What are your thoughts on Chruch's refusing to wed gays?

[Muffled]

What about the establishment clause and the commentary from the drafters of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers?! "Congress shall pass no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion." Keep in mind, aslo, that MOST of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. And, some were even atheists. There was an interest in keeping the Church away from the legislature, which is made clear by the quotes from our Founding Fathers included below.

Thomas Jefferson (Deist): “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” ~~ Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802

John Adams (Deist): “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States

George Washington (Christian): “We have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.” ~~ Letter to the members of The New Church in Baltimore, January 1793

Benjamin Franklin (Atheist): “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

James Madison (Deist): “The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.” ~~ Notes on Government Issued Religious Proclamations

Thomas Paine (Deist): “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. ” ~~ Common Sense, 1776.

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.” ~~ The Rights of Man, 1791-1792

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

I believe Thomas jefferson was in error because the wall keeps government out of the churches but does not keep churches out of the government.

I believe the wording leaves room for interpretation. For instance is prayer a church establishment or a church function and how does one tell the difference. I believe it should be against the law to require everyone (including atheists) to pray since it is not reasonable to require church functions of people who do not believe in church. Hence a legisaltive body like a school board can't order teachers to hold prayer sessions. On the other hand legisatures may not make it illegal to pray if one desires to do so provided it does not disturb the peace because one has a duty to secular life. For instance it would be a disturbing the peace if a person prayed out loud in study hall when everyone is required to be quiet. However it would be fine in a cafeteria where everyone is talking so long as one does not raise the voice which would be disruptive.

I believe Adams is being obsequius because many of the people who helped form the constittion were Christians and certainly their beliefs would influence the outcome. I believe what he means is that it was not intentionally founded on the Christian Religion. (I am sure we could have done better, lol)

I beleive it appears that Washington believed religion was not a good excuse to exclude people from political activity.

I didn't see any evidence of this and Madison's statement seems to indicate otherwise.

So is Franklin saying that assistance from the police to areest murderers is a sign that a belief that murder should be prohibited is a bad religion? I think waht he means is that religion never works by compulsion but by belief.

 

[sojourner]

When I got married I got a license too soon and it ran out before the marriage date. I told my in-laws that we would get married in the Church and that would be good enough until after the homeymoon when we could get a legal marriage but my in-laws wouldn't recognize a church marriage as valid and wanted the legal marriage so I had to get a license at the last minute. Also the minister (Presbyterian) would not perform the marriage unless it were also a legal marriage.

My grandaparents (my grandmother pregnant) ran off to NH from MA and got married by a JP there but my great grandmother wouldn't accept the legal marriage and required them to get married in the church for her to consider it a valid marriage.

...And so it goes...

 

[gsa]

I believe, perhaps but there is also another reality of government not liking churches and completely ignoring the constitution to attack churches via taxes and ordinances. My church wanted ato put up a sign but the town refused but allowed the high school to put one up. I believe this kind of discrimination goes on constantly but it isn't really worth making a supreme court case over it.

Churches are not taxed in any state. As far as the sign, well, what was the reason for it? In general, I am opposed to any sign ordinance, and most of them are constitutionally deficient. You don't need to make a Supreme Court case out of it, just challenge it in a local court and that's that. In my experience it also usually isn't discriminatory on the basis of the message (and if it is, that's a flagrant violation of the First Amendment). Usually it is about a concern for property values and aesthetics, fairly mundane economic and taste considerations.

Every church should be able to let their freak flag fly.

 

[Norman]

That's nice.
Let's go back to what we were talking about.
You claimed that the Mormons were being morally imposed upon. You implied that the Obama administration was targeting your church.
So I asked how, exactly, your morals were being imposed upon.
You said that the LDS canning operations were being held to strict food safety standards. That was your answer.
I'm drawing my own conclusions.
Tom

Lets get this straight.
.
Post #68
Norman said: ↑ As would be expected, many of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

Could you be more specific about the imposition on the practices of the Mormons? I think that they should have lost their tax exempt status for their regular incursions into politics. But I don't know of any impositions at all.
Tom

Post #84
Could you be more specific about the imposition on the practices of the Mormons? I think that they should have lost their tax exempt status for their regular incursions into politics. But I don't know of any impositions at all.
Tom

Norman said: ↑

Norman: you call it politics Tom, we call it morality, and that is when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints will always take a stand on, as is there right.
Here is just one imposition imposed upon my Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a network of food canning and distribution centers around the nation, where volunteer church members donate time to can food

So, what you call imposition of morality I call food safety standards.
Got it.
Look, you can blame Obama as much as you want, but what I'm seeing is religionists who feel above the law.
Tom

Norman: No, you didn’t get it, I was answering two questions here. You misunderstood, my answers “: you call it politics Tom, we call it morality, and that is when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints will always take a stand on, as is there right. (This was my answer to morality and my Church) In this post I was not saying that morality was the imposition. I stated information about our welfare program in my Church that was the imposition. (You misunderstood)

Post #88

Norman said: ↑

Norman: you call it politics Tom, we call it morality, and that is when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints will always take a stand on, as is there right.
Here is just one imposition imposed upon my Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a network of food canning and distribution centers around the nation, where volunteer church members donate time to can food

So, what you call imposition of morality I call food safety standards.
Got it.
Look, you can blame Obama as much as you want, but what I'm seeing is religionists who feel above the law.
Tom

Norman: Again, You seem confused here.

Post #106

Norman said: ↑

Norman: Hi Tom, I am sorry about my scam comment to you, that was rude of me.

That's nice.
Let's go back to what we were talking about.
You claimed that the Mormons were being morally imposed upon. You implied that the Obama administration was targeting your church.
So I asked how, exactly, your morals were being imposed upon.
You said that the LDS canning operations were being held to strict food safety standards. That was your answer.
I'm drawing my own conclusions.
Tom

Norman: Your statement above is not accurate. You have been the one confused all this time in our conversations in this thread. Again, you misunderstood my answers. You never once mentioned the morals of my Church, You said “Practices.” Again, I gave two different answers to two different questions. Post #68, #84, #88 and this post #106, go back and read them above and you will see what I am talking about.

I also am drawing my own conclusions to your responses.

Regurgitated Rhetoric

 

[leibowde84]

Lets get this straight.
.
Post #68
Norman said: ↑ As would be expected, many of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

Could you be more specific about the imposition on the practices of the Mormons? I think that they should have lost their tax exempt status for their regular incursions into politics. But I don't know of any impositions at all.
Tom

Post #84
Could you be more specific about the imposition on the practices of the Mormons? I think that they should have lost their tax exempt status for their regular incursions into politics. But I don't know of any impositions at all.
Tom

Norman said: ↑

Norman: you call it politics Tom, we call it morality, and that is when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints will always take a stand on, as is there right.
Here is just one imposition imposed upon my Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a network of food canning and distribution centers around the nation, where volunteer church members donate time to can food

So, what you call imposition of morality I call food safety standards.
Got it.
Look, you can blame Obama as much as you want, but what I'm seeing is religionists who feel above the law.
Tom

Norman: No, you didn’t get it, I was answering two questions here. You misunderstood, my answers “: you call it politics Tom, we call it morality, and that is when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints will always take a stand on, as is there right. (This was my answer to morality and my Church) In this post I was not saying that morality was the imposition. I stated information about our welfare program in my Church that was the imposition. (You misunderstood)

Post #88

Norman said: ↑

Norman: you call it politics Tom, we call it morality, and that is when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints will always take a stand on, as is there right.
Here is just one imposition imposed upon my Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a network of food canning and distribution centers around the nation, where volunteer church members donate time to can food

So, what you call imposition of morality I call food safety standards.
Got it.
Look, you can blame Obama as much as you want, but what I'm seeing is religionists who feel above the law.
Tom

Norman: Again, You seem confused here.

Post #106

Norman said: ↑

Norman: Hi Tom, I am sorry about my scam comment to you, that was rude of me.

That's nice.
Let's go back to what we were talking about.
You claimed that the Mormons were being morally imposed upon. You implied that the Obama administration was targeting your church.
So I asked how, exactly, your morals were being imposed upon.
You said that the LDS canning operations were being held to strict food safety standards. That was your answer.
I'm drawing my own conclusions.
Tom

Norman: Your statement above is not accurate. You have been the one confused all this time in our conversations in this thread. Again, you misunderstood my answers. You never once mentioned the morals of my Church, You said “Practices.” Again, I gave two different answers to two different questions. Post #68, #84, #88 and this post #106, go back and read them above and you will see what I am talking about.

I also am drawing my own conclusions to your responses.

Regurgitated Rhetoric

You do have a point on this stuff. But, the most reasonable and probable explanation is that it is because these religions have the most "unusual" traditions/practices. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

 

[Norman]

Could you be more specific about the imposition on the practices of the Mormons? I think that they should have lost their tax exempt status for their regular incursions into politics. But I don't know of any impositions at all.
Tom

Norman: The information I posted is 99% not verified, I am forced to do a retraction. Sorry for the inconvenience Tom. In response to Post #84

Church Dispels Rumors Regarding Tennessee Canning Facility: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has received a number of inquiries about an alleged visit by federal officials to a Church canning facility in Tennessee seeking information about those who use the facility. The Church has investigated these claims and there is no basis for the rumors.

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ors-regarding-tennessee-food-storage-facility

News Release — 17 JUNE 2013

Concern Over Changes to
Home Storage Centers Unnecessary

Salt Lake City —

Over the past several weeks, misinformation and unnecessary concern has been circulating on blogs, over social media channels and by email regarding changes in operations at the Church’s home storage centers, which are located in the U.S. and Canada. No home storage centers are being closed, but the Church is making welcomed modifications in its operations at most of these centers that will help to better serve the needs of members of the Church, as well as significantly improve efficiency. In all but 12 of the Church’s 101 home storage centers in the U.S. and Canada, patrons will no longer self-can products, but they may purchase these same items pre-canned or prepackaged at no additional cost.

These changes have been considered for some time as the Church has looked at the best way to provide home storage goods to Church members efficiently. Much of the discussion regarding this issue has suggested that this change is due to food safety regulation. While it has been a factor, the concern expressed regarding that issue has been overstated. While many individuals have enjoyed self-canning at the Church’s home storage centers, the advantages of providing pre-canned or prepackaged goods include: It’s more efficient and cost effective for the Church to produce and ship high-quality, pre-canned or prepackaged goods in bulk rather than ship the same goods and empty cans to a location where individuals can them on their own.

By offering the goods pre-canned or prepackaged, the Church utilizes less warehouse space. Pre-canned and prepackaged operations allow for higher quality and safer preparation of home storage food.
It is much more costly to maintain and upgrade facilities that must meet food production standards (such as in a self-canning operation) than it is to maintain a facility that simply distributes pre-canned and prepackaged food. Volunteer personnel time can be used more efficiently.

The following 12 home storage centers will continue to offer self-canning for the time being as the Church continues to monitor the goods and services offered at home storage centers and makes adjustments as needed:

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/concern-over-changes-to-home-storage-centers-unnecessary

 

[Norman]

Such as?

Norman: The information I posted is 99% not verified, I am forced to do a retraction. Sorry for the inconvenience Windwalker. In regards to post# 83

Church Dispels Rumors Regarding Tennessee Canning Facility

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has received a number of inquiries about an alleged visit by federal officials to a Church canning facility in Tennessee seeking information about those who use the facility. The Church has investigated these claims and there is no basis for the rumors.

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ors-regarding-tennessee-food-storage-facility

News Release — 17 JUNE 2013

Concern Over Changes to
Home Storage Centers Unnecessary

Salt Lake City —

Over the past several weeks, misinformation and unnecessary concern has been circulating on blogs, over social media channels and by email regarding changes in operations at the Church’s home storage centers, which are located in the U.S. and Canada. No home storage centers are being closed, but the Church is making welcomed modifications in its operations at most of these centers that will help to better serve the needs of members of the Church, as well as significantly improve efficiency.

In all but 12 of the Church’s 101 home storage centers in the U.S. and Canada, patrons will no longer self-can products, but they may purchase these same items pre-canned or prepackaged at no additional cost.
These changes have been considered for some time as the Church has looked at the best way to provide home storage goods to Church members efficiently. Much of the discussion regarding this issue has suggested that this change is due to food safety regulation. While it has been a factor, the concern expressed regarding that issue has been overstated. While many individuals have enjoyed self-canning at the Church’s home storage centers, the advantages of providing pre-canned or prepackaged goods include:

It’s more efficient and cost effective for the Church to produce and ship high-quality, pre-canned or prepackaged goods in bulk rather than ship the same goods and empty cans to a location where individuals can them on their own. By offering the goods pre-canned or prepackaged, the Church utilizes less warehouse space.

Pre-canned and prepackaged operations allow for higher quality and safer preparation of home storage food. It is much more costly to maintain and upgrade facilities that must meet food production standards (such as in a self-canning operation) than it is to maintain a facility that simply distributes pre-canned and prepackaged food. Volunteer personnel time can be used more efficiently.

The following 12 home storage centers will continue to offer self-canning for the time being as the Church continues to monitor the goods and services offered at home storage centers and makes adjustments as needed:

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/concern-over-changes-to-home-storage-centers-unnecessary

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: The information I posted is 99% not verified, I am forced to do a retraction. Sorry for the inconvenience Windwalker. In regards to post# 83

Church Dispels Rumors Regarding Tennessee Canning Facility

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has received a number of inquiries about an alleged visit by federal officials to a Church canning facility in Tennessee seeking information about those who use the facility. The Church has investigated these claims and there is no basis for the rumors.

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ors-regarding-tennessee-food-storage-facility

News Release — 17 JUNE 2013

Concern Over Changes to
Home Storage Centers Unnecessary

Salt Lake City —

Over the past several weeks, misinformation and unnecessary concern has been circulating on blogs, over social media channels and by email regarding changes in operations at the Church’s home storage centers, which are located in the U.S. and Canada. No home storage centers are being closed, but the Church is making welcomed modifications in its operations at most of these centers that will help to better serve the needs of members of the Church, as well as significantly improve efficiency.

In all but 12 of the Church’s 101 home storage centers in the U.S. and Canada, patrons will no longer self-can products, but they may purchase these same items pre-canned or prepackaged at no additional cost.
These changes have been considered for some time as the Church has looked at the best way to provide home storage goods to Church members efficiently. Much of the discussion regarding this issue has suggested that this change is due to food safety regulation. While it has been a factor, the concern expressed regarding that issue has been overstated. While many individuals have enjoyed self-canning at the Church’s home storage centers, the advantages of providing pre-canned or prepackaged goods include:

It’s more efficient and cost effective for the Church to produce and ship high-quality, pre-canned or prepackaged goods in bulk rather than ship the same goods and empty cans to a location where individuals can them on their own. By offering the goods pre-canned or prepackaged, the Church utilizes less warehouse space.

Pre-canned and prepackaged operations allow for higher quality and safer preparation of home storage food. It is much more costly to maintain and upgrade facilities that must meet food production standards (such as in a self-canning operation) than it is to maintain a facility that simply distributes pre-canned and prepackaged food. Volunteer personnel time can be used more efficiently.

The following 12 home storage centers will continue to offer self-canning for the time being as the Church continues to monitor the goods and services offered at home storage centers and makes adjustments as needed:

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/concern-over-changes-to-home-storage-centers-unnecessary

Call me crazy, but the "Mormon news room" might be a bit biased.

 

[Norman]

You do have a point on this stuff. But, the most reasonable and probable explanation is that it is because these religions have the most "unusual" traditions/practices. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

Norman: Hi leibowde84, I had to retract my statement on our food canneries I made to Windwalker and Columbus (Tom). Yes, I agree with you leibowde84, however, I would say very little in traditions and practices. 99% of our traditions and practices come right out of the Bible. Just one example, Relief Society (Our woman's organization) was received by revelation to Joseph Smith. Good question. It most likely is unusual to some people because we believe that Joseph Smith restored the first century Church which included practices, doctrine and tradition that was lost.

 

[Norman]

Call me crazy, but the "Mormon news room" might be a bit biased.

Norman: Hi leibowde84, I won't call you crazy, however, you could be right on that one.

 

[Norman]

Why not? I kind of agree. I don't think that any organization should get tax-free status unless their only purpose is charity. This certainly cannot be said of any Church.

Norman: Hi leibowde84, I understand your point, I can't speak for any other Church, however, in my Church charity is at the forefront of my faith. I stated before that when we help in disasters all the time, we do not publicize it, we keep it in our website www.lds.org and even then, it is hardly mentioned. Our Church welfare program is recognized by the Government as a legit Charity organization and is registered as so. It is not money making but money consuming.

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: Hi leibowde84, I understand your point, I can't speak for any other Church, however, in my Church charity is at the forefront of my faith. I stated before that when we help in disasters all the time, we do not publicize it, we keep it in our website www.lds.org and even then, it is hardly mentioned. Our Church welfare program is recognized by the Government as a legit Charity organization and is registered as so. It is not money making but money consuming.

There is a lot of dogma associated with the LDS church, correct? I mean, I'm only aloud inside the Mormon Temple where I live on Christmas. This leads me to believe there is a lot more than charity involved. And it also appears to be far too exclusive to be considered a charitable organization. Like the ultimate test of faith, or whatever it's called, where true Morman faith is tested when Mormonism is taken outside the church (which points to dogma, btw). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of Morman charity is done for fellow Mormans. Which, again, points to it being exclusive.

 

[psychoslice]

There are people in this world that only bring misery to others, and there are those who bring happiness, take your pick on who you want to marry you.

 

[Katzpur]

And it also appears to be far too exclusive to be considered a charitable organization. Like the ultimate test of faith, or whatever it's called, where true Morman faith is tested when Mormonism is taken outside the church (which points to dogma, btw). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of Morman charity is done for fellow Mormans. Which, again, points to it being exclusive.

Okay, you're wrong. While it is true that "a lot of Mormon charity is done for... Mormons," it is not even close to being done "exclusively" for Mormons. The LDS Church provides hundreds of millions of dollars in food, clothing, medical equipment and training for non-Mormons worldwide. The LDS Philanthropies website will give you some idea of how extensive our humanitarian efforts outside of our own Church really are. From there, you can check out LDS Charities. (I hope you won't dismiss this information as biased, simply because it comes from an LDS source, and that if you choose not to accept it as factual, you'll provide some evidence to support your position.)

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, you're wrong. While it is true that "a lot of Mormon charity is done for... Mormons," it is not even close to being done "exclusively" for Mormons. The LDS Church provides hundreds of millions of dollars in food, clothing, medical equipment and training for non-Mormons worldwide. The LDS Philanthropies website will give you some idea of how extensive our humanitarian efforts outside of our own Church really are. From there, you can check out LDS Charities. (I hope you won't dismiss this information as biased, simply because it comes from an LDS source, and that if you choose not to accept it as factual, you'll provide some evidence to support your position.)

I never claimed that charity was done exclusively for Mormons. I stated, and you agreed, that "a lot of Mormon charity is done for fellow Mormons." This practice points to it being exclusive as a faith system in general.

 

[Katzpur]

I never claimed that charity was done exclusively for Mormons. I stated, and you agreed, that "a lot of Mormon charity is done for fellow Mormons." This practice points to it being exclusive as a faith system in general.

What you said was that the fact that Mormons themselves are the recipients of Mormon charity points to it being exclusive. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you suggesting that a legitimate charity ignores the needs of those within the group itself?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Governments have no right to tell someone "You have to marry these two" What business is it of theirs? It's their church. It's nobody's business. What if you were against polygamy. Would you be comfortable wedding someone who was a polygamist? Marriage isn't part of the federal government's job. It should at least be on the state level. What if all Jews were required to work on the Sabbath or if Muslim store owners had to sell pork and beer, or if Zoroastrians had to uncover their heads or Sikhs had to shave their beards and take their turbans off. These laws don't do anything but violate the religions beliefs and rights of these people.

I really don't like the idea that somehow making gay marriage legal is promoting equality, while it violates so many religious beliefs, and not just Christian beliefs, too. It's not just a Christian thing to be against gay marriage,. Most religions, even the Baha'i Faith don't like it There will be some liberal groups within these religions but not too many religions support such things.

Why do they even need to be married? Why not just have a civil union or partnership? We already know the definition of marriage and changing the idea of it doesn't make sense. It's like calling a rose a sunflower, when it isn't. It's a rose. Call it what it is.

 

[leibowde84]

What you said was that the fact that Mormons themselves are the recipients of Mormon charity points to it being exclusive. That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you suggesting that a legitimate charity ignores the needs of those within the group itself?

No. Again, you misunderstand my comment. I am saying that, if the majority of people helped by a religious organization are member of that religion, it points to the religion itself being exclusive to some degree. If a charitable organization directs any efforts toward members of a specific religion of faith, I don't think they should be exempt from paying taxes. The fact that you agreed that "most of the people helped by Mormon Charities are Mormon themselves" is troubling to me, if the church was (hypothetically) fighting for charitable organization status.

 

[viole]

Governments have no right to tell someone "You have to marry these two" What business is it of theirs? It's their church. It's nobody's business. What if you were against polygamy. Would you be comfortable wedding someone who was a polygamist? Marriage isn't part of the federal government's job. It should at least be on the state level. What if all Jews were required to work on the Sabbath or if Muslim store owners had to sell pork and beer, or if Zoroastrians had to uncover their heads or Sikhs had to shave their beards and take their turbans off. These laws don't do anything but violate the religions beliefs and rights of these people.

I really don't like the idea that somehow making gay marriage legal is promoting equality, while it violates so many religious beliefs, and not just Christian beliefs, too. It's not just a Christian thing to be against gay marriage,. Most religions, even the Baha'i Faith don't like it There will be some liberal groups within these religions but not too many religions support such things.

Why do they even need to be married? Why not just have a civil union or partnership? We already know the definition of marriage and changing the idea of it doesn't make sense. It's like calling a rose a sunflower, when it isn't. It's a rose. Call it what it is.

I think someone might think that if the church wants to be free to discriminate because of some invisible entity in the skies, then it should get at least financial independence, instead of letting everybody else, incuding the victims of the discrimination, paying taxes for them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

Why do they even need to be married? Why not just have a civil union or partnership?

Semantics aside, that is exactly what the law is now.

A couple get their relationship recognized by the state. Nobody else even has to know about it.
They can also do anything else that adds significance to the union, religious ceremony or whatever. They can have a big church wedding or dance naked around a bonfire. Or do nothing at all. The state has no involvement in that part of their lives.
As it should be.
Tom