homosexual unions offer no such benefit.

V/R
Shapley

I find it somewhat ironic that clergy in the Catholic church are prohibited from one of the seven sacraments(of course, setting aside the real reason for the policy of celibacy in the first place - nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever, and certainly leaving the door wide open for sexual deviance and dysfunction). How do you reconcile that with this procreational import you place on marriage? How can a spiritual leader be a complete Christian if he's barred from the complete experience? And spare me with the 'married to the church' bit.

[Shapley]

"We are all sinners, every one." We strive for perfection, though we be imperfect.

As I've said, why have speed laws and laws against theft, when so many are speeding and stealing?

[OperaTenor]

Ah, a variation on the theme of the Great Fallback: We're all sinners, so why even try?

[Shapley]

Ah, a variation on the theme of the Great Fallback: We're all sinners, so why even try?

I think you mischaracterize me on purpose. I've stated quite clearly that we need to continue to oppose the acts that are sinful no matter how many sinners commit them. When we fall, we get back up and keep moving. To do otherwise is to surrender.

This is why we continue to oppose sin in all its' forms. We are sinners, every one, but we can all seek to rise above that, ask forgiveness, and try to make a better world for our progeny. If we surrender to it, then the world descends into chaos, and all is lost. That's why we still have speed limits, despite the fact that so many ignore them. That's why we have laws against theft, despite the fact that so many people steal things. I'm not willing to surrender. Sadly, too many are.

[jamiebk]

I'm not willing to surrender. Sadly, too many are.

I surrendered long ago...it was just easier

[Nicole Marie]

In Connecticut the first gay marriages will take place today! I'm really looking forward to it! Under our state law when we had civil unions the law was not 100% equal to a marriage and many partners in unions found they did not have full rights, especially families with kids. So we now passed marriages based on our state constitution and voters shot down (by a landslide) a referendum that conservatives were trying to pass during the election to ban gay marriage and change our state constitution. Equal is equal, no matter what it's called and civil unions (many are finding out) are just not that equal.

[Shapley]

I find it somewhat ironic that clergy in the Catholic church are prohibited from one of the seven sacraments(of course, setting aside the real reason for the policy of celibacy in the first place - nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever, and certainly leaving the door wide open for sexual deviance and dysfunction).

The basis for celibacy is found in the writings of St. Paul. I don't have the passages in front of me, but it says something to the effect that that family man is bothered with matters of flesh and Earth, while the unattached man can concentrate on spiritual issues. If I have time later, I'll look it up. I believe it is in Timothy, or [/i]Corinthinians[/i]. Again, It'll take time to find the specific text.

There are priests who have recieved both the sacrament of Matrimony and of Holy Orders, primarily by becoming priests after becoming widowed (consistent with St. Paul's message).

How do you reconcile that with this procreational import you place on marriage? How can a spiritual leader be a complete Christian if he's barred from the complete experience? And spare me with the 'married to the church' bit.

I believe only nuns are identified as "married to the church", but I could be mistaken. They take vows not unlike marriage vows, to the order they join. Monks may do likewise.

The priesthood places restrictions and demands on the man who enters it that are inconsistent with the duties of marriage and the rearing of children. The vow of poverty, for instance, imposes conflict with the duties of husbands to provide a proper home for their family. Again, I refer to St. Paul's warning of concern with Earthly matters.

[Shapley]

Equal is equal, no matter what it's called and civil unions (many are finding out) are just not that equal.

The government defines the status of civil unions, and the legal perquisistes of marriage. The government can make them as equal as they wish, within the limits of the law. Churches define the religious aspect of marriage, and cannot be forced by the government to redefine those, though governments will certainly try. This is is one of the reasons churches oppose the use of the term 'marriage' in homosexual unions, as it poses the potential for intruding upon religious freedoms.

[Shapley]

OT,

Here are the pertinent passages of the Bible:

Matthew, Chapter 19

And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there. 3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

1 Et factum est, cum consummasset Jesus sermones istos, migravit a Galilæa, et venit in fines Judææ trans Jordanem, 2 et secutæ sunt eum turbæ multæ, et curavit eos ibi. 3 Et accesserunt ad eum pharisæi tentantes eum, et dicentes: Si licet homini dimittere uxorem suam, quacumque ex causa? 4 Qui respondens, ait eis: Non legistis, quia qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos? Et dixit: 5 Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem, et matrem, et adhærebit uxori suæ, et erunt duo in carne una. 6 Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. 7 Dicunt illi: Quid ergo Moyses mandavit dare libellum repudii, et dimittere? 8 Ait illis: Quoniam Moyses ad duritiam cordis vestri permisit vobis dimittere uxores vestras: ab initio autem non fuit sic. 9 Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, mœchatur: et qui dimissam duxerit, mœchatur. 10 Dicunt ei discipuli ejus: Si ita est causa hominis cum uxore, non expedit nubere. 11 Qui dixit illis: Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est. 12 Sunt enim eunuchi, qui de matris utero sic nati sunt: et sunt eunuchi, qui facti sunt ab hominibus: et sunt eunuchi, qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum cælorum. Qui potest capere capiat.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

7 Volo enim omnes vos esse sicut meipsum: sed unusquisque proprium donum habet ex Deo: alius quidem sic, alius vero sic. 8 Dico autem non nuptis, et viduis: bonum est illis si sic permaneant, sicut et ego. 9 Quod si non se continent, nubant. Melius est enim nubere, quam uri.

And Also:

32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will. He sinneth not if she marry.

32 Volo autem vos sine sollicitudine esse. Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo. 33 Qui autem cum uxore est, sollicitus est quæ sunt mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus est. 34 Et mulier innupta, et virgo, cogitat quæ Domini sunt, ut sit sancta corpore, et spiritu. Quæ autem nupta est, cogitat quæ sunt mundi, quomodo placeat viro. 35 Porro hoc ad utilitatem vestram dico: non ut laqueum vobis injiciam, sed ad id, quod honestum est, et quod facultatem præbeat sine impedimento Dominum obsecrandi. 36 Si quis autem turpem se videri existimat super virgine sua, quod sit superadulta, et ita oportet fieri: quod vult faciat: non peccat, si nubat.

It's not my intent to paste the whole of the Bible here, nor am I a Bible scholar, but this should answer your inquiry into the basis of such beliefs.

To the rest of you, my apologies. I do not wish to turn this forum into a pulpit, from which to preach the Gospel. That is not my place, nor is this the place for it. OT has asked, and I have answered, I will post no more lengthy Bible passages here.

I asked several posts ago to stop this, or move it to the "Debate" folder. This is not the place....

[Serenity]

[Trumpetmaster]

OT,

It's not my intent to paste the whole of the Bible here, nor am I a Bible scholar, but this should answer your inquiry into the basis of such beliefs.

To the rest of you, my apologies. I do not wish to turn this forum into a pulpit, from which to preach the Gospel. That is not my place, nor is this the place for it. OT has asked, and I have answered, I will post no more lengthy Bible passages here.

I asked several posts ago to stop this, or move it to the "Debate" folder. This is not the place....

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."

Yes Yul!

[barfle]

"Seperation of Church and State" is a myth. Those words do not appear in the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees us that the Congress will pass no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor bar the free exercise thereof.

Separation of church and state is an interpretation of the establishment clause of the first amendment made by Thomas Jefferson. If your liberal sensibilities force you into believing that there is a connection between the US Government and any religion, I suggest you read a few of the writings of Jefferson and Madison regarding their efforts toward disestablishment.

How do you justify the passage of laws that run counter to the morals of the majority of the people? You cannot be a representative republic if the laws are not representative of the public....

It's called checks and balances. If you read the Constitution as a conservative, you will note that "the morals of the majority of the people" have no standing in the laws of the United States.

[barfle]

As you may know, in Christian marriage, there are two parts to marriage - the ceremony and the consummation. Consummation requires an act which, when performed by other than a man and a woman, constitutes an act of sodomy. If the Church sanctions marriage between persons other than a man and a woman, it necessarily has to sanction sodomy. No can do.

A heterosexual couple can commit sodomy, too. It can be an act of love, just as many other sexual acts can be.

And nobody was asking any church to sanction sodomy. They were asking for recognition of next of kin between two people who love each other.

[barfle]

I stated earlier, in my response to Serenity, that it is necessary for those proponents of homosexual marriage to show that there is some societal benefit to support changing 200+ years of American legal precedent against it. They have yet to make that case. The argument now is merely a selfish desire on their part to force 'acceptance' of a lifestyle most Americans find abhorrent. Thus far, they are not winning that arguement on the popular front, as the recent vote in California clearly shows.

Exactly when was the first legal decision made in America regarding homosexual marriage?

I must admit that one of the things I have come to understand as a defect in California's legal system is the ability to present Consitutional amendments to a popular vote. If memory serves, I recall Californians outlawing cable TV in the late 1960s or very early 1970s. And I recall them outlawing the slaughter of horses for human consumption in 2000 or 2001. I admit I've paid less attention to the initiatives in California since 2001, as I am no longer the voice of the governed.

[Serenity]

[barfle]

Why not do away with government involvement in marriage altogther? No tax breaks or penalties for married vs. unmarried. Anyone can name anyone as their beneficiary, heir, recipient, whatever.

That wasn't on the ballot.

The reason the government gets involved in marriages is because there needs to be a recognition of next of kin, taken by the parties involved and recognized by the society. Over the years, there have been many restrictions as to what types of people could call themselves a family. Most of those barriers have fallen, and I believe it is to the benefit of society that they have.

Can anyone, anywhere, give me a good reason why consenting adults cannot declare themselves family and have that family recognized by their society?

[barfle]

I find it somewhat ironic that clergy in the Catholic church are prohibited from one of the seven sacraments...

Actually, it is very difficult for anyone to participate in all seven sacraments, because Holy Orders (the sacrament that makes a man a priest) is not available to married men. As I understand it, a widower can be ordained (by taking the sacrament of Holy Orders), but that's about the only way one can take both sacraments.

And, to the best of my knowledge, no woman has ever taken Holy Orders.

[barfle]

I've stated quite clearly that we need to continue to oppose the acts that are sinful no matter how many sinners commit them. When we fall, we get back up and keep moving. To do otherwise is to surrender.

This is why we continue to oppose sin in all its' forms. We are sinners, every one, but we can all seek to rise above that, ask forgiveness, and try to make a better world for our progeny. If we surrender to it, then the world descends into chaos, and all is lost. That's why we still have speed limits, despite the fact that so many ignore them. That's why we have laws against theft, despite the fact that so many people steal things. I'm not willing to surrender. Sadly, too many are.

Yet, we have no laws against sloth, lust, greed, rage, gluttony, pride, envy, worshipping false gods, having graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, working on the Sabbath, dishonoring your parents, committing adultery, lying and coveting. And those are just the ones commanded against and described as "deadly."

[Serenity]

[OperaTenor]

I find it somewhat ironic that clergy in the Catholic church are prohibited from one of the seven sacraments...

Actually, it is very difficult for anyone to participate in all seven sacraments, because Holy Orders (the sacrament that makes a man a priest) is not available to married men. As I understand it, a widower can be ordained (by taking the sacrament of Holy Orders), but that's about the only way one can take both sacraments.

And, to the best of my knowledge, no woman has ever taken Holy Orders.

That's only in the Catholic church. The rest of us liturgicals can and do partake of all seven.