justin1552
Hurr Durr
Isn't there supposed to be a separation between church and state?
Government Laws on Marriage
senojekips
Active member
What might I ask has this to do with the debate?
We were discussing about homo marriage, the Church has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a legal state, not a religious one.
The Other Guy
Spam King
But people are objecting because it's against their religion.
senojekips
Active member
Yeah,... It probably doesn't conform to the standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers or AS9001/1 either, but once again, that has nothing to do with the debate.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Yeah,... It probably doesn't conform to the standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers or AS9001/1 either, but once again, that has nothing to do with the debate.
Actually it does, at least in the US perhaps not in other countries. The primary supporters of those wanting to ban Gay marriage are religious organizations and they are using a considerable amount of their influence to pressure politicans to pass laws that support their religious beliefs.
When Religious organizations such as the Christian Coalition are passing laws on their theological intrpretation of scripture that is a violation of the separation of church and state. Christianity might take a hardline on homosexuality, but the 14th Amendment states clearly that everyone is equal under the law and that superceeds any religon.
Chukpike
Banned
Since marriage is more of a moral issue than a state run institution the state should have stayed out of it. Should have just remained a record keeper.
Moral issues are more in the area of church's than governments.So if it was a separation of church and state issue, then it was violated by the state. In all states that the people have been allowed to make a decision on whether is was morally right for gays to marry they have said no.
The only two states that allow gay marriage, Massachusetts and Connecticut, it has been the state legislature and courts that legalized it.
You know "da gubment".
Rob Henderson
Banned
My my my... Chukpike just agreed with me...
"Since marriage is more of a moral issue than a state-run institution THE STATE SHOULD HAVE STAYED OUT OF IT."
"Since marriage is more of a moral issue than a state-run institution THE STATE SHOULD HAVE STAYED OUT OF IT."
senojekips
Active member
Marriage being totally a legal state, and having absolutely nothing to do with morals, except to the "religious", it is certainly a Government area.
In this debate I'm sure that the homos don't care whether it is "moral" or not, if it were morals they were after, they would be "straight" in the first place, and there would be no debate would there?
WNxRogue
Active member
As far as I know, the state legislature of both those states are elected by the people of those states. And the court systems are either A. Appointed by said elected officials, or B. Directly elected by the people. Direct Democracy does not exist in the US. However, that does not mean that the decision was not made by the people.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Well that may be true, but it has no meaning within the debate for me, as all along I have clearly stated that religion is no part of my argument, I have no care for religious perceptions and I would not call on them as support for my argument as I am a convinced Atheist.
WNxRogue
Active member
I personally feel that Gay marriage should be allowed, however I also am against the kind of "gay pride" parades that 5.56 was referencing. Affection is fine in public, but don't over do it. I agree with Henderson that the law should not bar a couple from marriage based on their sexual orientation. I firmly believe it is not unlike a law banning smoking - people must be allowed to pursue their lives as they see fit. The only caveat to this is when it stops others from pursuing their lives in the same manner. I fail to see how gay marriage would adversely effect the lives of the general public.
Last edited:
Rob Henderson
Banned
Can a mayor marry two people? Can a senator marry two people? Can a police officer people marry two people?
I didn't think so. It doesn't matter whether you're atheist, agnostic, anarchist, whatever, marriage IS IS IS a religious affair, get used to it.
I didn't think so. It doesn't matter whether you're atheist, agnostic, anarchist, whatever, marriage IS IS IS a religious affair, get used to it.
WNxRogue
Active member
A judge can marry two people. I don't believe they hold a religious position. It is not a religious issue. It is simply a binding contract with the state and with another individual. Edit - Here is a complete list of those who can perform marriages (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/officiants.htm). As you can see, many of the titles on this page are not religious officials.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
But.
They're in it now, so they kind of have to accept it, don't they, just to maintain seperation.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
You can also be married by a Justice of the Peace and in this country a registered Marriage Celebrant (don't ask me I am guessing some new age hippy crap), hell I was initially married in a Registry Office (God was neither mentioned nor did he sign as a witness or guest) but later we redid the process in a church to shut her mother up, think of it as lip service to the church.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Yes I know, but the main marriage officials are officials of the church. You cannot tell me that marriage is PURELY (as in 100% exclusive) a secular affair. That is a lie.
senojekips
Active member
YES if he/she is a licenced marriage celebrant.
NOT, NOT, NOT,
It's a quick, easy and totally irrelevant who can't marry two persons, what is relevant is that a marriage can be performed by ANY person licenced to do it, there is no mention of religion. Even you could become a marriage celebrant, so it is not in any way a religious ceremony. Religious representatives can marry persons but they are only one group of many.
When a priest marries two persons, he can only do it with the consent of the state, and his primary legal obligation is also to the state, as they are responsoble for the lodgement of the paperwork for the issue of a marriage certificate or licence which is a legal document backed by the State , not the church. So much for Marriage being a religious ceremony.
If for some reason it was deemed necessary, the State can strike a priest off the marriage celebrants list, and they could not then marry two persons legally.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well you could be a church official or you could just get your certificate of marriage celebrancy online...
http://www.celebrancy.edu.au/
I was looking into it myself as a career change but it would have taken another 3 years before you get to balloon sculptures and face painting.
Still if non-religious is your game even that is possible...
http://www.weddingvendors.com/planning/articles/ideas-non-religious-wedding-ceremony/
Last edited:
Chukpike
Banned
Not correct if you wish to speak about the US form of government please at least read the the Constitution and the amendments.
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Chukpike
Banned
Actually almost anybody can marry two people. I only had to go to the county seat, pay ten dollars and tell the registrar who I was going to join in matrimony and when. I was then sworn in to perform the marriage service by the county registrar. I joined my best friend and his wife on 07/07/2007.
My point has been that marriage has been a moral joining sanctioned by religion since long before the US was a country. Most states marriage licenses are administered by counties and not by the states themselves. Basically only since the start of Social Security has there been a need for states to keep records of births, deaths and marriages. Up until the advent of Social Security all these records were kept by local government.
The states since Social Security have become the official record holder for births, death and marriage. That was in the 1930s.