Illinois bishops say new civil union law could harm religious freedom (http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=9468)
Those poor poor religious bigots. When will this government oppression of religious freedom end?
QuoteBishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., also issued a separate statement late last year taking issue with a quote attributed to [Illinois Governor] Quinn that “my religious faith animates me to support†the bill legalizing civil unions.
“He did not say what religious faith that would be, but it is certainly not the Catholic faith,†Bishop Paprocki said.
I really don't get what freedoms are being harmed by allowing same sex marriages... the freedom to discriminate?
Quote from: "Davin"I really don't get what freedoms are being harmed by allowing same sex marriages... the freedom to discriminate?
Not even that...the churches could still refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples (and those that are pro gay marriage can already choose to perform the ceremonies; just that most states won't recognize them as really married). This is why we need to call the government side of marriage "civil unions" and let churches have the word marriage; it would fix the problem and everyone would still use the word marriage to refer to people who make a public commitment to each other.
I think they are just upset because they aren't getting their way...they want a theocracy.
Quote from: "Whitney"Not even that...the churches could still refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples (and those that are pro gay marriage can already choose to perform the ceremonies; just that most states won't recognize them as really married). This is why we need to call the government side of marriage "civil unions" and let churches have the word marriage; it would fix the problem and everyone would still use the word marriage to refer to people who make a public commitment to each other.
I think they are just upset because they aren't getting their way...they want a theocracy.
I don't even know where they get the idea that they own the word "marriage".
Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't even know where they get the idea that they own the word "marriage".
Some of the churches....I don't know. Considering we could have chosen a notary for our wedding instead of a minister; they really don't have any case for laying claim to the word marriage. To be married you just have to sign a document and have an approved witness sign off on it.
I'm not a libertarian now, but I still hold to the idea that marriage should not be a government institution. Let it be between individuals and the churches; not only will this mean that nobody will get upset over it (gay people can marry freely, and I assume that people against gay rights will be happier about this situation), it means that each church/religion can believe in their own minds that they're the only ones with the ability to actually marry people.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I'm not a libertarian now, but I still hold to the idea that marriage should not be a government institution.
You do realize that the "institution" is not the point, but rather the rights afforded married couples that only the government can give...?
Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I'm not a libertarian now, but I still hold to the idea that marriage should not be a government institution.
You do realize that the "institution" is not the point, but rather the rights afforded married couples that only the government can give...?
Yes.
I like being able to visit my husband in the hospital (if he were to be in one) and don't want to have to claim I am religiously married...so I'd like to keep the institution secular (or make it secular since idiots are twisting the laws to include a religious understanding).
Quote from: "Whitney"I like being able to visit my husband in the hospital (if he were to be in one) and don't want to have to claim I am religiously married...so I'd like to keep the institution secular (or make it secular since idiots are twisting the laws to include a religious understanding).
Here's what great about it: the hospital wouldn't have to recognize your marriage to allow you to visit your husband.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Here's what great about it: the hospital wouldn't have to recognize your marriage to allow you to visit your husband.
There are some cases where only family is allowed in...and in very unfortunate situations when only family is allowed to make medical decisions. When the person is married those decisions fall on the spouse; otherwise it falls on the parents (or closest next of kin). I and any other partnered couples would have no way of proving we have a right to visit our spouses or a right to make decisions for them if it were not for something very similar to a marriage certificate.
Insurance companies also use the legal status of marriage in determining who can be covered under some insurance plans.
It make the legal right to our household posessions legally shared between us (at least in some states) and makes inheritance default to the spouse.
And there are tax benefits.
There are a lot of additional rights that piece of paper allows beyond just being able to claim legal marriage.
Quote from: "Whitney"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Here's what great about it: the hospital wouldn't have to recognize your marriage to allow you to visit your husband.
There are some cases where only family is allowed in...and in very unfortunate situations when only family is allowed to make medical decisions. When the person is married those decisions fall on the spouse; otherwise it falls on the parents (or closest next of kin). I and any other partnered couples would have no way of proving we have a right to visit our spouses or a right to make decisions for them if it were not for something very similar to a marriage certificate.
Insurance companies also use the legal status of marriage in determining who can be covered under some insurance plans.
It make the legal right to our household posessions legally shared between us (at least in some states) and makes inheritance default to the spouse.
And there are tax benefits.
There are a lot of additional rights that piece of paper allows beyond just being able to claim legal marriage.
Hm. You do have a point.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Hm. You do have a point.
So you really didn't fully understand...
Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Hm. You do have a point.
So you really didn't fully understand...
Fuck you.
I understand that there's benefits to marriage. I get that. Before, I thought that we should simply eliminate those, as well as marriage itself. However, hospitals complicate that a bit, as well as divorce and other things.
Medical decisions: The courts could decide who knew and was closest to the person best. As for visitations, I'm not sure why they couldn't just let anyone in. Enlighten me, please.
Insurance: That sounds a little wrong to me. Why should whether you're married or not be used to determine how much you're covered/how much you pay/etc.?
Legal possessions: The individuals should be able to figure that out on their own, though the courts may be necessary.
Tax benefits: Why should married people get tax benefits?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Hm. You do have a point.
So you really didn't fully understand...
Fuck you.
I understand that there's benefits to marriage. I get that. Before, I thought that we should simply eliminate those, as well as marriage itself. However, hospitals complicate that a bit, as well as divorce and other things.
Medical decisions: The courts could decide who knew and was closest to the person best. As for visitations, I'm not sure why they couldn't just let anyone in. Enlighten me, please.
Insurance: That sounds a little wrong to me. Why should whether you're married or not be used to determine how much you're covered/how much you pay/etc.?
Legal possessions: The individuals should be able to figure that out on their own, though the courts may be necessary.
Tax benefits: Why should married people get tax benefits?
Ok...thank you for your time. It's quite apparent that you don't understand.
Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Ok...thank you for your time. It's quite apparent that you don't understand.
No, thank you. Truly, you have shown me the error of my ways. Thank you so much for clearly explaining to me where I'm wrong in my thinking, what I don't understand, and how to understand it.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Fuck you.
warning issued...LS, you are on a thin rope already due to your comments from last week; don't push it.
As I understand it, we have marriage and marriage benefits to promote childbearing and families. However, our Earth is already overpopulated enough. We don't need to promote childbearing -- we have enough children. And it's not like if we magically take away the benefits of marriage, people will stop reproducing.
As for families...unmarried people are already allowed to have children and raise them, so this is a moot point. We could perhaps provide incentives for people with a stable household and children, however.
In the military, you don't get any marriage benefits unless the marriage is officially recognized by the state. You can get your marriage recognized by the church all you want. Hell you can get it recognized by 20 different churches. But to the military, that doesn't matter. Unless the state says you are married, no benefits for your spouse. Period.
QuoteI like being able to visit my husband in the hospital (if he were to be in one) and don't want to have to claim I am religiously married...so I'd like to keep the institution secular (or make it secular since idiots are twisting the laws to include a religious understanding).
Kinda agree with Whitney here. Though there is only a slim chance I will ever get married, I'd prefer the Church and other religious organizations to stay out of it. I don't like the idea of only being able to go to a Church or other religious institution in order to get married. I'd much prefer to just get married down at the Courthouse/Clerk's office/whatever.
Quote from: "terranus"Kinda agree with Whitney here. Though there is only a slim chance I will ever get married, I'd prefer the Church and other religious organizations to stay out of it. I don't like the idea of only being able to go to a Church or other religious institution in order to get married. I'd much prefer to just get married down at the Courthouse/Clerk's office/whatever.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that marriage should be a private between two individuals, and the state should stay out of it, for the most part. For most people, this would mean that they'd get married at a church, and their marriage would be recognize by that church/religion.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that marriage should be a private between two individuals, and the state should stay out of it, for the most part. For most people, this would mean that they'd get married at a church, and their marriage would be recognize by that church/religion.
What you're saying is already the way things are. The only difference as of now is that marriage is seen only legal between a male and a female. It
is between two individuals, the State in no way is involved (other than the perks that come by the State through marriage), people do get married in a church for the most part and marriages are recognized by THAT church/religion that allows them to be married in their place of worship.
Now...what is your point, I'm having a difficult time understanding you.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Quote from: "terranus"Kinda agree with Whitney here. Though there is only a slim chance I will ever get married, I'd prefer the Church and other religious organizations to stay out of it. I don't like the idea of only being able to go to a Church or other religious institution in order to get married. I'd much prefer to just get married down at the Courthouse/Clerk's office/whatever.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that marriage should be a private between two individuals, and the state should stay out of it, for the most part. For most people, this would mean that they'd get married at a church, and their marriage would be recognize by that church/religion.
But what if I don't want my marriage recognized by a church/religion? What if I somehow manage to find me a nice atheist girl to settle down with? If you take the state out of it, then I would be forced to have my marriage recognized by some religious organization in order to make it legit. Definitely not something I want. Plus, I'm pretty sure that doing so might unintentionally violate the 1st amendment. There needs to be a secular place for people to get married - and right now, the government is it.
Quote from: "terranus"But what if I don't want my marriage recognized by a church/religion? What if I somehow manage to find me a nice atheist girl to settle down with? If you take the state out of it, then I would be forced to have my marriage recognized by some religious organization in order to make it legit. Definitely not something I want. Plus, I'm pretty sure that doing so might unintentionally violate the 1st amendment. There needs to be a secular place for people to get married - and right now, the government is it.
Uh, no. You'd need for your marriage to get recognize by a church/religion for it to be legitimate,
according to that church/religion.
There probably already are secular places to marry, and if there aren't, I'm sure there would be.
It's so much easier to get married in the eyes of the state and have that one document declare your union than have to draft up multiple documents for power of attorney, to declare that you agree to share your possession, etc etc.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Uh, no. You'd need for your marriage to get recognize by a church/religion for it to be legitimate, according to that church/religion.
Assertion or truth? Because this is interesting. I have at least two couples as friends that have never had their marriage "legitimized" by any religion, yet they are legally married gaining all State perks within marriage. Explain your above statement plz.
QuoteThere probably already are secular places to marry, and if there aren't, I'm sure there would be.
This is the kicker. I can understand you not wanting the government in your personal business. But in order for this "privitization of marriage" idea to work properly, there must be some type of private, secular organization set up that can legitimize marriages. Just having the churches as the solely responsible party for marriages is not a good idea.
Quote from: "terranus"QuoteThere probably already are secular places to marry, and if there aren't, I'm sure there would be.
This is the kicker. I can understand you not wanting the government in your personal business. But in order for this "privitization of marriage" idea to work properly, there must be some type of private, secular organization set up that can legitimize marriages. Just having the churches as the solely responsible party for marriages is not a good idea.
I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find a secular place to get married.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Quote from: "terranus"QuoteThere probably already are secular places to marry, and if there aren't, I'm sure there would be.
This is the kicker. I can understand you not wanting the government in your personal business. But in order for this "privitization of marriage" idea to work properly, there must be some type of private, secular organization set up that can legitimize marriages. Just having the churches as the solely responsible party for marriages is not a good idea.
I'm pretty sure you'd be able to find a secular place to get married.
Huh?
I'm married officially, no religions were involved.
Oh my flying fuck.
There is no war against religion (Although there damn well should be!), there is a war against everything that the powerful religions don't want, and every time that the SMALLEST of things happens that might make the religious zealots uncomfortable, they go apeshit.
A person's rights end where another person's begings. If he can't handle the fact that there are homosexuals, he needs to move to another country.
There's plenty of ways to get legally married without religion involved, a justice of the peace can marry a couple, so can the captain of a ship. Or you can just have a friend get ordained through the ULC, that's what I did.
Same sad song coming from the Vatican: (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE72L4XU20110322)
QuotePeople who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.
This from the Vatican mouthpiece who tried a couple of years ago to divert attention from Catholic molestation scandals by pointing his finger at other religions, and just about anywhere else he could think of. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican)
A sad time, when religiously motivated bigotry is being attacked. Over a thousand years of glorious history devoted to defending purity, and now some misguided individuals and organizations dare to question the rights of upstanding Christians to condemn sexuality which YHVH has clearly said is wrong. It's a good thing He's coming down in a few months to dispense His righteous justice.