Religious Liberty?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

That's two different things. A religious marriage and a civil marriage. No one is interfering with the religious marriage, so, no, it would not be a violation of their religious right.

You're right there. Two different types of "union" are using the same term "marriage". That's part of the confusion. It's a deliberate confusion engineered to attack the religious conception of marriage.

In religion, marriage is a spiritually important union, where "God" brings the man and woman together, to make them husband and wife. So the "union" is guided by a "spirit", with the objective to produce "one flesh" from the two. The flesh of the man and the flesh of the woman, combine to form the new "one flesh" that is evident in the "child". Children of their united flesh are born of the union, when the man and woman obey God's command to "be fruitful and multiply." It's all ordained by God for the specific purpose of "replenishing the earth" with a population of mankind. This is why it is "holy" and "good". It's all laid out very clearly in the Book of Genesis.

So, when a Priest "marries" the heterosexual couple, he is acting out "visibly" a ritual that represents the holy truth, that God brought this man and this woman together, to fulfill his plan, as described in the holy book. It is a sacred union.

Over the course of time, societies celebrated this holy marriage by introducing lots of civil laws and practices that were intended to "promote" marriage and encourage couples to have kids. And that's where the problems begin. The civil idea of marriage includes lots of "perks" and "rights" that really have nothing to do with religion. There are "tax breaks" for married couples, "visitation rights" for the sick, "insurance benefits" for couples, "inheritance rights" for married partners, and on and on. All this is, of course, "unfair" to single people, who don't get tax breaks, just because they haven't found love (double punishment), and can't get visitation rights when living with platonic friends, etc...BUT, the society felt that the "benefit" of the married couple in producing the next generation of people was so great, that this justified punishing those who were not contributing to the "multiplication" effect.

Single people had/have no choice but to accept this bias, this tyranny, this bigotry, against the single lifestyle.

Problems began when scientists discovered a thing called "contraception".

Although the church spoke out against it, married couples began to use contraception, to avoid having kids. So, from a practical point of view, marriage was no longer seen as a vehicle for producing and raising kids. Yet, all the social benefits and tax breaks remained.

So, gays and lesbians could now make a legitimate argument, that "Hey, marriage isn't about kids, it's only about love, which of course is "sex with consent." We want the same benefits. Heterosexuals can't argue the case, because they have been taking the contraceptives to prevent the "one flesh" outcome. So, on the one hand, they go to Church, and let the spirit bless them in their union, then they go back to the bedroom and prevent the spirit's command from coming forth.

So, as you can see, everybody is doing it wrong. Wrong has become right. At least in the minds of the population.

The fact is that there is no reason to continue the institution of marriage today. It just discriminates against single people. It is unfair, to give two people a piece of paper that entitles them to all these benefits, when those people don't actually contribute back any more to the society than the single people do.

At the very least, the society should recognize "platonic marriages" too. Where two people form a platonic partnership, not for sex, but just for "the benefits" they will get by joining together to form a unit, and the help they can give to each other financially, and when one gets sick etc. The "roommate marriage certificate" should be an option for people also. Officially declaring who my roommate is, should bring me all the benefits other couples get.

So, there are two distinct forms of marriage, unrelated to each other. However, the use of the same word "marriage" has caused so much confusion, that in Denmark the Priests are required to "marry" homosexuals in the church, just as if it is a holy union. We are descending into madness, confusion, and chaos.

Somewhere out there, maybe their will arise a new light, to lead man out of this darkness.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: CryHavoc

Churches don't issue marriage licenses....They only provide a meaningless ceramony.

The county, State, City issues the marriage licenses. Not religious at all.

exactly, this is why I think this is such a red herring, a non-starter.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
It's a deliberate confusion engineered to attack the religious conception of marriage.

Interesting, if paranoid opinion.

Thanks for the bible and civics lessons, but I hardly need to be schooled on either. Yes, things change. I know it's difficult for some to accept, but this is life.

TODAY, marriage is about kids for some people, not so much for others.

So, as you can see, everybody is doing it wrong.

Everyone who has a different opinion from yours, that is. Right? I'm doing marriage right FOR ME. 23 years and counting, more in love than ever, and no kids.

It is unfair, to give two people a piece of paper that entitles them to all these benefits, when those people don't actually contribute back any more to the society than the single people do.

Breeding isn't the ONLY contribution marriage makes to society. Stability. And plenty of people who aren't married are contributing kids, so your simplistic view on marriage is very limited and doesn't apply to many people. TODAY.

So, there are two distinct forms of marriage, unrelated to each other. However, the use of the same word "marriage" has caused so much confusion

I'm not confused. There's no reason for confusion. It's a very simple concept. There are many homonyms in our language. We manage to sort them out ALL the time.

that in Denmark the Priests are required to "marry" homosexuals in the church, just as if it is a holy union.

Not true! Source

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

Somewhere out there, maybe their will arise a new light, to lead man out of this darkness.

What "darkness" are you talking about?

a reply to: AMPTAH

It's a deliberate confusion engineered to attack the religious conception of marriage

no, it isn't, in early 1500's the roman catholic church wanted to make it so that only marriages that we done with the church blessing was valid, they had to wait a few decades to do this since at the time, most marriages weren't done within a church setting.

and well, then there is this:

After the American Revolution, couples could choose a clergyman or a Justice of the Peace to solemnize their marriage. The laws of 1778 provided that, in addition to the Anglican clergy, “all regular ministers of the Gospel of every Denomination,” as well as Justices of the Peace were “empowered to celebrate Matrimony…” By the 1840s, it was settled law that it was “an essential requisite of a legal marriage that it should either be celebrated by some person in a sacred office, or be entered into before someone in a public station and judicial trust.” In either event, until 1868 couples were required to publish banns in a church or post a bond to be filed with the county clerk before the marriage was solemnized. North Carolina historian William S. Powell estimates that “two-thirds of all marriages prior to 1868 were by banns, [for] they were quicker and cheaper than licenses.” Banns recorded in the churches were not public records. On the other hand, posted bonds were public records and thus became part of a county’s permanent records. Unless lost due to fire or flood, such records, including Marriage Bonds, were transferred to the State Archives.

Despite all attempts by the state and by the clergy to regulate and register marriages, an untold and inestimable number reportedly ignored the letter of the law. Ministers often solemnized marriages without licenses according to the customs of their denomination, but magistrates performed marriages on an oral assurance that banns had been read; and in rural areas, where neither minister nor magistrate was easily reached, people entered into marriages following their needs and traditions.

www.northcarolinahistory.org...

religion doesn't own the word marriage, and well, there are many different religions being practiced in this country with some just choosing to not believe in a divine being... by claiming marriage as being strictly what you religion preaches it as being and insisting that everyone else just agree to accept another terminology, you are denying not only heterosexual athiests the right to MARRY, but also those of other faiths.
if it's all those perks that find offensive, well you better sit back and think about why those "perks" were established to begin with, because many of them are there because throughout history women were put at such a disadvantage in society, that the husband's social security had to extend to her or else she could have very well have been left broke and penniless with no viable means of income....
you want to do away with those perks, well, first then, you have to get it through your thick skulls that every women, just like every man is equally responsible for both the caring and nurturing of the family that they create together, but also the financial burdens that are encountered. single people don't get to enjoy the perks of being married, but married people don't enjoy as much liberty as far as being treated as individuals by the government. You can't treat your incomes and wealth as separate, you can't decide to leave all your wealth to your children instead of your spouse, if you divorce, property has to be separated equitably.
but, no, you cannot, will not reclassify the couple that were married by the justice of the peace way back when they were young, brought their kids into the world and raised them, and are now enjoying their old age together as something other than being married! heck they are more married than most of those who are getting married now days when close to 50% of them end up being divorced within 10 years!
that is just too big of a price for them to pay simply because you don't like the idea of two men or two ladies getting married! if you don't believe they fit your definition of married then fine...but don't go around trying to take that term away from those who have had their marriage accepted by society for decades, that's insanity and totally uncalled for!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Breeding isn't the ONLY contribution marriage makes to society. Stability. And plenty of people who aren't married are contributing kids, so your simplistic view on marriage is very limited and doesn't apply to many people TODAY.

Marriage certainly isn't required for breeding.

Economics and stability in society is far more important for reasons to marry.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Breeding isn't the ONLY contribution marriage makes to society. Stability. And plenty of people who aren't married are contributing kids, so your simplistic view on marriage is very limited and doesn't apply to many people. TODAY.

But any two people can unite and increase "Stability". It has nothing to do with sex. Two incomes are better than one. When one gets laid off, the other can provide, and tide things over until the new job is found. Two pairs of hands can help around the house, support one when the other is sick etc...Two people can afford a better house than one income alone. There are lots of good that can come from pairing up, that has nothing to do with love. So, then give marriage certificates to everyone. Why not "platonic marriages"? Why must there be sex? If you're not having kids, then the sex is less important than all the other things that provide stability. The real stability comes from having kids, for as the bible says;

And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. KJV, Ecclesiastes 4:12

That is "Three = man + woman + child" is more stable than Two = man + woman". Stability comes from the third flesh, the one that is the union of the two. Marriages break up faster in general, when there are no kids. Kids help to make the family unit stable. Of course, there are exceptions to every general rule. But, looking at the general trends, kids make the union more stable, just as the bible says.

I'm not confused. There's no reason for confusion. It's a very simple concept. There are many homonyms in our language. We manage to sort them out ALL the time.

Not true! Source

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

You think you're not confused. But, in fact, you just cant see. You point out that individual priests "can refuse" to carry out the ceremony, but at the same time can't see that "the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church".

The bishop must, what the priest wouldn't.

Somehow, you're blind to the truth.

well it's kind of easy for the state to step in an tell the church what to do when the church carries a name like the Church of Denmark and something like 80% of the population are members.

The state’s support for the Church of Denmark today is primarily managerial and administrative in character. Since the Constitution of 1849 granted citizens full religious freedom, membership of the Church of Denmark depends on individual free choice. The Church of Denmark, which to a certain extent operates as an association in 2012 has nearly 80% of the population as members. Other religious communities are supported primarily via exemption from taxation on donations to recognised religious bodies.

Denmark’s next-largest religious group consists of immigrants and others with Islamic backgrounds. Around four percent of the population has roots in an Islamic culture, with considerably fewer individuals actually being practicing Muslims. Globalisation and immigration has also led to significant growth in the memberships of Christian and Christian-oriented groups outside of the Church of Denmark, accounting for around three percent of the population today. There is also a large group of individuals, around 13%, without pronounced religious allegiances. This group contains individuals variously associated with, for example, Buddhism and Hinduism but consists primarily of non-religious individuals like agnostics. Similar beliefs are also common among members of the Church of Denmark.

denmark.dk...

now aren't you glad we have the separation of church and state???

originally posted by: AMPTAH
You point out that individual priests "can refuse" to carry out the ceremony, but at the same time can't see that "the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church".

That was in my post. I didn't ignore it or leave it out. And I'm not confused at all.

The bishop must, what the priest wouldn't.

No, the bishop must ARRANGE for someone to come in the church and marry the people.

Somehow, you're blind to the truth.

No, the truth was in my post. You seem to have missed it.

Hi guys,

Just throwing a wrench in the discussion...

Here, north of the US border, apparently, schools have to teach that same sex preference is a "normal" thing to do - even if they are Catholic schools.

How is this government not taking money from the majority of people and forcing the schools to do this.

I personally, wouldn't choose to allow it.

But, in the same vein, they could allow people to walk around naked - how is this hurting anyone?? Or they could claim that making new species using DNA splicing for the purpose of sexual acts as "normal". Again, it doesn't hurt anyone - perhaps the animal will get "hurt" - maybe not. Perhaps a human with a pig's head could be created for human pleasure - that animal might agree. If it is a minority that practices these things, then all the more reason to protect them from "discrimination".

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CryHavoc

To my mind, the first thing to ensure is that people who are responsible for granting licenses for marriage, are not prohibitive in their religious beliefs. If an individual has beliefs which prevent them from dispensing their duties with total impartiality, then they should not be permitted to take the job, or occupy it for any longer than it takes to find a replacement. Government employees who currently occupy positions of power in these matters, and who hold prohibitive religious beliefs, should be re-tasked in roles where their religious beliefs are unlikely to ever be touched upon, by affairs with which they deal.

That is not to say that persons who hold religious beliefs in general may not take these jobs.

I'm with you on this, this was the only thing I could come up with as well, it's the only solution, but how do you implement it? Since the decision that same sex marriage is legal came in the middle of some peoples elected terms how do you fire someone without infringing on their rights? This should be a non issue after the next election cycle for that type of job since it should be included in the job description they are going for, but currently? Maybe the Gay community is just going to have to be patient a little while longer.

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
Since the decision that same sex marriage is legal came in the middle of some peoples elected terms how do you fire someone without infringing on their rights? This should be a non issue after the next election cycle for that type of job since it should be included in the job description they are going for, but currently? Maybe the Gay community is just going to have to be patient a little while longer.

Given that issuing a marriage license is just a tiny part of the job done by public officials, why not separate out that bit, and let someone else do it. I mean, why make one little detail determine who has the right to hold office? Gee, if we're not going to let people "discriminate" in issuing marriage certificates, why have a human do this at all. Just program a computer to issue licenses, let the machines give them out. If you want a mechanical signing of contracts, you let a machine do it. The machine doesn't care, it automatically does as it is told. You don't need to put a thinking person in office, then have them play the robot by rubber stamping a fixed law onto a piece of paper. This is ridiculous. We put people in office to think, to apply their minds, to work on problems that need solving, to make judgments using their morals, ethics, and mind, not to do rote tasks that are brainless and need no mind to apply.

The fix is to have machines issue all mechanical contracts that simply require a signature. They can put an official seal and date stamp on more efficiently that any human can. If that's the job. That's what the people want. Then they want a machine in office. Give them a robot. Its cheaper too.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

No, the bishop must ARRANGE for someone to come in the church and marry the people.

Yes, he must find another priest. If no priest can be found then it becomes his job. He must find the solution. And since the bishop is the "chief priest" in his part of the community, he leads by example. You only have to corrupt the head, and all the minions will follow.

a reply to: AMPTAH

would you be willing to feed the only copy you have of your birth certificate through a machine???
really??? God, I guard such things with my life, my papers that prove my identity would be the first things I would grab if I have to bug out fast. they can be a royal pain in the neck to replace if you have to start from scratch...

and it should be noted, that the county clerk in tennesee was the supervisor of a staff of deputy clerks, she could have gotten away with delegated that job to any of them if she wished. but she wouldn't let them do the job either. her grip was that it was the responsibility of her office to issue them and for them to be legal, they had to have her name on them along with her title.

and in many places one of the duties of the county clerks office is to issue marriage licenses, in kentucky's case, a state law assigns the task to that office. it's a uniform policy across the state. so, should the state just up and change their policy and have say the dmv issue the licenses instead of the county clerks? what if someone in charge of one of the dmv offices has the same moral complaint about issuing them? do we then change it over to the welfare department. and every time we change it the taxpayers get zapped with an insane bill because the legislature has to be called into session to rewrite the laws? you consider such a thing as being overly burdensome to the taxpayers and citizens who expect to receive services from our local governments in an orderly fashion? Do you realize that out here in the real world, accommodations for religious beliefs, and even for temporary or permanent disabilities have been denied for being too overly burdensome which would have been more easily accommodated that this would be?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: AMPTAH

would you be willing to feed the only copy you have of your birth certificate through a machine???

If you travel, you'll see many airports require you to enter your passport into a machine, to give you your boarding pass, to get on the plane. Machines are already being given these routine tasks where human action is not really required.

you consider such a thing as being overly burdensome to the taxpayers and citizens who expect to receive services from our local governments in an orderly fashion?

You know voting in many places is now done by machine, right? Think of how important the act of voting is, to a democracy, and yet, it is now entrusted to a mere machine to take and count the vote.

Having a machine issue marriage certificates is a simple fix, that immediately solves all problems, once an for all time.
Worried about your birth certificate being eaten by the machine? Then, design the machine like a "scanner". You lift a lid, place your birth certificate on the glass pane, close the lid, press the button, then lift the lid and remove your birth certificate. You can have a scanner that can't "eat" the page being scanned. I have one at home. They exist.

Make a list of all the problems you think might exist, then order a machine that works around them all. It's the age of technology. We shouldn't let small trivial routine things like signing a document hold up the rest of government activity.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Yes, he must find another priest.

Or ANYONE who is qualified to marry people. Here in the US, it could be a justice of the peace. Or just about any judicial officer, or a minister or pastor of another religion, or a priest who is willing. Here, you can even have a friend marry you, if you want. Most likely, a gay couple who wants to get married in a church will have that arranged.

You're talking about another country's VERY REASONABLE law. This is the US. Our religious liberty laws are much more lenient to the religious.

You only have to corrupt the head, and all the minions will follow.

You're living in a dream world of your own making.

After reading all the comments, I see that some do not understand the law(s). Allowing same sex marriage doesn't effect freedom of religion at all. Nothing has changed about that.

I also see that there are too many people filled with hate in here. They have so much hate that they are blind by it. Whenever they see something that they don't like or is different from their beliefs, they start to point fingers and blame others. Don't get me wrong, most if not all problems does have someone or something that is responsible for causing it. Those people and/or things are to be blamed. But we must look pass our anger, hate, etc and put blame on the ones who were responsible for causing it. I see a lot of rights vs lefts, democrats vs republicans , conservatives vs liberals, atheists vs theists. I forgot who, but someone in here was blaming liberals for showing people the public of the recording of a private racist comment. Liberals are not to be blamed here. It is the media that should be blamed on.

Lastly, for those who called themselves Christians that are living in the USA, same sex marriage is legal now. You shouldn't decline service to those who want to be married by the church. In fact, Christians should encourage it. Don't do it because I said so. But, because it's the law. Because it is God's law. God commands it. So if you can't live with that, I can only think of two options for you. Move to a different country that has laws forbidding same-sex marriage, or change your religion.

originally posted by: night912
After reading all the comments, I see that some do not understand the law(s). Allowing same sex marriage doesn't effect freedom of religion at all. Nothing has changed about that.

...
Lastly, for those who called themselves Christians that are living in the USA, same sex marriage is legal now. You shouldn't decline service to those who want to be married by the church. In fact, Christians should encourage it. Don't do it because I said so. But, because it's the law. Because it is God's law. God commands it.

Very amusing. "doesn't effect freedom of religion at all"....then...."...God commands it".

Madness and confusion. That's the ultimate effect from perusing the lusts of the flesh.

a reply to: AMPTAH

But "Marriage" is not religious, you can have a Religious Ceremony, but that is not "Marriage"

a reply to: AMPTAH

the bible does seem to tell christians to obey the laws of the land though, does it not???
look it's simple if you don't agree with the laws that are on the books with that much conviction, then well, be willing to suffer the consequences...... start looking for another job that doesn't demand you to compromise your convictions. My God, it isn't like anyone is gonna get sent to the lion's den for not issuing a marriage license, which well, during the time when I believe it was Paul told the christians to obey the laws, I kind of think that many of them were fated to play with the lions for convictions that were probably much less trivial than having your signature as the court clerk on a marriage license!

As far as the Church of Denmark, it is much like the Anglican Church in England is, it has strong ties with the gov't. Technically, the head of the Anglican Church is the Queen, and well, in Denmark the gov't, holds the administrative powers over it. That's a far cry from what we have in the US.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

But "Marriage" is not religious, you can have a Religious Ceremony, but that is not "Marriage"

This is what so many don't understand. The legal marriage is the contract with the state. What happens in a church is the ceremony, holy matrimony, sacred bond, stuff like that.

What does the minister usually say? "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony."