Britain to legalize gay marriage!

[CMatt25]

See previous posts - the rights have already been stripped in some countries. Pastors have been locked up for preaching to their own congregation that homosexual relations are a sin. Catholic adoption agencies across Britain were shut down when they refused to adopt to homosexual couples because it violated their belief. (how many times do I have to type this out? )

Again - and I will put it plainly - if this were simply about gay marriage, the debate would go differently. I personally don’t give a flip about what two men want to call themselves, it doesn’t make it true. Where I have an issue is when they start telling me that I have to accept their personal life choices, and that I or anyone else can be imprisoned for not doing so.

Whitacre, I am not Brittish. I would prefer in such cases where Catholic agencies will never adopt to a loving gay couple, that they still be allowed to remain open as completely private entities. And if they can not afford to do so, as someone posted it is not a right to stay in business if you can not afford to operate. I would also oppose locking up Catholic pastors for preaching their faith beliefs.

That said, even if Brittish Catholic agencies are being forced not to be in the adoption business, all that means is they can not operate an adoption business. Comparatively speaking, hardly does that place such an unbearable hardship upon Catholics or strip them of their rights to practice the tenets of their faith.

Catholics in Brittain to my knowledge can still believe gay marriage is wrong. Can still attending Mass. Can receive in faith the Body of Christ through the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Can go to confession. A Catholic heterosexual couple can still be united in the Sacrament of Marriage.

Whereas here in the US, for instance a homosexual United Church of Christ couple can not practice their faith by being married by their pastor at their local United Church of Christ when their Christian denomination endorses such.

And we talk about whose rights to practice their faith are being stripped more.

Peace to you Whitacre Girl. And God bless in your faith journey.

 

[CMatt25]

Of course homosexual marriage harms me, CMatt. Here’s the deal: I and my family live within the society, we are not independent atoms. We are affected by the prevailing mores.

Good luck in shielding your family from the harm of homosexuals. They exist and live within the same society in which you and your family live. And can even be your loving neighbor next door.

 

[JohnPRoco]

Recognizing gay marriage may myopically seem just another ‘civil rights’ (as in the United States, the ACLU would say) triumph, but much more is actually happening in societies impacted. An offshoot of the gay movement’s pressure to recognize civil unions, Britain’s closure of Catholic foster care and adoption agencies, is being mimicked in the United States in the form of Pete Stark’s (D-CA) HR 1681 “Every Child Deserves a FAmily Act” which no has 70 co-sponsors (and growing) and would eliminate Catholic Charities adoption and foster care across the United States of America. Here is a flashy 2 minute video on the goals of HR 1681:

youtube.com/watch?v=wvscfsqiX8Y

And here is the 18 minute video going in depth:

youtube.com/watch?v=QAFfNMbVW7s

So ‘recognizing’ gay marriage or civil unions, is actually moreso attempts to define how a culture will live or how charitable or other organizations will die as the gay movement seeks to eliminate any and all who do not agree with them.

 

[Mudgely]

I can’t speak for English law, but in America marriage is not a right, but rather the freedom to marry is. That might sound like a trivial distinction, but it is not. I have not rightful expectation of marriage. I do have the expectation that, having found an agreeable marriage partner who meets the criteria that we enjoy the freedom to marry.

You cannot marry anyone you so choose, otherwise I would assert my right to marry Penelope Cruz and be done with it. But this can’t work without a few problems in the way, namely: 1) I have to get her to agree, 2) I’m already married to somebody else, 3) she’s already married to somebody else.

Freedom to marry is a contractual freedom, subject to conditions. It is not an independent natural, intrinsic right such as: speech, religion, arms, etc.

In the 1860’s the courts recognized marriage as a fundamental right when considering the relationship to slavery to marriage.

1967 Loving V. Virginia, Virginia’s miscegenation laws were found to violate due process clause by interfering with the “the fundamental freedom” of marriage.

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of “reasonableness” that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions.

Marriage is a basic right granted by the Constitution, and has been recognized as such for more than 150 years. When it comes to civil rights, and particularly the rights of a suspect class, it is incumbent upon the party who wants to deny the right to show cause. The state must show a compelling interest.

This has failed with every attempt. The Colorado ruling still stands that the state has no compelling interest in the matter. Every state or federal court who has heard the matter, has agreed that there should be no legal impediment. Perhaps a court will rule in the other direction. Civil rights in the US are generally granted by the courts, and not by legislation. Even when legislation is passed, it is generally recourse to the courts which puts teeth into the law.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Marriage is a basic right granted by the Constitution, and has been recognized as such for more than 150 years.

Please learn American law, both constitutional and case law. Loving v. Virginia, and all the other so-called cases you cited, reaffirmed (did not create anew) the fundamental constitutional right of heterosexual marriage. There has never been a “right” established to marry anyone besides an adult (“of age”) member of the opposite sex. Quit misrepresenting legal history, and the way case law works when cases are decided: they are limited to the context of the case before the court, unless the court explicitly creates a new legal definition (such as explicitly broadening the definition of marriage, etc.).

What you posted conforms to the legal mythology that the Gay Lobby loves to propagandize the country about, including coming on to message boards, infiltrating various religious groups, etc., with the intent to mislead the public --particularly those groups most opposed to the unraveling of the traditional family structure in American society.

 

[Hokomai]

This is false. Do you really reason this way? The Catholic Church has existed from the time of Christ, Peter was the first Pope. No-one is thinking up their own god. To suggest this is to only look at sects like Westboro and think every orthodox Christian is like this.

Perhaps Thomas Moore burned some people for religious reasons but in his time religion was the cornerstone of society and people preaching dangerous ideas which led to instability and bloodshed were dealt with this way. Sadly the people of that time did not know about civilised prisons, reform programs, forums where compromises could be reached and so forth. And even when they tried such experiments their societies were weakened and absolutist ruler neighbours with strong and coherent societies channeling strong militaries would make short work of them. A situation like that followed in Poland where political and religious tolerance reached its height in the Constitution of the 3rd May 1791, this accelerated the weakening of the state as everyone from the royalty to the urban class and clergy had their own say and weakend the country to the point that foreign invasion wiped Poland from the map for almost 122 years. Such systems are only tenable when your neighbours have reached the same level of civilisation you have. When instead you are fighting open wars against other dukes and kings who want your kingdom and use religious connections are pretext or a Muslim or Mongol invasion has their eye on you - you can’t afford to pus$y foot around.

Religion and secular governance worked hand in hand because of the important role religion played in the life of the common man and the source of morality and model of conduct it was for him. Social upheaval is a terrible thing and it can lead to civil war and destruction/collapse of society and of course your neighbours can take advantage of it too.

Tenoforvir, I am indeed thinking like this, and your post strongly reinforces my thinking. Religion, given enough influence, is hugely intolerant of dissent. Thomas More is an example. The Taleban is another. We need to keep religion away from state power. Give religion the power of the state, and they start blowing up ancient statutes, oppressing women, and burning people. Less rhetorically, religious influence in government allows one group to impose their will on others over what are essentially private matters. If Catholic influence succeeds in stopping homosexuals marrying, will we then go back to the time when under Catholicand other christian influence homosexuals were imprisoned for having sex? And if one sort of sex disapproved of can lead to jail - why not all forms the church does not support - like sex using contraception? “That wouldn’t happen” I hear people say: but it has only just stopped happening in Ireland, where for decades contraceptives were unlawful. Having said all that, it is good to be debating with someone who spells “neighbours” the right way!

 

[LoyalViews]

Write to your MP’s.

Mr Prime Minister, you’re really displaying your true “blue” colours, aren’t you…:tsktsk:

 

[Mudgely]

Please learn American law, both constitutional and case law. Loving v. Virginia, and all the other so-called cases you cited, reaffirmed (did not create anew) the fundamental constitutional right of heterosexual marriage. There has never been a “right” established to marry anyone besides an adult (“of age”) member of the opposite sex. Quit misrepresenting legal history, and the way case law works when cases are decided: they are limited to the context of the case before the court, unless the court explicitly creates a new legal definition (such as explicitly broadening the definition of marriage, etc.).

What you posted conforms to the legal mythology that the Gay Lobby loves to propagandize the country about, including coming on to message boards, infiltrating various religious groups, etc., with the intent to mislead the public --particularly those groups most opposed to the unraveling of the traditional family structure in American society.

What I posted conforms to the decisions of the courts. No more and no less. EOD.

We don’t know where it will go from here, but there is an undeniable consistency in the rulings to date. The facts are: (1) that marriage is a basic civil right; (2) gender was once a part of the legal definition of marriage; (3) gender is no longer legally relevant to the legal definition to marriage, according to EVERY ruling to date by courts in diverse jurisdictions (NOT according to me).

Don’t argue with me. Argue with the courts. I have no influence here, and no particular vested interest. I have no intention of ever marrying a person of my own gender. I don’t really care if anyone else does. So, I may have a less prejudiced view than those who are in favor and a less prejudiced view than those who are opposed.

I may know more American Law than you assume, btw.

 

[MontChevalier]

You have the right to practice your faith. It is not being stripped from you. But there are gays and lesbians who simply want the same right to practice their faith as well. Take for instance a member of the United Church of Christ who might believe differently than you do and whose religion might have a different interpretation than the Catholic Church about homosexuality. And whose Christian denomination is on record of supporting gay marriage in the states. If they’re homosexual, they merely might want the right to practice their faith and have the freedom/privilege you do to perhaps marry in their church/eccelsial community. (Which you call it depends on your perspective of course.)

“It’s not being stripped from you.” ??? Really?

If the Church begins losing its function to maintain itself, then it is a FORM of stripping it away from us. It’s a clear attack on us, and our institution. And the lack of institutions begins happening and churches begin closing because they don’t have the funds to do so, what will happen to the faithful Catholics who DO go to these places?

Of course, an atheist like you doesn’t care. Personally, I never believed in Democracy, and I’ve always supported the Monarchies and the oppression of socialists and atheists.

Santi2, Thomas More burned people for their religion. Your concerns listed in your earlier post about the religious freedom of civil servants to ignore their responsibilities if their religion is opposed to registering relationships between gay people sits rather uneasily with your support for More. the trouble with people putting God first, is that everyone thinks up their own god.

THAT is a lie created by Protestants who despised him. St. Thomas More even denied these accusations and most of these accusations comes FROM the Protestants to begin with. They come only from ONE source. And that source from a man More EXILED. More on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

I expect you to show more respect to More, atheist.

-MontChevalier

 

[CMatt25]

What I posted conforms to the decisions of the courts. No more and no less. EOD.

We don’t know where it will go from here, but there is an undeniable consistency in the rulings to date. The facts are: (1) that marriage is a basic civil right; (2) gender was once a part of the legal definition of marriage; (3) gender is no longer legally relevant to the legal definition to marriage, according to EVERY ruling to date by courts in diverse jurisdictions (NOT according to me).

Don’t argue with me. Argue with the courts. I have no influence here, and no particular vested interest. I have no intention of ever marrying a person of my own gender. I don’t really care if anyone else does. So, I may have a less prejudiced view than those who are in favor and a less prejudiced view than those who are opposed.

I may know more American Law than you assume, btw.

:clapping: Neither do I have any intention of ever marrying a person of my gender. But neither do I care if anyone else marries a partner of the same gender. No harm done to me whatsoever. No harm done to any Catholic in a Sacramental marriage. Your marriages will still be intact. And your properly catechized, informed, heterosexual children can still be married in your Church.

It’s not like they will have fired a bullet into my chest while I was walking down the street. Then there would have been harm done to me.

But 2 people united in a ceremony? Nah not so much.

 

[CMatt25]

Of course, an atheist like you doesn’t care.

An atheist like me? I beg your pardon. God bless you in your faith journey.

 

[MontChevalier]

An atheist like me? I beg your pardon. God bless you in your faith journey.

You can beg someone elses pardon.

And may he bless you on your way down in the fire.

-MontChevalier

 

[mystagogia]

Good luck in shielding your family from the harm of homosexuals. They exist and live within the same society in which you and your family live. And can even be your loving neighbor next door.

Actually they are 3 townhouses down, a gay sailor and his “wife”. You can have homosexual marriage 40 miles from where I live, and the moment DADT went away they got married. I’m on amicable terms with them. I’d characterize our relationship as extraordinarily good; for example when they rented a power washer recently they let me use it. I have let them use my table saw. Etc. Very neighboorly. Early on, after having a talk with them wherein I testified to my Catholic beliefs and asked them not to discuss any sexual issues with my children, they happily agreed.

Would that the same can be said for our local public school! Or my wife’s workplace, wherein the mandatory ethics training she’s forced to undergo and the corporate culture have mandated special status for homosexuals with directions on how they should be treated, spoken of, and viewed personally. With repercussions. The same is coming to me in my job with the military, and already they are agitating to extend it all to the transgendered people. Already we have had one bout of mandatory training on the issue, the point being driven home repeatedly that the task before us to (quoting verbatim) “transform our culture.”

As per my above arguments, which you did not address but instead implied a hidden homophobia on my part.

 

[Hokomai]

In reference to my claim that Thomas More burned people,

THAT is a lie created by Protestants who despised him. St. Thomas More even denied these accusations and most of these accusations comes FROM the Protestants to begin with. They come only from ONE source. And that source from a man More EXILED. More on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

I expect you to show more respect to More, atheist.

-MontChevalier

MontChevalier, your own source (Wikipedia) says:

In total there were six heretics burned at the stake during More’s Chancellorship: Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham.[6]:299–306 Burning at the stake had long been a standard punishment for heresy—about thirty burnings had taken place in the century before More’s elevation to Chancellor, and burning continued to be used by both Catholics as well as Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades.[17] Ackroyd notes that More explicitly “approved of Burning”[6]:298 After the case of John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller found guilty by More of harbouring banned books and sentenced to burning for refusing to recant, More declared: he “burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.”[18]

I respect More as an intelligent man and a fine writer. I have no respect for him as an oppressor. Incidentally, although I do not see anything wrong with being an atheist, it is not my name, and I do not describe myself as such.

 

[mystagogia]

Mudgeley, your citations from law do not address or defeat my point. I had said that civic law does not hold marriage to be right, but rather the freedom to marry has been. This reflects the language of the Loving v. Virginia majority opinion which you also charactize in agreement with my point.

Marriage has always been a form of the a contractual right. Yes, you do have the right of contract, and this is enumerated in the Constitution. Marriage itself is not ennumerated in the Constitution. For example, to become married you must posses a marriage license, which you can technically be denied. The Constitutionality of that denial is firm, although in practice it is exceedingly rare to have your license denied. Licensing is also largely a state matter, for example different states have differing minimum ages for marriageablity. No Constitutional gold standard for marriageablity exists, quite the opposite, it is an institution subject to local contractual regulations.

You cannot marry someone if you are already married. That’s bigamy. You cannot marry more than one person. That’s polygamy. The state of Utah was in fact forced to change its laws on that as a precondition to joining the United States. You can also not marry a person against his or her will. You cannot marry a person without finding someone recognized by the state as having been vested with the power of certifying a marriage.

Crucially, our marraige laws having come from English Common Law, wherein any public objection to your union must be addressed and resloved before the marriage can continue. This is why they say, “lf anybody has an objection let him speak now or forever hold his peace” in the traditional vow.

Marriage has always been a public contract, never a private indivisible right.

 

[anp1215]

You can beg someone elses pardon.

And may he bless you on your way down in the fire.

-MontChevalier

reported.

 

[anp1215]

“It’s not being stripped from you.” ??? Really?

If the Church begins losing its function to maintain itself, then it is a FORM of stripping it away from us. It’s a clear attack on us, and our institution. And the lack of institutions begins happening and churches begin closing because they don’t have the funds to do so, what will happen to the faithful Catholics who DO go to these places?

Of course, an atheist like you doesn’t care. Personally, I never believed in Democracy, and I’ve always supported the Monarchies and the oppression of socialists and atheists.

THAT is a lie created by Protestants who despised him. St. Thomas More even denied these accusations and most of these accusations comes FROM the Protestants to begin with. They come only from ONE source. And that source from a man More EXILED. More on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

I expect you to show more respect to More, atheist.

-MontChevalier

This too.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Remember, the statement that prompted me to jump into this thread was “as “gay rights” expand, religious rights diminish.”

I was asking if anyone could name examples of rights – actual rights – that have been “diminished” in any way by gay marriage (or, as the initial statement suggests, gay rights in general). Let’s see how well you’ve done in meeting this challenge.

This isn’t a right that an individual possesses – many children now are raised by a single heterosexual parent or grow up in orphanages.

OrdinaryMelkite:
First, this is a hypothetical, so it’s not something that’s happening now. And second, even if this were to happen, it wouldn’t be a right that’s being taken away from anyone. It would be a legal action.

There’s no such thing as a right to stay in business when you can’t afford it.

Even if we grant your preposterous slippery-slope premise, legalizing these other forms of marriage would not hamper anyone’s rights either.

Whitacre_Girl:
Well, this is the closest anyone has come to actually meeting the challenge I offered. Free speech is, obviously, a very important right, but 1) Free speech doesn’t extend to hate speech or disorderly public conduct…of course, it’s impossible for us to say whether these cases you speak of are actual examples of unlawful hate speech or trumped up charges, so we can’t really be sure about this point, and 2) As you yourself admit, these are isolated incidents: there are a vast number of public anti-gay sentiments that are heard all the time, on the street, at sports games, in popular music, etc.

I think it would be very, very difficult to make a case that free speech has been substantially affected at all by gays gaining rights. In fact, I think an individual’s rights to publicly express distaste with homosexuality are just as strong as ever – just look at this forum, for example.

I’m very late in responding, but you are saying in effect:

1. The fact that many, many Catholic couples who want to adopt children to raise them in the Faith will not be able to because the Catholic Adoption agencies will close due to immoral, undue pressure from governmental forces to go against that said Faith’s religious and moral values is totally OK because “hey, they can’t afford it, so tough luck?” Really?
2. Your idea that gay-rights groups FORCING the Catholic Church (let’s say they succeed in suing for that “right”) to marry same-sex couples is NOT taking anybody’s rights away? How about freedom of religious belief and conscience?
3. Legalizing the other “slippery-slope” “what-ifs” WOULD take rights away from others------------since the CC would then be FORCED to marry Gays/Lesbians, why couldn’t they then be forced to marry OTHER types of “discriminated groups?”

Is that what you are saying?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You can beg someone elses pardon.

And may he bless you on your way down in the fire.

-MontChevalier

Ouch!!!

Let’s calm down, people!!!

 

[MontChevalier]

In reference to my claim that Thomas More burned people,

MontChevalier, your own source (Wikipedia) says:

In total there were six heretics burned at the stake during More’s Chancellorship: Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham.[6]:299–306 Burning at the stake had long been a standard punishment for heresy—about thirty burnings had taken place in the century before More’s elevation to Chancellor, and burning continued to be used by both Catholics as well as Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades.[17] Ackroyd notes that More explicitly “approved of Burning”[6]:298 After the case of John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller found guilty by More of harbouring banned books and sentenced to burning for refusing to recant, More declared: he “burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.”[18]

I respect More as an intelligent man and a fine writer. I have no respect for him as an oppressor. Incidentally, although I do not see anything wrong with being an atheist, it is not my name, and I do not describe myself as such.

Thanks for the half-truth, we’re all pleased. Now if you divert your attention to earlier lines in that same area, it specifically states:

More current Protestant authors, such as Brian Moynahan and Michael Farris, continue to cite Foxe as a source when repeating these allegations in their own respective works. More himself denied these allegations:

Stories of a similar nature were current even in More’s lifetime and he denied them forcefully. He admitted that he did imprison heretics in his house – ‘theyr sure kepynge’ – he called it – but he utterly rejected claims of torture and whipping… ‘so helpe me God.’

reported.

It was totally worth it.