England Passes Marriage Equality

[The Nehor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe

If you are arguing that government did not recognize marriage because there was not always a ceremony involved I disagree. There were laws regarding what married persons could do and their rights (usually incredibly sexist ones).

[Damien the Leper]

It is saying all we can say. As for people before then I am going to go out on a limb and say if they had laws from God they could have been different. They were another dispensation outside of ours which began with Adam.

Which is still limited. We have nothing to base an assertion that Biblical law existed 50,000+ years ago. Unless we are going to allow the Bible to be the self-asserting standard which is just another problem all on its own.

[Damien the Leper]

If you are arguing that government did not recognize marriage because there was not always a ceremony involved I disagree. There were laws regarding what married persons could do and their rights (usually incredibly sexist ones).

Can you provide a detailed history of this? I would like to see this. Thanks, Nehor.

[The Nehor]

Which is still limited. We have nothing to base an assertion that Biblical law existed 50,000+ years ago. Unless we are going to allow the Bible to be the self-asserting standard which is just another problem all on its own.

I made no arguments about biblical law. Just that as far back as we know marriage did confer rights in every society for which we have a record recognized by whatever government led them.

Can you provide a detailed history of this? I would like to see this. Thanks, Nehor.

Sure, there are only tens of thousands of cultures involved. Will have them all detailed in every particular by the end of my life if I start now and do nothing else.

A few examples though. In Sparta marriage was considered so vital to the state that failure to marry or marrying too late was a crime. If your wife is unable to bear children you are encouraged or in some cases required to cohabitate with another woman to bear children. In Rome the husband had full power over spouse and children up to and including the right to kill them (though using this right was looked down on). In one Australian aboriginal tribe adultery required the husband to kill his wife's lover. In some native american tribes receiving the hospitality of a man also meant you got access to his wives for the night along with shelter and food. Ancient India has at least a half dozen ways of getting married with each having different provisions attached.

[Damien the Leper]

Sure, there are only tens of thousands of cultures involved. Will have them all detailed in every particular by the end of my life if I start now and do nothing else.

A few examples though. In Sparta marriage was considered so vital to the state that failure to marry or marrying too late was a crime. If your wife is unable to bear children you are encouraged or in some cases required to cohabitate with another woman to bear children. In Rome the husband had full power over spouse and children up to and including the right to kill them (though using this right was looked down on). In one Australian aboriginal tribe adultery required the husband to kill his wife's lover. In some native american tribes receiving the hospitality of a man also meant you got access to his wives for the night along with shelter and food. Ancient India has at least a half dozen ways of getting married with each having different provisions attached.

I wasn't being snarky, ya jerk!! But thank you for the example nonetheless.

[Alan]

I would just like to point out that this is far from becomming law just yet.

The Bill has to pass to the House of Lords, undergo a number of ammendments, go to committee, go back to the House of Commons and so on. It is far from a done deal right now.

The problem for the church as I see it isn't gay marriage per se. Let me present a scenario.

Mr and Mrs Smith desire to join the church. They are a married couple who were married in a civil wedding ceremony at a Registry Office. They are welcomed into the church, recieve baptism, confirmation, and all of the blessings available in the church. No problem there.

Along come Mr and Mr Jones. They too desire to join the church. They are not permitted to join because they are a practicing homosexual couple. They counter that they are married. We point out that we do not regard them as married. They counter by saying "our marriage is as legal as Mr and Mrs Smith's, whom you have allowed to join the church. In fact we got married in the same building and by the same registrar as them, and our marriage certificate is as legal as theirs. You have permitted them to join the church, and therefore you are discriminating against us and we're taking you to court".

[thesometimesaint]

Here in America no one is required to admit into membership anyone into a private organization.

[sheilauk]

The law that is being considered is supposed to be drafted so as to protect religious freedom - eg churches will be exempt from having to conduct same sex marriages and will have to specifically opt in or declare that they are willing to do so. However, the protection from discrimination claims for private organisations in the UK isn't so strong as the US, organisations have been found to have discriminated against groups based on sexual orientation or gender and forced to admit them. So Alan's scenario is one I am concerned about or that the campaign will continue against those churches that refuse SSM's and in time the law will be changed again. I know it's probably a slippery slope argument and those aren't popular, but continuing to campaign is precisely what has happened since Civil Partnerships were developed (which were at the time accepted as appropriate). I have also heard an interview with a same sex couple who said (as far as I can recollect) that they were campaigning for SSM not for equality but because they wanted to see an end to religion. I can't remember the details or precise words they used, but that's how I remember the gist. I know its anecdotal and not worth much in any debate, but as a result of it, I'm concerned that some (or at least 2 people) want to use it to challenge churches.

[Damien the Leper]

Since churches don't own the term "marriage, just like gays don't own the rainbow (I hate rainbows by the way), nor do churches hand out marriage licenses then the issue shouldn't concern them. If they want to hand out cute certificates that say a couple was religiously joined together...they can knock themselves out. No harm, no foul.

I don't want to force churches to accept gay marriage. That is as ridiculous as churches trying to force or coerce the government to be against gay marriage. An example of such would be that stupid and worthless Federal Marriage Amendment that came up in Bush's administration.

[Walden]

I would just like to point out that this is far from becomming law just yet.

The Bill has to pass to the House of Lords, undergo a number of ammendments, go to committee, go back to the House of Commons and so on. It is far from a done deal right now.

The problem for the church as I see it isn't gay marriage per se. Let me present a scenario.

Mr and Mrs Smith desire to join the church. They are a married couple who were married in a civil wedding ceremony at a Registry Office. They are welcomed into the church, recieve baptism, confirmation, and all of the blessings available in the church. No problem there.

Along come Mr and Mr Jones. They too desire to join the church. They are not permitted to join because they are a practicing homosexual couple. They counter that they are married. We point out that we do not regard them as married. They counter by saying "our marriage is as legal as Mr and Mrs Smith's, whom you have allowed to join the church. In fact we got married in the same building and by the same registrar as them, and our marriage certificate is as legal as theirs. You have permitted them to join the church, and therefore you are discriminating against us and we're taking you to court".

The argument by believers regarding their fears that allowing gay marriage will somehow all of a sudden open up private religious institutions to discrimantion lawsuits is a red herring, and almost laughable.

Do you remember all those lawsuits brought against the LDS church by African-Americans who were denied the LDS priesthood simply because of their skin color, long after the federal government had banned discrimination based on race? No? Maybe that's because they didn't exist.

My cousin had to convert to Judaism to be married in a synagogue by a rabbi. My sister-in-law had to be a member of the Catholic church to be married by a priest in the local Catholic cathedral.

As an atheist, I would not be allowed to be married in either of these religions. And if I brought a suit against these religions crying discrimination, I would be laughed out of court.

[ERayR]

Pre-marital sex isn't adultery.

Nehor is correct. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants do not address sexual ethics like the Bible does.

Nope it is fornication and that is mentioned in there too.

[ERayR]

30+? That is WAY too many high priests. That is a lot of sleeping taking place at church.

One could hardly hear the sermon over the snoring.