Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Results 331 to 345 of 345

Thread: Ashley Wagner making a statement against Russia's law

  1. #331
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptichka View Post
    That used to be my opinion. However, like it or not, the institution of marriage is good for the society. Makes guys more responsible and all that. So from a purely public policy point of view, you still want to have government involved. Oh, and marriage is sill tightly coupled with adoption rights - married couples generally find it easier to adopt then singles, for obvious reasons. So you take the government out of it - and you're leaving all the atheists screwed. Of course you can always do what Israel does - they don't have non-religious marriages, so either you find a registered rabbi/imam/priest/etc. to perform the ceremony, or you do what non-affiliated do and go get married on Cyprus
    When I started reading your comment, I was about to cite Israel, and then you did. Yes, I don't think we would do very well in the U.S. if marriage were only a religious institution. In Israel, many Jews can't get approval to be married because the rabbis in charge of such things don't recognize certain Jewish denominations.

    What is separate in the U.S., and should be, is that no religious institution can be forced to perform a ceremony that is against its doctrine. Even if gay marriage is legal, no cathedral will be forced to hold a wedding between two men or two women. The government has no power to compel such a thing, just as it cannot now force the Catholic church to recognize a civil divorce and subsequent remarriage, and it can't compel an Orthodox Jewish husband to grant a get (sort of a divorce consent) to a wife petitioning for divorce.

  2. #332
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nürnberg
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympia View Post
    What is separate in the U.S., and should be, is that no religious institution can be forced to perform a ceremony that is against its doctrine. Even if gay marriage is legal, no cathedral will be forced to hold a wedding between two men or two women. The government has no power to compel such a thing, just as it cannot now force the Catholic church to recognize a civil divorce and subsequent remarriage, and it can't compel an Orthodox Jewish husband to grant a get (sort of a divorce consent) to a wife petitioning for divorce.
    Good starting point to think about the role that the Russian Orthodox Church played prior to the introduction of the new laws.

  3. #333
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    As she has stated, it's because she has many gay friends and is protesting a law that persecutes people for their sexual orientation.

    Say in a Middle Eastern country a woman is forced against her will to marry or is stoned to death... should you respect this? Should it be considered wrong for you to speak out against this?

    If people in Russia are jailed or fined or having children taken away from them due to deep-seeded homophobia, are you supposed to accept this because that is their law?

    You're essentially saying that one shouldn't fight for human rights in other countries as it is only the business of that country and the citizens its laws are oppressing.
    Of course I respect their decision. They know what they want from their point of view. It doesn't mean their law is good or bad, or I should follow or not. And I was talking aobut a man can have 1+ wives. I don't know if their law clearly allows forced marriage or stoned to death. I am not a citizen and have never been a citizen of those countries. If we don't respect the law, then only big voice and big fist will work.

  4. #334
    and... World Peace! Tonichelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    18,659
    while it's true that the government shouldn't be able to force it - they are already working to make it a hate crime... not just for businesses but churches. So...

    like I said, government should not be in the business of marriage anyway.

  5. #335
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,887
    Quote Originally Posted by bsfan View Post
    Of course I respect their decision. They know what they want from their point of view. It doesn't mean their law is good or bad, or I should follow or not. And I was talking aobut a man can have 1+ wives. I don't know if their law clearly allows forced marriage or stoned to death. I am not a citizen and have never been a citizen of those countries. If we don't respect the law, then only big voice and big fist will work.
    So, you would condone capital punishment/murder and forcing someone to be married because it's that country's law, even if it infringes on basic human rights? You can't discern for yourself if a law that permits murder or discriminates/imprisons people is morally good or bad?

  6. #336
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonichelle View Post
    while it's true that the government shouldn't be able to force it - they are already working to make it a hate crime... not just for businesses but churches. So...

    like I said, government should not be in the business of marriage anyway.
    No, "they" are not making it a hate crime for a church not to marry somebody. People on FB and such are writing this, but there is no such laws trying to be passed, because they are absolutely un-Constitutional.

    Heck, they can't even force the Catholic Church to marry divorced heterosexual couples.

    Now if a justice of the peace in CT refused to marry a gay couple, that might be against the law in some way because such folks are agents of the state, and they are appointed to, among other things, marry people that are legal to get married. But a church, no.
    Last edited by dorispulaski; 01-22-2014 at 02:30 PM.

  7. #337
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    What about a pastor decides to perform a SSM ceremony against the Church's doctrine and the will of the members of his church?

  8. #338
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,309
    Then the church will discipline him in whatever way it sees fit. It's not the business of the government. Separation of church & state is in the U.S. Constitution.

    In the reverse case, when an Episcopal pastor in my town refused to accept that he had a gay married bishop, which is OK in the US Episcopal Church, and his congregation went along with him, the Episcopal church ended up repossessing the church from that group (because in the Episcopal Church, the denomination, not the congregation, owns the building.

    The pastor & congregation affiliated with the Episcopal of Africa, which does not allow same-sex anything and is one of several groups at the heart of the criminalization of being gay in Nigeria. The state & US government have no right to do anything about that either.
    .
    The Supreme Court refused to take the case, because it's the church's business and not the state's nor the federal government's business.

    If a Catholic priest married a gay couple, probably he would be excommunicated (and fired, of course). None of that is the federal government's business.
    Here's an Australian priest who got excommunicated just that way.
    http://www.charismanews.com/world/41...est-for-heresy

    If it happened in the US, the government wouldn't and can't legally intervene.
    Last edited by dorispulaski; 01-23-2014 at 08:21 AM.

  9. #339
    I'm gonna Customize the CRAP out of this Title!!! Frenchie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mainz, Germany
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    What about a pastor decides to perform a SSM ceremony against the Church's doctrine and the will of the members of his church?
    I think going with what you believe to be right is essential in making things move, internal debate isn't a sign of rebellion. The Church often took longer than average to come around "officially", like with Galileo Galilei and the Earth being the center of the Universe.
    By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. (...)

    In September 1632, Galileo was ordered to come to Rome to stand trial. His final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat. The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on June 22. It was in three essential parts:
    - Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
    - He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
    - His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
    Many within the Church have known - and stated - that a condom is actually quite helpful, even if the Church hasn't come around until very, very recently.

  10. #340
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    BTW, in Russia, AFAIK, church actually will not marry you until you the government-issued marriage certificate.

  11. #341
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptichka View Post
    BTW, in Russia, AFAIK, church actually will not marry you until you the government-issued marriage certificate.
    I thought in America, people go to the government office to get a certificate, then have wedding ceremony, whether the ceremony is in a church or not.

  12. #342
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,493
    Maybe Ptichka is talking about the license rather than the completed marriage certificate? In that case, it's like the U.S., as Blue describes, where the license must be issued first before any church (or civil) ceremony takes place. But maybe aspects of this Russian law exists from the days of the Soviet Union, which officially didn't recognize religion. Can someone straighten me out about this? (Probably Ptichka or Doris; thanks in advance!)

  13. #343
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    I thought in America, people go to the government office to get a certificate, then have wedding ceremony, whether the ceremony is in a church or not.
    That's what people usually do, because getting married in a church does not get you the tax breaks and whole book of freebies and rights from the US government. Getting that certificate is what does it. If the church is, like a JP, okayed by the state to perform marriages, & to send data back to the state that the marriage has indeed been performed (for purposes of getting all the rights & freebies), then the church wants to check the certificate first.

    However, you can get married in some churches without any government certificate. Unitarian churches, Episcopal churches, and all the United Church of Christ churches which are listed as "Open and Affirming" will marry you in states where the government will not issue you a certificate because you are gay. I believe there is a branch of the LDS (i.e. "Mormon") church which will marry you if you are a second wife, in which case, the government also will not issue you any certificate.

  14. #344
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    I thought in America, people go to the government office to get a certificate, then have wedding ceremony, whether the ceremony is in a church or not.
    The difference is that if you do not care about your legal married status, church will marry you without any certificate.

    Also, you can get married by a priest/rabbi/imam/shaman/whatever who may not be certified as justice of the peace; then, you need to get married with a justice of the peace separately, typically in the city hall.

  15. #345
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,493
    I had a friend who was a different religion from her husband-to-be, and this was long enough ago that they couldn't find any pastor to officiate. So they were married by the mayor of their small city. We tend to forget these days that there are all kinds of marriages that people deem to be mixed marriages. If marriage were the exclusive domain of houses of worship, some of these people might not be able to form a family so easily. That's another reason that the government, as a disinterested secular body, is a good entity to have the final say in marriages.

Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •