Cofc Now To Marry Same-Sex Couples

[Stargazer]

Yeah, that logic doesn't work when we are talking about a relationship which exists under the law because of a legal definition. We can for example say an adopted child is not the adoptive parents child, but the law defines the relationship and says the child is the parents child. There is no difference here. We are talking about words not physical objects. I understand your feelings and admire your religious loyalty to the concept, unfortunately that doesn't make the argument have traction.

I don't expect to get any traction. Abandon hope all ye who enter herein, and so forth.

You know what a "legal fiction" is, right? Also known as a "term of art"? It's means when the legislature defines something in such as way that a term has one or more specific meanings that are not necessarily the same as those in common use.

For example, in the Internal Revenue Code there are places where the code defines a "state" as including such things which are not actually states, such as Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, Guam, and so forth, for the purposes of the statute. And then it might go on to say that a resident of a state has to do this or that. It occurs elsewhere in statute law as well. I have seen the word "includes" being used as a term of art in such a way that the practical effect of the word is to exclude more things than it actually includes (especially in tax law, where precision is required). This does not turn Puerto Rico into a state, mind you, but treats PR as if it were, for the purposes of a given section or chapter of the code.

So, when the legislature defines "marriage" to include heterosexual and homosexual relationships, it is promulgating a legal fiction using a term of art, and for the purposes of the legislation it is calling a rose a hyacinth.

And there we are.

But it still isn't marriage, no matter how the legislature twists and turns it.

[california boy]

It's not lost on me. It's completely lost on you. I am not "pretending" anything of the kind. I am stating the bald fact that marriage is a matter between opposite-sexed individuals, not between same-sexed individuals. You can try to stuff YOUR words into my mouth all you want, and it won't make the slightest difference. Maybe it makes you feel better, but if so that's all it's worth.

"Two men want the right to marry" you say. Fine, no problem, they have that right already. Either or both of them can marry a woman, whether they are gay or straight. They can't marry each other, it is not possible. If they want to live together in a sexual partnership with each other, great, go for it, it's not my lookout, don't bother me with it, it's their problem/joy/millstone/happiness/sadness/comfort. They can even CALL it marriage if they want.

But just as I wrote earlier that calling a Shelby Mustang a Dodge Viper does not MAKE it a Dodge Viper, calling the relationship of two same-sexed individuals a marriage does not MAKE it a marriage. I don't care how many state or federal laws say so, or how many supreme courts affirm it or deny it, it is what it is, and it is not marriage.

Do you get it now? If you want to call such a relationship a marriage, go for it, I'm not going to knock on your door, locate your wedding certificate and tear it up, and I am going to treat your relationship with respect, but I will absolutely not call it is a marriage, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MARRIAGE. It's something else. Find a word. A nice word! I don't care. The word which formerly meant "happy and cheerful" has been co-opted to mean something completely different, so maybe you can use that instead to coin an analog to the word "marriage". Perhaps "gayaige" if that doesn't sound too grotesque. Hell, call it "transcendaige", "wonderfulaige", "gloriousaige". Or CALL it marriage, but don't expect me to agree with you that it's marriage.

Because it is not.

Well fortunately you are not in control fo the definition of marriage, the government is. You are welcome to continue to view gay marriage as not a real marriage for the rest of your natural life no matter how the government defines it. This is America. You are entitled to your opinion. Fortunately what you are not entitled to is dictating your beliefs and definition on the rest of the country.

[Stone holm]

I don't expect to get any traction. Abandon hope all ye who enter herein, and so forth.

You know what a "legal fiction" is, right? Also known as a "term of art"? It's means when the legislature defines something in such as way that a term has one or more specific meanings that are not necessarily the same as those in common use.

For example, in the Internal Revenue Code there are places where the code defines a "state" as including such things which are not actually states, such as Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, Guam, and so forth, for the purposes of the statute. And then it might go on to say that a resident of a state has to do this or that. It occurs elsewhere in statute law as well. I have seen the word "includes" being used as a term of art in such a way that the practical effect of the word is to exclude more things than it actually includes (especially in tax law, where precision is required). This does not turn Puerto Rico into a state, mind you, but treats PR as if it were, for the purposes of a given section or chapter of the code.

So, when the legislature defines "marriage" to include heterosexual and homosexual relationships, it is promulgating a legal fiction using a term of art, and for the purposes of the legislation it is calling a rose a hyacinth.

And there we are.

But it still isn't marriage, no matter how the legislature twists and turns it.

Yes, I know of legal fictions. An example being that corporations are persons. This does not pertain to marriage. You might argue that religion trumps secular law which is fine. But, in this Temporal world where we deal with Temporal realities, not eternal realities, marriage is what the State says it is and if you attempt to marry outside what the State says is allowed then there are legal consequences. We saw that issue decided in U.S. v Reynolds. It then clearly follows that the State may expand or restrict the definition within Constitutional bounds. To say, fine I will not accept the law and will follow my own definition according to my own religious views is okay, but of considerable irrelevance to social debate.

[Stargazer]

Well fortunately you are not in control fo the definition of marriage, the government is. You are welcome to continue to view gay marriage as not a real marriage for the rest of your natural life no matter how the government defines it. This is America. You are entitled to your opinion. Fortunately what you are not entitled to is dictating your beliefs and definition on the rest of the country.

Yes, and I am so glad not to be the King of the World, too. Can you imagine trying to elicit order from this chaos?

The government can define peaches to include apples, too.

Thanks for welcoming me to continue to maintain my opinion. Very generous of you.

[Stargazer]

Yes, I know of legal fictions. An example being that corporations are persons.

Don't get me wrong. Legal fictions have their place. But can you imagine if 4th amendment protections against search and seizure didn't apply to corporations? Or other non-person business entities? You don't think that the power to cry "stand and deliver" at will would NEVER be abused by some government? Here's a clue: the more power we give to government, the more dangerous to our liberties it becomes.

This does not pertain to marriage.

Of course it pertains to marriage. How could a fundamental institution like marriage not be subject to normal law, which above all relies upon legal fictions and terms of art to both limit and define the bounds. Ultimately, marriage deals with the most fundamental law of humanity, which is procreation. If we didn't procreate, like if we were generated by artificial processes, then the need for marriage would be completely abrogated. Marriage, at its very base, revolves around the generation of children, not around who you have sex with. I don't need marriage to shack up, and neither does society. But children are reared best in a two-parent home, and to maximize the benefits of this, because caring for one's own is a primal need and hence important from a very basic level, it is best if the children are the descendants of the two parents. Please don't anyone come with all the "buts" in the world. My mother died and my father remarried, so my stepmother came along and helped him with raising my brother and I. I myself am a steppartent. But it is still best if the children are raised by their natural parent, with obvious exceptions noted. Gay couples, by definition, cannot have children with each other, and thus the primary need for marriage is completely bypassed. Granted, the gay partner of your mother can certainly do a good job of helping raise you. No disagreement! But neither two women nor two men can generate children together. Marriage, by this measure, is pointless. You don't need a marriage certificate for sex, or companionship. There are enough unmarried heteros wandering around proving that. And sure there are heteros getting married who can't have children together for one reason or another, an exception which as they like to say, proves the rule.

You might argue that religion trumps secular law which is fine.

No, I'm not arguing that, and it doesn't. I don't want to live under a theocracy, actually, until the Lord returns to reign in person.

But, in this Temporal world where we deal with Temporal realities, not eternal realities, marriage is what the State says it is and if you attempt to marry outside what the State says is allowed then there are legal consequences.

Not arguing with that. I just don't want the State perpetuating a lie as a statute. They might as well declare the Moon to be made of green cheese, or outlaw the tide from coming in, as declare that two persons of the same sex can "marry" each other.

We saw that issue decided in U.S. v Reynolds. It then clearly follows that the State may expand or restrict the definition within Constitutional bounds. To say, fine I will not accept the law and will follow my own definition according to my own religious views is okay, but of considerable irrelevance to social debate.

Look here, I don't stand in any danger at all of "breaking" a law which says men can marry men. I can call the law a pile of horse puckey, something which to the best of my knowledge (and even California Boy agrees) is still my right. But I can't break it, can I?

[california boy]

It looks like working moms are causing the real breakdown in marriage, not the "gays" afterall. The total estimates of gays that marry is .3% of the population. A new Pew survey shows 40% of U.S. households with minor children have the mother as the sole or primary breadwinner.

After lamenting the increasing number of women who are their family’s primary breadwinners, right-wing pundit Erick Erickson is doubling down and dissing gay parents to justify his views.

In a segment on the Fox News Channel Wednesday, Erickson, Lou Dobbs, and Juan Williams discussed a recent Pew Research Center study indicating that 40% of U.S. households with minor children have the mother as the sole or primary breadwinner. They reacted as if this heralded the downfall of society, with Erickson asserting that the trend goes against biological imperatives:

“When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complementary relationships in nuclear families, and it’s tearing us apart.”

Here is the link to the Fox broadcast.

[Stone holm]

It looks like working moms are causing the real breakdown in marriage, not the "gays" afterall. The total estimates of gays that marry is .3% of the population. A new Pew survey shows 40% of U.S. households with minor children have the mother as the sole or primary breadwinner.

Here is the link to the Fox broadcast.

They have been discussing that, two thirds of that number are either single mothers or mothers that are living with the father, but not married to him. In poor families the mother always worked outside the home and in wealthy families there were always nannies. It was in Americas large and vigorous middle-class that you had the stay at home mother. Unfortunately we have economically destroyed our middle-class so that they have slipped into the ranks of the poor or both parents work in order to maintain their middle-class status. If you want to fix the statistics, you have to address the real issues and they are the over concentration of wealth and the ma and pa small business sector and end the linkage of healthcare to employment and reinvigorate labor unions. But we aren't doing these things which could reinvigorate the middle class. Instead we are fussing over abortion, gay rights, whether teachers can lead prayer in school or teach evolution. All of which merely distract from getting at the real issues, but provide wonderfully divisive issues to fight about and allow bipartisan avoidance of hard choices.

[thesometimesaint]

"Legal fictions have their place. But can you imagine if 4th amendment protections against search and seizure didn't apply to corporations? Or other non-person business entities? You don't think that the power to cry "stand and deliver" at will would NEVER be abused by some government? Here's a clue: the more power we give to government, the more dangerous to our liberties it becomes".

Sure they have their place. But I highly doubt giving them the same rights as human beings is how our governments ought to be run. Money is power, at least in this world, and corporations are by definition for the accumulation of money. That money can of course be used for good, make more widgets or whatever, but it is also used to influence the political process to give corporation even more power.

Governments by definition govern. Without that power to govern our liberties are meaningless. We may not always agree on some of its actions, but ours is not a tyrannical government.

[Calm]

A new Pew survey shows 40% of U.S. households with minor children have the mother as the sole or primary breadwinner.

Wouldn't the cause of working mothers be the real cause of the breakdown of marriage and not just working mothers themselves? And if divorce or lack of marriage is the prime reason for such then this info (women are working outside the home more) only demonstrates the result of marriage breaking down, not the cause.

[Stone holm]

Wouldn't the cause of working mothers be the real cause of the breakdown of marriage and not just working mothers themselves? And if divorce or lack of marriage is the prime reason for such then this info (women are working outside the home more) only demonstrates the result of marriage breaking down, not the cause.

I agree. We need to start looking at the real causes instead of blaming minority groups. But I don't think people really want to address the real causes as they are so easily distracted by cultural warfare issues.

[Alan]

No matter what government says marriage is, we all know the truth in our hearts if we're honest with ourselves. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that is it. Governments come and go, as do states and nations; but marriage pre-dates them all and has been with us from the beginning of time. It pre-dates all other human institutions.

If governemnts seek to redefine marriage (as they do) they are actually admitting that it has already been defined. You can't redefine something that hasn't been previously defined. Therefore, the question needs to be asked "who or what defined it originally?".

We all know the answer to that.

We are witnessing the fate of the Nephites being re-played before our very eyes. It's going to be a rough ride from now on.

[Stone holm]

No matter what government says marriage is, we all know the truth in our hearts if we're honest with ourselves. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that is it. Governments come and go, as do states and nations; but marriage pre-dates them all and has been with us from the beginning of time. It pre-dates all other human institutions.

If governemnts seek to redefine marriage (as they do) they are actually admitting that it has already been defined. You can't redefine something that hasn't been previously defined. Therefore, the question needs to be asked "who or what defined it originally?".

We all know the answer to that.

We are witnessing the fate of the Nephites being re-played before our very eyes. It's going to be a rough ride from now on.

Well I agree that it is quite likely that we have a rough ride from here on. Not sure that has much, if anything to do with SSM -- if we could get away from the use of it as a major distraction from other issues, possibly we could progress, but I don't see either side of that cultural fight giving us any respite so it will continue to provide distraction while other ills go unattended.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://www.kcur.org/post/community-christ-oks-gay-marriage-and-clergy

Seems like they should be announcing their merger with either the Episcopalians or the Unitarians. I mean, good for them if that floats their boat, but is there a more liberal denomination out there?

This group is as different from Mormonism as Mormonism is from Islam.

[Stone holm]

This group is as different from Mormonism as Mormonism is from Islam.

Agreed

[Stargazer]

"Legal fictions have their place. But can you imagine if 4th amendment protections against search and seizure didn't apply to corporations? Or other non-person business entities? You don't think that the power to cry "stand and deliver" at will would NEVER be abused by some government? Here's a clue: the more power we give to government, the more dangerous to our liberties it becomes".

Sure they have their place. But I highly doubt giving them the same rights as human beings is how our governments ought to be run. Money is power, at least in this world, and corporations are by definition for the accumulation of money. That money can of course be used for good, make more widgets or whatever, but it is also used to influence the political process to give corporation even more power.

Governments by definition govern. Without that power to govern our liberties are meaningless. We may not always agree on some of its actions, but ours is not a tyrannical government.

Corporations do not have the same rights as human beings, so this is a straw man. For one thing, they do not have the right to marry! A nod to the topic.

Anyway, corporations and other legal fiction entities have their existence and conditions of continuation defined by statute. If you want to have a kid, you can find a willing partner and create one (assuming you're biologically capable) and the legislature has no voice in the matter. You want to create a corporation? Then you have to do everything the government requires of you in order to do it.

And in any case, in complete denial of your implications as to power, legal entities have no power whatsoever. Without a human to act for it, a corporation just sits there. No matter what you think, no corporation has ever escaped the filing cabinet and gone amuck doing its own will, humans be hanged. It all comes down to people.

So when the poor maligned politician said "corporations are people, too" he wasn't wrong at all. Corporations are owned by people, corporations are run by people, and without people there is no corporation. Any legal entity is merely a proxy for a human being.

[Stone holm]

Corporations do not have the same rights as human beings, so this is a straw man. For one thing, they do not have the right to marry! A nod to the topic.

Anyway, corporations and other legal fiction entities have their existence and conditions of continuation defined by statute. If you want to have a kid, you can find a willing partner and create one (assuming you're biologically capable) and the legislature has no voice in the matter. You want to create a corporation? Then you have to do everything the government requires of you in order to do it.

And in any case, in complete denial of your implications as to power, legal entities have no power whatsoever. Without a human to act for it, a corporation just sits there. No matter what you think, no corporation has ever escaped the filing cabinet and gone amuck doing its own will, humans be hanged. It all comes down to people.

So when the poor maligned politician said "corporations are people, too" he wasn't wrong at all. Corporations are owned by people, corporations are run by people, and without people there is no corporation. Any legal entity is merely a proxy for a human being.

Not sure where this legal fiction thing really gets anyone since corporations exist at the whim of the government as does marital status, the ability to make babies does not create the married status. The whole idea of corporations being persons as far as political rights are concerned is not only stupid, but dangerous to freedom since it concentrates the ability to control elections in the hands of the few, but do not see how this is germane to the topic.

[Robert F. Smith]

A friend of mine just sent me this:

MARRIAGE/MARIJUANA

For those who haven't heard, Washington State

just passed _both laws_ - the gay marriage and

legalized marijuana.

The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were

legalized on the same day makes perfect biblical

sense because Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man

lies with another man they should be stoned."

We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

[california boy]

Majority of Older Americans Support Gay Relationships

Though younger people are often thought to be more prone to support marriage equality than their 55+ counterparts, a majority in this older age group now say they morally accept "gay or lesbian relations."

The Gallup poll show that 51% of people 55 and older find gay or lesbian relationships "acceptable," while 74% of those ages 18-34 and 54% of those 35-54 do. As reported byThinkProgress, the percentage of older Americans who support same-sex relationships has doubled since 2001. Also in 2001, 52% of those 18-34 supported gay and lesbian relationships, while 42% of people 35-54 thought gay and lesbian relationships were morally acceptable.

[Stone holm]

Majority of Older Americans Support Gay Relationships

Yeah, I've read articles about the fact that some of the States which did knee-jerk State Constitutional Amendments during the early years after the Hawaii decision, now have a majority of their citizens who either don't care or who support SSM, but they are more or less locked into a ban. Hard to say if this momentum will continue or whether something will happen that will turn the tide.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Community of Christ (RLDS) has taken several sharp turns on marriage rules, and this latest is just one more indication of their full-throated approval of the move toward same sex marriage mainstream Protestant style.. As the same time, despite their rabid opposition historically to polygyny, during the 1960s the RLDS Church allowed polygynous converts to their church in India and Africa to continue living with their multiple wives, but not to marry new ones. Many traditional RLDS members found it shocking and ironic that their Church would allow something that even the hated LDS Church would not allow, and this was one more nail in the coffin of a united RLDS Church during the 1970s and beyond. See Richard P. Howard, “The RLDS Church’s Anti-Polygamy Stance Adapted/Canonized 1967-1972: The Specter of Impending Schism,” paper presented Sept 23, 2011, at the JWHA annual meeting in Nauvoo, Illinois. Howard was formerly the RLDS Church Historian.

What is ironic and difficult to understand is that these two policies are at loggerheads within the Community of Christ. WWJD? After all, why should polygyny be treated any differently than SSM? The Reynolds case will eventually be reversed anyhow, and such broader marriage patterns will become legally acceptable.

[Storm Rider]

The Community of Christ has been stridently marching into the depths of Christian mediocrity for some time. It has forfeited any understanding of the need for sacrifice, the crucifixion, or the Atonement in the misguided and wholly immature understanding of love. Love is not the acceptance of sin; love is the wise embrace of submitting to the will of God and true discipleship. Too often we hear this form of love seen only through the sickening sweet terms that can only be viewed through rose colored glasses where no sin exists, no desires curbed, and all desires, actions, and sin is acceptable; we just have to love. This is not the love of the God or the love that God taught. It is a love bereft of wisdom, discipline, or sacrifice; it is self-centered without any understanding of serving others or community. Sadly, the actions of the CofC have demonstrated its true nature of being a church made by men and without any revelation or inspiration.

[Stone holm]

The Community of Christ has been stridently marching into the depths of Christian mediocrity for some time. It has forfeited any understanding of the need for sacrifice, the crucifixion, or the Atonement in the misguided and wholly immature understanding of love. Love is not the acceptance of sin; love is the wise embrace of submitting to the will of God and true discipleship. Too often we hear this form of love seen only through the sickening sweet terms that can only be viewed through rose colored glasses where no sin exists, no desires curbed, and all desires, actions, and sin is acceptable; we just have to love. This is not the love of the God or the love that God taught. It is a love bereft of wisdom, discipline, or sacrifice; it is self-centered without any understanding of serving others or community. Sadly, the actions of the CofC have demonstrated its true nature of being a church made by men and without any revelation or inspiration.

Wow. I don't know much about the C of C, it does sound like they are becoming indistinguishable from mainstream Protestantism which seems to be a contagion that we ourselves get smitten with from time to time in our PR department. But to make all those assertions about a committed gay or lesbian couple who have been together for 30 or 40 years, not sure that really flies -- do you?

[Calm]

But to make all those assertions about a committed gay or lesbian couple who have been together for 30 or 40 years, not sure that really flies -- do you?

I don't think that one should assume that just because a couple is together in a committed relationship for that long it is a healthy love. What about a man or woman who has an extramarital lover for that long of time? What about a couple who are in love with each other yet neglect their children?

I am not taking that position for lesbian or gay couples who have been emotionally and physically faithful to each other in a longterm relationship. I am not in a position to judge at this point. Never met such a couple for one thing that I know of among those I've known who were homosexual.

[Stone holm]

I don't think that one should assume that just because a couple is together in a committed relationship for that long it is a healthy love. What about a man or woman who has an extramarital lover for that long of time? What about a couple who are in love with each other yet neglect their children?

I am not taking that position for lesbian or gay couples who have been emotionally and physically faithful to each other in a longterm relationship. I am not in a position to judge at this point. Never met such a couple for one thing that I know of among those I've known who were homosexual.

I don't know that we can lay out definite boundaries on love, but I think the length of the relationship is some evidence, I have that song and scene from Fiddler on The Roof where they are singing, Do you love me? So I think maybe longevity in a committed relationship, which I think by definition excludes an affair does indicate something in that regard.

[Stargazer]

Not sure where this legal fiction thing really gets anyone since corporations exist at the whim of the government as does marital status, the ability to make babies does not create the married status. The whole idea of corporations being persons as far as political rights are concerned is not only stupid, but dangerous to freedom since it concentrates the ability to control elections in the hands of the few, but do not see how this is germane to the topic.

It's not germane, but TSS brought up how terrible corporations are, and how they are treated as people. So, I was responding.

So, what does the ability to control elections have anything to do with corporations? Corporations don't have political rights, may not vote, may not contribute to candidates. So what are you even talking about?