BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM

That would depend on whether the divorce rate is based on proportion of marriages that end in a divorce, which I think would be the more likely way, or on proportion of the population that go through a divorce, which would match Dave's point.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM

I had tried to write "divorce rates" (which in the local context of my post could have made sense) but the second " got lost. So I am guilty of being a source of misunderstanding.

"Number of different sex partners" is the correct expression. The source is again D. Symons, Evolution of human sexuality, who quotes many different studies.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:54 AM

Ah promiscuity......wondered why it had gone so quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:18 AM

Following your previous contention akenaton that
"I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros"
12 Sep 07 - 05:19 PM

I posted the following day that the recent study of sexuality and sexual behaviour in the UK and run as a series of programmes on the BBC found that this was not actually so.

"if you compare the number of multi - person sexual relationships between young homosexual males and heterosexual males of the same age with no family the numbers even up considerably!"

This shouldn't really be so suprising as in many Western societies boys are encouraged to persue sexual fulfilment while girls are tradionally taught to seek momogomous fidelity although this pattern is beginning to break down.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:38 AM

Having been absent during the entire duration of this thread, I'll repeat essentially what has been said before elsewhere:

At the formation of the US, and adoption and ratification of the original US Constitution, there were several "states" that were founded essentially as theocracies. The seeking for "religious freedom" as commonly perceived now is largely a myth. What was sought was only freedom from one theocracy in order to establish a slightly different one. (The differences were largely a matter of who gets to have political power?)

The constitutions of several existing entities - later states - included a variety of provisions considered intolerable now by most people. In a couple of pre-Constitutional states, for example, "jews and chinese" were prohibited from owning property, the state could tax the people for the construction of churches "of the right religion," school teachers were constitutionally required to be "members of THE church," etc. Restrictions on blacks were sparse since a.) there weren't many of them, or b.) they weren't considered people.

As a consequence of the existing of dictatorial theocracies in some potential states, the delegates of several others were sent back to the second Constitutional Convention with "ratification conditional on the addition of" the IMPORTANT (IMO) part of the First Amendment:

CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION.

Because of this provision, the pastors who counselled me prior to my participation in the SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE in what was then my church emphatically asserted that the state has no power to require that I "get a license" in order to enter into any SACRAMENT of ANY church. I see no reason why that should be different now, although some bigots continue to attempt to place civil restrictions on some "actions and behaviours" commonly associated with the rites of their specific religions.

I was advised that I should get the license as a means of having "legal civil recognition" of the partnership that we intended, and to avoid ambiguity of our "married" status with respect to civil law. The two pastors with whom we consulted, of two nominally separate "religions," both agreed that they could perform the rites and sacraments for our "Sacred Marriage" regardless of whether or not we obtained the civil license for our separate civil marriage.

Any "church" that believes that a license is necessary for any sacrament (not in conflict with civil law) isn't much of a church. Any one who enters into a "Sacred Marriage" without a license, thereby ignoring the rather substantial civil benefits to be had, probably isn't too bright.

For those whose belief dictates it, engaging in a "marriage" not blessed according to the belief of their faith is "sinful," and the MARRIAGE SACRAMENT according to the rites and ceremonies of their faith is needed.

Since the "marriage license" has NO AUTHORITY with respect to one's beliefs, there is no clearly valid reason why any pair of citizens should be prohibited from forming the civil partnership represented by the "marriage license" if they choose to follow the conditions in CIVIL LAW of that "marriage."

A marriage license DOES NOT require the couple to have sex, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It DOES NOT REQUIRE the couple to have children, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It does not, in fact, even require that they be "of good moral character" (despite numerous attempts to define such a condition) but only that they are persons capable of entering into and observing the civil requirements of a simple form of formal legal contract.

The license DOES REQUIRE in most places, that they hold property jointly and equally (joint property rules vary), that either can speak for the other (an automatic power of attorney in many cases), and that they each, and both together, are responsible for their actions with respect to property. Although for the most part any debt contracted by one automatically becomes their joint obligation, even this provision of most civil marriage statutes is so loosely enforced that most real property sellers are advised to "get both signatures" on any contract. (Most states have provisions that allow "real property" to be registered in the name of one or the other separately, if done deliberately, although the divorce settlement may obscure or ignore even this separation.)

Some may consider it a "defect" that for purposes of marriage - and divorce - children are considered "property" of the marriage, but there has been little progress in finding another legal (civil) status for them. The abandonment - or abuse - of children arguably places a substantial burden on the rest of the community, and much of "domestic relations" law in the US is devoted to assuring the physical management and disposition of said property, in much the same manner as the requirement that any other property (or debt) abandoned by one is the responsibility of the other(?).

The "act" legitimized by a marriage license is not significantly different than the formation of any other form of legal partnership. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RELIGION, or with whether any sacraments, moral imperatives, rites, and/or services are observed. I would much prefer that it remain that way.

Those who think that limiting the participation in this civil act "cheapens" their SACRED MARRIAGE don't have much to be proud of in their own faith, and need to look to what their own faith holds to be the rights and obligations of those observing its sacraments.

There is no reason that this civil status - of two persons acting as one for matters in CIVIL LAW - should be denied because of race, religion, sex or sexual preference, disability, age, or any other reason unrelated to the ability of the two partners to make the agreement willingly and knowingly.

The only way to keep the law OUT OF MY RELIGION is to keep it separate, and to avoid giving it ANY jurisdiction over what I hold Sacred, including keeping it OUT OF any decision about whom I may love or with whom I may associate. The argument that "only a few" are affected is vacuous. ("How many people are homosexual" has no bearing, if at least two are, and I believe I know at least two.)

ANY MARRIAGE licensed by the State is ENTIRELY A MATTER OF CIVIL LAW, whether called a marriage, a civil union, or by some other name. There's nothin' "holy" about it, and quibbling over what it's called just means more chances for dumb legislators to make competing, conflicting, stupid laws.

Most of the arguments in this thread are whether calling something an automobile means it has to be a Buick, opposed by those who want always to be a Mercedes. Licensed marriage - in civil law - does not mean the same thing as the sacrament of marriage in one's religion, if one has any faith worth honoring.

John

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM

Two interesting court cases with some relevance to this thread commented upon
in this article

This article also reports the POV of the Lesbian couple in one of the two cases.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM

Regardless of how you may wriggle or twist, Greg has let the cat out of the bag.....This issue is about the word...MARRIAGE.
You don't really care about rights, they can be and should be granted by civil union and should be exactly the same.

No, its all about redefining the meaning of marriage to suit the agenda.

Right from the start I've said that from the point of view of people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage, redefinition is an infringment of their rights.

Other points like promiscuity,the break-up of marriages or civil unions, or religious issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefinition.......Its all about the word.

Just keep repeating that phrase and like Bee, you might gain enlightenment........ But I doubt it   ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:37 AM

IMHO, the most salient part of the article Wolfgang linked is this: The couple said the reaction exposed the belief in parts of society, including the gay and lesbian community, that minority groups should be grateful for equal rights. "If gratitude is a condition of these rights, then they are not full and genuinely equal," the women wrote. This is happening in Australia, but this perspedtive is almost certainly universal (and it should be).

John, what you are saying is entirely true. What I find interesting is the reversal that is currently occurring in the US; without getting wrapped around the axle on terminology, there are churches which are recognizing homosexual unions while the government, in almost all jurisdictions, is not. It also remains true that such will not be recognized as real [whatever you want to call them] until significant changes are made in the law at the Federal level.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:31 AM

akenaton

Right from the start I've said that from the point of view of people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage, redefinition is an infringment of their rights.

Other points like promiscuity,the break-up of marriages or civil unions, or religious issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefinition.......Its all about the word.

What akenaton actually said at the start -

Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake

A few other things he said along the way -

The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality.

But there are sincere people out there who do care.....committed Christians, people who believe in the "sanctity" of marriage, in short, traditionalists just like folkies.

The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions.

Homosexuality is a moral issue to devout Christians,or Moslems. Maybe not to you or I. As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious?

Nice to see that he can be flexible in his arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:53 AM

I find it extremely difficult to give a damn about the tender feelings of either the homosexual extremists or the conservative ones. All citizens should have equal rights, legal and financial. The organized religions can worry about sacraments.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:03 AM

The mayor of San Diego today announced he is reversing his position on the subject of same sex marriage, because he has decided to lead from his heart, and henceforth oppose the state ban. He said something to the effect that he cannot act to deny happiness to people, such as his own daughter, a lesbian.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:13 AM

That's great, Amos!

JohninKS....BRAVO!! Thanks for that; have sent it to several gay and lesbian friends.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

John in Kansas. Excellent! Thank you for posting that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

JohnInKansas you have said it best. This should be the last word on this subject: in this thread, in this country and in civilized society anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:06 PM

Although the situation may be somewhat different in Australia, from the standpoint of US Civil (Domestic Relations) law, neither of the two cases cited (20 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM)
have anything to do with the sex of the parties.

In the first case, a "biological father" who was not legally married to the mother is attempting to assert "parenthood," despite the acceptance of parenthood by the preferred (married?) partner of the mother. Cases of this kind are not particularly rare¹, and this case certainly wouldn't have been noted by the media except for purposes of promulgating notoriety over the "gayness" of the parties. The attempt to assert "four parents" has no standing in any US civil law that I've heard of, regardless of the sex of any of the parties.

A simple compromise, although unlikely to be deemed acceptable by the parties, would be to name the "other couple" as "god-parents" and give them some (limited?) power of attorney to participate in the rearing of the children - but even that has nothing much to do with sex or sexual preference.

In the second case, two "parents" asked for one child and got two. That happens quite commonly in cases of artificial insemination, and this is certainly not the first case in which the parents have attempted to hold the doctor liable. Again, the sexual preferences of the parents have NOTHING TO DO with whether the case has any merit, and the case would almost certainly have passed unnoted by the media if not for the sensationalist opportunism evident. Multiple prior cases in the US, mostly with more conventional couples, would suggest that their chances of winning anything from the doctor will be written up in a judgement containing references to "snowballs" and "hell."

Maybe the couple in the second case would like to offer their "extra" child for adoption by the guys in the first?????? (OK - sarcasm should be limited, and apology given.)

¹ A spin-off result of "genome projects" in which people submit their own DNA for purposes of tracing ancestry has been the observation that a startling number of people (>>10%? according to several reports) cannot be the biological offspring of the father who raised them - regardless of how "conventional" their family background.

John

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 02:47 PM

In a study by researchers in Liverpool, performed in men and women wanting proof of paternity from testing as well as studies based on genetic health screening, it was found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child was on average one in 25, ranging from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%.2 that the alleged father is not the biological father of the child.

copied from here

4% on average gives a better estimate than the often quoted maximum values. If one reads any number (advertisment or elsewhere) with the words "up to" preceeding the number, one should be very careful.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 03:11 PM

In my opinion...from reading different posts and watching behavior for many years, 'most' of the opposition to same sex marriage boils down to "If I am able to call what I have 'marriage', while you cannot call your 'relationship' the same, it gives my situation a higher status and keeps a cloud over what YOU do."

Yes...exceptions noted, and I can't personally cite statistics from any surveys....I doubt that it would be possible to get totally honest answers to a survey about basic motivation in the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM

Wolfgang's citation for "paternity tests" in which there is a dispute - or potential one - about paternity is a good one.

The numbers (>>10%) that I gave come from a vastly different "population," though.

I haven't seen specific numbers. For people innocently attempting to show links to ancestors via DNA testing, higher percentages have been reported - but only in "generic" terms. The numbers reported for these tests quite probably include broken links within a few generations back, as well as simple father/child "errors," and I haven't seen anyone publishing reviewable analyses of the results. The results would, of course, report an "error" of this kind for nearly all adopted children, many of whom may never have been told about the adoption(?).

It is all largely hearsay, so I'd suggest caution in quoting any specific percentages as confirmed "facts."

Any "errors" found in this genealogical testing certainly may say as much about the (lack of) reliability of genealogical records (and especially about "family histories") as about the behaviour of "wayward wives."

John

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM

"...oh, your papa's not your papa but your papa don't know..."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:57 PM

Where I grew up, and it was likely common behaviour elsewhere as well, teenage pregnancy was often handled thusly: the mother of the teen announced she herself was pregnant. Several months later the teen goes to 'visit relatives on the mainland'. Couple months later, the teen's mother 'has the baby'. The child was registered as the biological child of its grandparents. That could mess up the DNA testing considerable, and I imagine it does.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:49 PM

Wow, what a clever gimmick!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:56 PM

I saw a TV documentary a few months back about a mother who was put through hell. She had a paternity test done, and the authorities proceeded to rake her over the coals; the test determined that her husband was the father, but she could not be the mother. After a prolonged nightmare, someone involved stumbled on a similar case, and it led to further testing and the actual answer. The mother is a chimera. In medical terms, that means that different dna can be found in different tissues of her body.

I have a suspicion that this has been looked for so little that it may turn out to not be all that rare. It's another way that the paternity test results could get skewed some.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:35 AM

The best bit of good luck McCain has had in quite a while--the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on marriage of homosexuals.

Oh, brother.

I'm fully aware of the enthusiasm quite a few Mudcatters have for this idea. It's the timing I'm addressing--from a political viewpoint.

Does anybody recall how helpful this issue was to GWB in 2004?

All of a sudden McCain's chances have dramatically improved.

Either Obama goes along with the idea of marriage for homosexuals--guaranteed to get the same Neanderthals flocking to the polls to oppose it--and him--as Kerry had in 2004. Or he doesn't go along with it--and risks alienating those voters who support it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:41 AM

Obviously, the issue has always around for a while. Problem is it is now front and center--big news. So it will be back in the consciousness of many voters.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:42 AM

See my post of 3 Sept 2007 8:37 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 08:38 AM

At least it seems McCain is on record as opposing a federal ban on homosexual marriage. That should lessen his ability to ride this one. It appears he will couch it in terms of an out-of-control judiciary (read: liberal judiciary). We'll see how that plays.

Problem is: the issue gives cover to voters who want to be against Obama for "acceptable reasons":    "I'm only against him since he doesn't believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman".

And of course we'll also see if the economy trumps this whole topic this time.

It may.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:57 AM

I have to agree that the timing is bad politically for the dems. Nobody is likely to change their opinions but it may bring some folks to the polls who would otherwise have sat it out and I expect that most such folks would be voting for the repubs.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:54 AM

I don't see that it is that earth-shattering. From what I've read all of the candidates have pretty much the same stance...the "safe" middle-of-the-road, "I'm not in favour of a same-sex marriage law, but do support civil unions" crap.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:56 AM

What I don't get, really, is why this is a government issue at all. The government is concerned with citizens, not freely formed relationships and not religion; and trying to legislate how they may or may not lead their private lives, and what relationships they may or may not make, is actually contrary to the government's own interest, at any level.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:32 AM

But this is just the sort of thing that energizes the anti crowd to get out and vote.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:45 AM

The key issue is whether government should be involved in the freedom to create relationships between individuals.

The answer is, they should not, which is the essence behind the California court's finding.

The right to decide the terms of human relationships is one of those left by the Constitution to the citizenry, and should be added to the Bill of Rights.

There are civil consequences to marriage, and they should be uniformly applied to any couple meeting other requirements, such as a blood test, without regard to sexual orientation, which is just none of the state's business.

The fact that some folks just cannot stop thinking about others' sexuality is not a good justification for making a religion out of being a busybody, or a government, either.

There was some chat upthread as to whether it is or is not a wide-spread perception that homosexuality is "disgusting". All I can say is, to feel thaty amount of revulsion toward something, you sure have to put a lot of attention on it, first. WHich does not constitute minding your own business.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:49 AM

I agree with you Amos. If you would check back in this thread for my posts (not suggesting you should, wouldn't be worth the effort) that is what you would find. But I also think this development is bad timing politically for the dems.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:47 PM

There's an interesting op/ed piece HERE, but I found the comments even more interesting, esp. the one which pointed out that people are so concerned about who gets married and whether it is okay in whatever church but NONE of them talk about the divorce rate, who should be allowed to divorce, AND about religion/churches having a hand in it, i.e. nobody goes to church to "get divorced." If they truly cared about marriages, etc. they would address the divorce rate, no?

I just don't see this as bad timing for the Dems. They are on an upswing, we are beginning to see a return to some kind of balance and the Dems will not be stopped this year. The ultra-wrong are not going to come out in droves...they are demoralised, unhappy with the candidate, and small in numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:04 PM

I hope you are right kat but 6 months is an eternity in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:22 PM

Good to see the"Appeal Judges" agree with me.


"The ruling said that Islington council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief".

At last a victory for common sense!

Granting "rights" to one section of society DOES impact on other sections.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:56 PM

I'd assume that one basis for the judge's decision would have been that requiring her to officiate at these ceremonies would constitute a change to her terms of conditions of service. She'd been engaged to do one job, and that wasn't that job.

A bit like expecting someone who'd been employed as a vegetarian cook in a vegetarian restaurant to start cooking meat when a new management took over.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:57 PM

This was a victory for individual rights; so was the earlier decision. Both sides are perfectly correct. There is no reason for Ms Ladele to have to do something she abhors for religious reasons, than there is to deny lesbians the right to wed, served by someone less fussy about human life.

Making a bi-polar, Manichean contest out of it is just dull.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

As long as there are registrars available who aren't so fussy, it shouldn't be a problem.

These allowances for religious distaste for perfectly legal activities become a problem when no other service is available. There is the example of Christian pharmacists in the US, who won't prescribe morning after pills, and sometimes not even birth control pills (though none seem to have a problem with Viagra). People who live in urban areas don't see a problem, but it becomes a problem when the only drugstore in two hundred km. will not serve the needs of women.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:57 PM

I used to know a couple who were married in a very traditional sense, including heterosexuality & even monogamy, only, being atheists & anarchists, they declined to involve either church or state in the matter. After she first applied for a job using her husband's last name, she got a form letter from the Social Security Administration inquiring about the discrepancy. She wrote on the back, "I find it convenient to use the last name of the man I am living with" and returned it. Social Security sent her a new card.

This shows that it is possible for one government agency to mind its own business. Let the rest of them go & do likewise!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:06 AM

Looks like the tide has turned.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 07:58 AM

Two people in a loving and stable relationship want that relationship to have legal status.

Other people want to prevent this becuse their religious beliefs say this is wrong.

One of the reasons given is that 'marriage is about procreation'. This means that infertile people have no right to get married.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:32 AM

Suffering for your beliefs is one thing. Making other people suffer for your beliefs is quite another. It would have been noble of this woman to give up the job if she can not in conscience carry it out all the duties involved. Would people have had sympathy had she refused to marry Jews or conduct mixed- race marriages?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:30 PM

Why on earth would anyone refuse to conduct mixed race marriages???

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:33 PM

and Jewish marriages would surely be conducted by a rabbi.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

Ake:

Don't be disingenuous. There are many people who would assert-=--and have asserted--that mixed race marriages are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. There have been states where mixed race marriages were deemed criminal.

Same-sex marriages suffer from a similar cast of disappropbation by those who believe that affinities should be dictated.

It comes down to whether marriage is a postulated state by the participants, and recognized as a social status by law -- or a social status defined and decreed by law, accepted by the participants. While churches may have a role in what marriages they will recognize for their own neurotic religious reasons, the law, IMHO, has no business prescribing; it should merely support. The idea, of course, of a government whose role was support of people is a bit alien.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 03:26 PM

You've all missed the point. The lady's complaint that brought about the tribunal was NOT that she was required to carry out same-sex 'marriages', it was that, having expressed her unwillingness on the grounds of her sincerely-held religious beliefs, she was then subjected to a lengthy period of relentless abuse, including threats of dismissal and personal insults, both by her colleagues and her superiors.

She didn't go to the tribunal because she'd been asked to carry out same-sex 'marriages', she went because those at Islington Borough Council who support same-sex marriage were not willing to afford her the same tolerance and respect for her religious beliefs that they expected her to show for other peoples' sexuality.

Some strange, illogical people holding the reins of power in Islington, seemingly.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM

Hi Amos...I wasn't being disingenuous, I honestly had not heard of any opposition to mixed race marriages from within the christian community.

Seems a totally different situation.
The traditional definition of marriage is man/woman, as far as I was aware race was not mentioned.

I was aware that mixed race marriages were frowned upon in some of the Southern states of America .....but surely that was politically inspired?....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM

Ake see the
lovingday site

'It is only 40 years since mixed race/ interracial marriages were finally legalized in every state in the United States.
In 1967, the law banning mixed race marriages was finally overturned in a landmark case between the state of Virginia and Mr and Mrs Loving (yes, their real names), a white American man and an Afro-American lady. Some states, including New York, never had legal restrictions on mixed race marriages, while other states only introduced the law at the beginning of the 20th century.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it wasn't until 2000 that the law against mixed marriages was finally taken off the books in the southern state of Alabama, although it was never legally enforced after 1967.'

Rulings against mixed marriages were even upheld by perverting the religious teachings of Christianity:

"Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 05:52 PM

Thank you for that infomation Emma, but I still feel that these restrictions must have been a form of political gerrymandering, as the Protestant/Catholic conflict was used in 19th and 20th century UK: rather than sincerely held religious belief...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:04 PM

The Attitudes of the Churches - Historical Development of Positions on Mixed Marriage

'The practical personal and social difficulties experienced by those participating in such marriages in Northern Ireland are not the primary concern of those who legislate, interpret doctrine or scripture and administer procedures relating to marriage and the family within particular churches. Those engaged in regulating marriage within the churches are concerned with theological issues, and may regard as secondary - and be distanced from - the realities of everyday life in a mixed marriage. It is, however, the historical theological divergences of the churches which have in large part created the basis of the practical difficulties associated with mixed marriage. Practice in relation to marriage cannot be separated from wider issues of ecclesiastical doctrine which set the requirements each church puts on its own members and the ways in which that church relates to members of other churches. As Heron (1975) points out the fundamental theological problem associated with mixed marriage is that separate churches exist at all. In Northern Ireland the overall attitude of the Catholic and Protestant churches to one another has been negative, even antagonistic, and this has carried over into their views of mixed marriage. The unity expressed by two marriage partners from within one church, and the common allegiance to that church's immediate and wider community which supports the coherence and purpose of both church and family. are in theological terms replaced by instability and incoherence when one partner feels allegiance to another church.

Within this essentially hostile environment each church has developed its attitude to mixed marriage unilaterally. The general standpoints of both Protestant and Catholic churches have historically been to discourage interchurch marriage, to seek to retain the allegiance of their own members where such marriages do occur, and to focus on ensuring the upbringing of any children within their church. The Catholic church has perhaps been the most active both in legislating and in enforcing legislation with regard to mixed marriage. Less formal structures have existed within the Protestant churches, although the historical response of some Protestant denominations has been equally triumphalist and separatist'

copyright 'Mixed Marriages in Northern Ireland'

by Valerie Morgan, Marie Smyth, Gillian Robinson and Grace Fraser
Published by the University of Ulster, Coleraine 1996
ISBN 1 85923 042 3
Paperback 61pp £4.00

Never underestimate the 'authority' of organized religious doctrine