A different view on the MA supreme court decisions

[Perky]

As a proud memeber of the Evangelical Left (The few of us that there may be). I should say that I should me more upset than I am about the MA courst decsion on gay marriage. I firmly believe that marriage is sanctioned by God to be between a man and a woman.

THerein lies the bigger rub for me on the issue. Marriage is a union berween a man and a wome in the eyes of God and I suppose blessad and affirmed by a religious community (i.e., a church)

I have no tension with same-sex civil unions outside the church, but I do with same sex marriage within the church.

Seems to me that whole notion of the state sanctioning marriage in this day age may be where the problem lies. Truth be told it is easier to get a marriage license than it is to get a driver;s license or a gun permit. The state holds marriage in pretty low esteem to begin with.

Seems to me that rather than opening pandora's box if the state provided civil-union licences rather than marriage licenses, and left the blessing and sacrament of marriage to the Church, that rights and privielges could be protected for all couples and the sacrament could be protected.

[papau]

1. the blessing and sacrament of marriage to the Church is not affected by

Mass Court ruling

"civil" marriage remains different from a marriage blessed in a Church.

[Democrats unite]

2. Which God are you referring to?

My God is a loving God. My Church is a loving Church MCC (Metropolitan Community Church). Take your tripe & your God someplace else I want nothing to do with either.

[Perky]

5. Yes yes Our God is a loving God

That does not mean that He blesses sin...no matter what form it takes.

I cast no stones but do suggest that God is no more tolerant of a gay lifestyle than He is of one consumed with heterosexual adultery.

Judgement begins in the House of God!

[beyurslf]

7. How can you gay marriage adultery?

Why is that people don't want gays to marry and then cast stones calling them adulterers? I mean, give us a break!

[Perky]

13. I didn't

I was giving two examples>

God is no mor tolerant of heterosexual adultery than He is of Gay monagamy.

Neither is worse the other.

I am pretty tolerant of alternative expressions, but when it comes to what happens WITHIN the Church, I will stand on the wall and protect it from becoming just like the world it proposes to love.

Judge ye not the world. Never the less, Judgement begins in the House of God.

[iverglas]

24. here's a solution

Let these churches be the ones who put their money where their mouths are.

If they don't want to be associated with an institution that is inclusive, let them get out of the business of marriage altogether.

They can go right ahead and perform their mumbo-jumbo, calling down "blessings" on whomever they like for whatever reason or purpose they want -- and deny the blessings to whomever they don't like.

They will, however, stop acting as agents of the state in performing marriages within the definition used by the state for the purposes for which the state recognizes them.

And then, if their members want to have a marriage that is recognized by the state, they can just go right ahead and find the appropriate agent of the state to perform one for them.

NO ONE is attempting to interfere in the right or ability of any church to perform its own mumbo-jumbo for anyone who wants it. It is the churches who are attempting to interfere in something which is, quite simply, none of their damned business: the civil institution of marriage.

My solution is so simple and elegant, I can only wonder why these churches haven't advanced it. Just get out of the civil marriage business, as soon as possible.


As an aside, following the British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision that the province must issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, the provincial government has gone a step further. It has directed marriage commissioners -- the people it appoints as its agents to perform non-church weddings (the old "JP" idea) -- that if they are not willing to perform same-sex marriages, they must resign their commissions.

And that's exactly as it should be.

People who perform state functions as agents of the state have to do so in accordance with the law. If they don't like that in the case of marriage, they're free to resign from the marriage performing business. Nobody's stopping 'em.


As another aside, I stopped outside the grocery store last summer to buy a hot dog before shopping -- never shop on an empty stomach -- from whatever group the grocery store was letting raise money that weekend. Turned out to be a local Presbyterian Church. The people at the table told me, when I asked, that the money raised would go to fund their couples retreat thingy. I asked whether it was for same-sex couples or just opposite-sex couples. They looked non-plussed and stammered a bit. I asked whether their church would perform same-sex marriages. They said Of course not! I said Gimme my dollar back. They did. Poor me, I had to put my money where my mouth was, and nothing in my mouth. ;)

The progressive bits of the Presbyterian Church up here joined with some Methodists and others, decades ago, to form the United Chuch of Canada. The United Church is foursquare behind legalizing same-sex marriage.

Council Tells Federal Government to Legalize Same-Sex Marriages

"What an opportunity this is to witness tonight," said Fred Braman of Montreal and Ottawa Conference, as he opened debate by asking commissioners to replace the word "unions" in the original motion to marriage, something they did by a wide margin.

"This is not just a human rights issue. This is about what we are, the church. It is an opportunity to show our faith and meet our test--to do justice, to love kindness, to walk humbly with our Lord," Braman told church members gathered from across the country.

The original motion from Saskatchewan Conference was put before the General Council in the spirit of efforts to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal and in the tradition of the church's recent work for the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships.

... The Rev. Mark Ferrier of the Bay of Quinte Conference reminded commissioners that the final decision on who is married in a local church remains with the 3,677 congregations that make up The United Church of Canada.

.

[Perky]

26. Hmmm... Well.. The CHurch existed looong before the state

Seems to me that thestate is the the one doing the encroaching here and not the tother way around.

[iverglas]

30. so?

The CHurch existed looong before the state

And what exactly might that have to do with anything at all?

Trees existed long before your church existed. Shall I ask trees what they think the definition of marriage for your church's purposes should be? what they think the definition of marriage for the state's purposes should be? what you should eat for breakfast?

Some churches laid claim to exclusive jurisdiction over the definition of "marriage" at some point. This really and truly does not mean that they get to have it.


Seems to me that thestate is the the one doing the encroaching here and not the tother way around.

It seems to me that it could only seem that way to you (or you could only claim that it seems that way to you) if you were completely incapable of understanding some pretty basic stuff (or were completely refusing to acknowledge what you understand). I'm just at a loss as to what other explanation there might be.

The state is defining something for the state's purposes. The state is entitled to do that.

The state is not entitled to define anything for your church's purposes. And the state is NOT purporting, or attempting, or wishing to do that.

Define marriage as "the combined weight of all the angels who can dance on the point of a needle" if you like, for your church's purposes. Nobody else really cares, y'know?

See the post I wrote just before this one if the concepts here really aren't clear.

.

[eyesroll]

3. I don't think the MA courts said churches had to marry same-sex couples

Just like it's illegal for the state to deny a marriage license between a Jew and a Catholic, or for people who have been divorced, but churches/synagogues/etc. are free to refuse to marry whoever they choose.

BTW: I agree that the state should get itself out of marriage entirely. Civil licenses if it must.

[adriennel]

4. there are churches

in support of gay rights and marriage. Ever heard of "More Light"?
Your church may not sanction a union between two people of the same sex, but to state that gay marriage conflicts with the "church's" sanctity of marriage is simply false.

[Perky]

8. You miss my point

I mean to suggest that the Church has a responsibility to maintain a Biblical underestanding of Marriage and protect it in the earthly realm.... What the State chooses to do with it should not matter.

I would prefer that the state ratify what it is really doing glabally by calling the unions it sanction "Civil Unions" and not marriage--without regard to sexual persuadion.

[LeahMira]

23. Let the churches limit marriages...

I mean to suggest that the Church has a responsibility to maintain a Biblical underestanding of Marriage and protect it in the earthly realm.... What the State chooses to do with it should not matter.

That seems to make sense.


I would prefer that the state ratify what it is really doing glabally by calling the unions it sanction "Civil Unions" and not marriage.

There are already loads of laws written pertaining to the rights and responsibilities of "married" couples. Rather than go to the time and expense of combing through all the laws of all the states, how about the churches simply call their ritual a "ceremonial marriage" or a "religious marriage" or even a "biblical marriage."

I really fail to see why people expect the state to create a new term. If the churches object, or if they insist on "maintaining the Biblical understanding of marriage" it should be incumbent upon the churches to make that distinction, since the churches are the entities that want to limit the understanding and definition of "marriage."

[Perky]

25. Umm I think that is my point.

But I get flamed for making the distinction

[Perky]

9. You miss my point

I mean to suggest that the Church has a responsibility to maintain a Biblical underestanding of Marriage and protect it in the earthly realm.... What the State chooses to do with it should not matter.

I would prefer that the state ratify what it is really doing glabally by calling the unions it sanction "Civil Unions" and not marriage--without regard to sexual persuadion.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. But not all denominations are literalist

Bible-based evangelical churches won't allow for gay marriage, but the denominations which interpret the Bible more loosely probably will at some point.

So again I say it should be up to the churches themselves. You belong to a denomination which will uphold your beliefs on the matter, so you should feel comfortable with the situation to that extent.

[papau]

11. CIVIL MARRIAGE is not Church Marriage

:-)

[papau]

12. CIVIL MARRIAGE is not Church Marriage

:-)

[booisblu]

15. Can you prove to me

that "God", any god had anything to do with what is written in the bible? Cause until you can, do not use that tired old argument that being gay is a sin because some old book says it is. Give me tangible proof that the words in that book come from the "God", not some abstract theory or philosophy.

edited to fix angry typing

[LeahMira]

27. Don't waste your anger...

Cause until you can, do not use that tired old argument that being gay is a sin because some old book says it is. Give me tangible proof that the words in that book come from the "God", not some abstract theory or philosophy.

I understand your anger because some congregations do use the bible to marginalize people who are every bit as decent and good as their congregants, if not better.

But the Massachusetts decision has nothing to do with the bible or the churches. It is a legal decision that pertains to the state. The state recognizes same sex marriages.

Thankfully, we have separation of church and state in this nation. The churches can't push their agenda on the state, and the state can't push its agenda on the churches. Hurray for that!

[booisblu]

29. True, and I was actually replying

to statements Perky made. However, all these states pushing through laws this week are doing it based on religious principle, not according to what the constitution states..which is that we all have the same, identical rights. Not that het's should have more or better rights, or blacks and women should have less. I realize that quite a few of these repubs are pushing this over monetary concerns, but again..there is no legal basis for these ammendments. So why are they passing and why will they stand? I want to marry my partner..how is that wrong? How can it possibly still be illegal in 49 out of 50 freaking states in 2004?!!

[adriennel]

17. I did NOT miss your point

you missed my point. you keep referring to the "Church". I am trying to explain to you that your "Church" is not the only religious institution active in the US.
Your "Church" may not approve of gay marriage, but mine does. We obviously do not worship the same.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. I think it should be up to the different denominations to decide

if they accept gay marriage.

Churches that are for it should offer wedding services. Churches which are not, won't.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

14. Please keep YOUR God out of the Massachusetts Constitution

just replace interracial/interfaith marriages with "gay". If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, that's they're perogative. The Mass. constitution does not sanction discrimination, and does not change the religious viewpoint of marriage.

Separation of Church and state, my friend....

[Perky]

18. Works both ways.

I am happy to keep my opinions /morality out of the MA constitution so long as the court keeps it hands off the Biblical definition of marraige.

What I suggest is that they sanction all civil Unions and stay away from the notion of marriage altogether.

[adriennel]

20. so the problem is

you can only accept one definition of marriage, and that is the one sanctioned only by your "Church". not exactly open-minded for a spiritual institution

[Perky]

21. HAHA

SInce when is the Church supposed to be open-minded? We are just called to love unconditionally.


Sadly we don't know how to reconcile the two.

[Rainbowreflect]

22. Which biblical definition of marriage?

One man & one women or one man & many.

[iverglas]

28. what??

I am happy to keep my opinions /morality out of the MA constitution so long as the court keeps it hands off the Biblical definition of marraige.

Where exactly has any court attempted to alter the "biblical definition of marriage"??

Your church does not own the English language, my friend. You and your fellow travellers might really do well to take that fact into consideration.

The word "marriage" is defined for the state's purposes by the state, just as any other word the state uses is. That definition operates for the state's purposes, and no others.

Just like the way the word "marriage" is defined for your church's purposes, by your church, operates for your church's purposes, and no others.

Your church has no more jurisdiction over how words are defined for the state's purposes than the state has over how words are defined for your church's purposes. I'm sure you wouldn't want the state defining, oh, "communion" for the purposes of your church -- so what the bloody hell makes you think you are entitled to define "marriage" for the purposes of anyone or anything outside your church??

Man ... isn't this exactly what that "separation of church and state" stuff is all about?

No church controls state functions. The definition of "marriage" for state purposes is a state function. How can anyone possibly be confused about this?

.

[Q3JR4]

16. The term "marriage" takes into account

the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage, but it also has a religious connotation. It is a fact that Christian churches don't have to embrace the marriages of any other religion (say a pagan based religion). Because one church allows marriages to occur does not mean that they all have to do so. Then you run into other problems, the MCC would do marriages if they were allowed to. (Are we going to limit what THEY can do as well?)

I tend to agree with you that we should scrap the civil marriage idea and take up the idea of a "civil union," but (as Canadians who've made the same argument show) those who are currently married through the state would wonder at their legal status. Again as Canadian issues have shown, there is the potential for a large backlash when the population of the country gets the impression that the goverment is trying to desolve their "civil marriages."

[Perky]

19. You make a good point

My concern stems from the Church acquiesincing to the state in its repsonibility to bless and police it own.


THe church never should have ceded power to the state on the sacrament to begin with...Any more so than letting a jusge offer COmmunion.. Its the same thing.