"According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: “If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.”
That doesn’t get around the fact that for the 1st millennium the Church left marriage to the state. Read some of writings of Joseph Martos on the subject.
I read the history and have been following the argument from Mass, Harvard, MIT and BC forward. The MIT argument was brilliant also. . The Church claim is grace/sacrament-Jesus Christ. In which these people and now in particular all of the above not just the Catholic Church are part of the whole which is now also a voice of the people as a whole.
Which people
These and all the people as above now with the Mormons etc.Which peopel
Your point of contention is you think the people in the brief above should conform their understanding of marriage to the states. The above is suggesting the state can do as it may in this regard in defining civil union, which has nothing to do with the sacrament in which case they would like their equal rights acknowledged.I don’t understand what you are asking.
The easiest way to end the entanglement of religious and civil marriage is for churches to quit performing civil marriages. They can do this without waiting for any action by the state, as I said the Catholic church and the LDS church already do this when members have married outside the church. The state would have it’s own definition and criteria which churches would be free to reject instead imposing their own definitions and requirements.
They is the people in the brief who all have a slightly different understanding of traditional marriage as does the state and government in this case.
This is what I’ve said all along let the state marry who it will and let churches marry who they will. The state never performs a marriage for a church, though some accept a civil marriage as valid it is entirely up to the church to make that call, churches should follow suit and not perform marriages for the state.
In initial 42 page brief is a bit different in that they are shooting for an out right victory. Or as Cruz is saying and here.
I’m still a bit confused about our conversation here, are we agreeing or disagreeing?
We agree, I don’t know that they won’t win outright though. I seen the Cruz polling nationwide, he has 87% support. I imagine as usual the country is pretty split though.
Why is Cruz polling nationwide, he’s a congressman from TX right?
To get an idea where the general thinking resides as to his own support on the issue. Looks like he’ll be doing some speaking on the topic.
Polling is odd, he gets 87% yet when polled Americans support same sex marriage at about 50% if I remember right.
I’m sure how much I’m willing to listen to Dershowitz. . . he also advocated for torture warrants (aka making it so torture is “safe,” “rare” and “legal.” Sound familiar?).
Yes, OK has the right idea. This makes it fair and equal for everyone. Why shouldn’t a brother and sister living together for mutual support be excluded from the same benefits a married couple receive automatically under the law? Why can’t there be plural spouses?
How about the children growing who will see and hear of this perverted mockery of marriage and perhaps think of it as an option for themselves when it is not? A secular entity has no authority in regards to marriage. If they want to create something else and call it something else, fine, but marriage is not something they created so therefore is not something they can define. Those who don’t believe in marriage for what it is don’t need a peice of paper from the state declaring them “married,” and if they want it it’s for selfish reasons. At any rate Christians can never and will never condone or recognize such a thing. If we sit back and say nothing now we’re only setting ourselves and our children up to be persecuted in the future. Read the handwriting on the wall.