Marriage a Civil Right, not Sacred Rite

Wow! so really its civil and nothing near religion, them am gonna marry in my bedroom here and not in the church or mosque. Go ahead !!!
Posted by: pacifistcode
**************************************************************************************
Go for it. We had a religious, legally non-binding wedding in our living room, and a civil, legally binding, non-religious wedding in a judge's chambers.

Wow! so really its civil and nothing near religion, them am gonna marry in my bedroom here and not in the church or mosque. Go ahead !!!

Mr. PRESIDENT, Ms. POLOSI & CO.:

"Ho Ho OBAMA & YOU Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"DOWN with OBAMA & CO., 2013"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

-Prof. GATES, not Bill Gates, Not Asst. Sec. State Gates.., Must GO To Jail asap For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National & Possibly International (RACE BASED) RIOT!? The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-N THIS!

......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
............|"""""""""""""""""""""|......
...|ACTS AGAINST AMERICANS|...

Mr. OBAMA. Please, like an EX-Friend, Distance yourself from Mr. "Racist-GATES", not P.O. Crowley, like ye didth with REVrend/Brother Mr. Wrong, ooopps Meant your Ex-Friend Rev. Jeramiah (Bul{Frog) Mr. Wright!

--Or Else: "DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!"

"Ho Ho OBAMA & CO. Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

Understand. I don't care *who* you are. Pope, pundit, pontificating prelate or Internet *prat,* *it's not your Mother-loving life held in the balance.*

You wanna diddly-pick about details, do it on your *own* time. *After* I actually have the freedom to tell you to kiss off.
Dig?
Posted by: Paganplace |
---------
Your life is not held in the balance and there is nothing to "dig".

If you are being harrassed by anti-gay prejudice then many of us will be on your side.

If you just want to be nasty, that is altogether a different game.

You are providing a lot of ammunition to the anti-gay religious right, aren't you?

Understand. I don't care *who* you are. Pope, pundit, pontificating prelate or Internet *prat,* *it's not your Mother-loving life held in the balance.*

You wanna diddly-pick about details, do it on your *own* time. *After* I actually have the freedom to tell you to kiss off.

Dig?

Can we get this clear?

It's not a Mother-loving *abstraction.* Neither for eedjits, theologians, nor atheists.

*My.* *Life.* As an American citizen.

You wanna fuss over it on the Internet, do it *after* I can say I could care less.

Dig?

I mean, do you understand, Shappear, that until the day straight people get together and decide they actually *don'T* want government to have any say in 'who's marriad according to religion,' that...

You're not helping anyone?

It's *irrelevant.* Until we queer couples actually *have* something.

Irrelevant.

Get it?

I don't care if the poweer vested in your preacher includes some from the state of New Jersey.... All I care about is you not hurting me.

"We should remove the sanctioning of marriage from government all together."

I would *very much appreciate it* if peeople would *shut up about that* until I have equal rights to what marriage there *is?*

If you don't mind so much?

If it's what you want, *go ahead and do it,* just stop acting like saying that is an answer to the Jim Crow I live under all the while.

Dammit. :)

We should remove the sanctioning of marriage from government all together. It’s interesting that so many people are concerned about having the label “married” attached to their relationship yet resistant to any authoritative definition of the term. What is the point of recognizing homosexual marriage unless it provides some perceived legitimacy that it desperately seeks? Could there be an alternative that doesn’t compromise the historical church’s definition of marriage?

It seems we have reached the point where we should remove the term “marriage” from every government recognized civil relationship in the country? Instead, municipalities could approve civil unions free of any religious connotation or expression. Local governments could recognize civil unions and attribute benefits and rights as they and their communities see fit. Marriage on the other hand could be protected and safeguarded as an institution sanctioned only by God and His church.

Much of what has been said about the loss of significance and relevance toward the institution of marriage has indeed occurred in the modern expression and experience of marriage. However, this is not a sufficient reason to continue to degrade and redefine the meaning of marriage or its significance.

I propose we protect the institution of marriage by giving it back exclusively to the church. This may be the very thing our country needs and it might end up leading to renewed interest, passion and commitment to the marriage relationship.

Really. Don't get me wrong, being Bostonian, I *embrace* the traditional definition of lesbian *marriage* of my forebearers. I only ask that we recognize these values and uses of verbiage as foundational to the enlightened society we now know and love, and cease this modernistic abuse of the term 'Marriage' as clearly meant to defile and degrade my Boston Marriage.

Too long has this linguistic inaccuracy plagued our society and the cause of Liberty and justice for all.

Sorting.

In the times of my mother and grandmother, there was a word for something like my current relationship with a woman.

It was called:

A Boston. Marriage.

Interesting, I should think, given a sudden interest in what they hope passes for etymology and ethnography these days, when obviously they just don't like queers, eh?

I mean, look at it, Rohit:

Right here on this very board, you can see people claiming gay marriages 'are not marriages.'

This is nothing new.

Yes, you've been doing this a long time.

"One thing that bothers me in much of this discussion is that marriage has also existed in many non-Christian societies like India, China and Japan. And the marriages have all been heterosexual."

Untrue, actually, it's just that when there are counterexamples, Westerners and those wishing to appeal to them, put "marriage" in quotes and discount these things. Not to mention that we're expected to rely on almost two thousand years of transcriptions and translations done by the very people with the most interest in erasing any positive portrayals of any way other than their own, if they could even conceive of one before long, for your claims of 'evidence of absence.'

Admittedly, many cultures have had *other* places than 'marriage' as you define it for LBGT people, but if you 'define marriage' as 'heterosexual procreative couples' for two thousand years, (or a month) how many 'gay marriages' would you expect to *see?*

These assertions of yours are assuming a priori that your *sorting* represents reality, whereas it really only tells us about your *sorting.*

One thing that bothers me in much of this discussion is that marriage has also existed in many non-Christian societies like India, China and Japan. And the marriages have all been heterosexual. To claim that a marriage is only valid when blessed by the Christian God seems like the height of arrogance.

At the same time, in non-Christian societies, marriage has been regarded as, in part, a religious institution. In my own religion Jainism, there are no priests, only monks. But that does not mean that we do not have religious weddings.

Jains do have religious weddings and they are performed by Hindu priests. If religion was considered irrelevant, then why don't they just call a registrar?

I am shocked by Susan's statement, "Marriage is not about religion at all. Oh, some people say the vows in a church, temple or synagogue, but at the end of the day, that doesn't mean much." That is amazing coming from a pastor. No doubt it doesn't mean much to many people, indeed marriage itself doesn't mean much to some people. But that hardly justifies the bold generality of your statement.

To be upfront, I believe any two individuals, of legal age, should be allow all the benefits of a legal union, no different than what is afforded a "traditional" marriage. The state has no business denying anyone that "civil right".

That said, a religious institution/denomination should not be forced by the state to sanction any particular marriage, whether a gay couple or a heterosexual couple that doesn't complete some tradition pre-marriage requirements. The bottom line is that we don't all believe the same things, have the same faiths, etc. And, it's time for us to move on off this issue and recognize that we cannot, and should not, legislate discrimination.

Dr. Smith I must respectfully disagree. Just because people don't treat the sanctuary as holy does not mean it is not a holy place. And, just because people don't treat their marriage relationship as holy does not mean it is not a holy institution. It means that people are disobeying God's word. I think the bible is clear about this. It really troubles me how the modern church seems to formulate its practice and opinion on pop culture as opposed to trying to influence it. It sounds as though your article is a defense of gay marriage and while I do believe all people should be afforded certain civil rights, i just can't see how the church can get around the biblical mandate and sanction this.

I do believe that people should be allowed to decide who is responsible for their care upon their demise, how their property is distributed and other legal matters. However, God said that the marriage relationship is sacred and I don't see how we can question that. If you believe the bible, there is no ambiguity on the matter. Dr. Smith, the view of marriage as a religious rite is not drivel its biblical and how people act is not an indicator of the validity of the bible.

I agree with Pastor Smith, that people have taken God out of marriage. I do feel, and have always felt, that marriage is a covenant between two human-beings and God. It saddens me to think that this personnel covenant has been reduced to court actions. If two human-beings are truly willing to make this covenant, it should not matter who they are. But in our society it does. Thank you Pastor Smith for you willingness to speak God's truth no matter what.