Washington State makes 7th - gay marriage

[Julia_Mae]

If we take away the reproductive component of marriage there is no longer a Public Interest in the sexual congress of the two partners. The State has no rational basis to treat such a union as any more special or important than a business partnership or some other manner of private contract.

• Marty Lund

Nor should it.

 

[rlg94086]

There are Churches that recognize same gender marriages and perform them. The State does not have the right to decide who gets to be licitly married except when there is an overwhelming need to protect society as a whole from a grevious ill or persons with no power from exploitation by the powerful. Mormons should be allowed multiple spouses and same sex couples should have whatever rights married folks get and the Catholic Church should be the only one to be able to annul a Sacramental marriage.

You are utterly wrong. The churches (small ‘c,’ as there is only one Church) do have the freedom to marry whomever they wish, but the State certainly has the right to determine licit marriages from a State standpoint. If a church is okay with and performs adult-minor marriages or incestuous marriages, the State is not bound to recognize them. There is a State interest in marriage, but I don’t see the compelling interest in recognizing same-sex relationships as equivalent to marriage.

 

[Julia_Mae]

That is incorrect. The State does not have the right to impeded private “marriage” unless there is a pressing interest of such you cite. (Lawrence v. Texas) The State also does not have the right to award civil marriage privileges unless there it serves the Public Interest in a way that passes a scrutiny test. (McCulloch v. Maryland)

*McCulloch v Maryland? * Srsly? I have errands, you, uh, you have a good one.

 

[genesius28]

latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/washington-governor-signs-law-legalizing-same-sex-marriage.html

Washington State becomes the seventh state - this state passed and signed gay marriage into law which becomes effective June7.(Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Iowa, Connecticut and Washington D. C.)

Delaware passed civil union a few months ago and it goes on and on.

Praise be to God! As a Washingtonian, I’m very proud of this state right now!

 

[rlg94086]

Praise be to God! As a Washingtonian, I’m very proud of this state right now!

So, you are comfortable being completely at odds with your Archbishop and Church? Your “praise be to God” doesn’t make a lot of sense when you are cheering the efforts of Satan to destroy God’s Church.

 

[genesius28]

So, you are comfortable being completely at odds with your Archbishop and Church? Your “praise be to God” doesn’t make a lot of sense when you are cheering the efforts of Satan to destroy God’s Church.

Yes, in fact I wrote a letter to the archbishop in response to the letter he co-signed with the other bishops of Washington, telling him that I fully support marriage equality and had written to my representatives to tell them how proud I was of them.

Extending equality to all citizens has nothing to do with “destroying God’s Church,” because not every Washingtonian is Catholic, and they are free to live their lives as they see fit. If you want to talk about the efforts of Satan – treating an entire group of people like second class citizens, ripping GBLT families apart, is far more immoral.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, in fact I wrote a letter to the archbishop in response to the letter he co-signed with the other bishops of Washington, telling him that I fully support marriage equality and had written to my representatives to tell them how proud I was of them.

Extending equality to all citizens has nothing to do with “destroying God’s Church,” because not every Washingtonian is Catholic, and they are free to live their lives as they see fit. If you want to talk about the efforts of Satan – treating an entire group of people like second class citizens, ripping GBLT families apart, is far more immoral.

Never mind. I read your profile. Knowing that you are a Gnostic heretic, it is completely understandable that you would be opposed to our Archbishop and the Church. Your status as “Catholic” made me think you are actually a Catholic…instead of catholic. Carry on…

 

[genesius28]

Never mind. I read your profile. Knowing that you are a Gnostic heretic, it is completely understandable that you would be opposed to our Archbishop and the Church. Your status as Catholic made me think you are actually a Catholic…instead of catholic. Carry on…

Heresy is in the eye of beholder.

I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic. I just found Gnosticism to be more faithful to Christ.

 

[rlg94086]

Heresy is in the eye of beholder.

I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic. I just found Gnosticism to be more faithful to Christ.

Then, you ought to try honesty/clarity and present yourself as “Gnostic.” Then again, deceit is the preferred method of the Deceiver.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Never mind. I read your profile. Knowing that you are a Gnostic heretic, it is completely understandable that you would be opposed to our Archbishop and the Church. Your status as “Catholic” made me think you are actually a Catholic…instead of catholic. Carry on…

His posts on other threads explain a lot too. He identifies himself as homosexual.

 

[genesius28]

Then, you ought to try honesty/clarity and present yourself as “Gnostic.” Then again, deceit is the preferred method of the Deceiver.

I’m a member of the clergy of the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church… Not trying to deceive anyone. That’s why it just says Catholic, without any qualifiers.

His posts on other threads explain a lot too. He identifies himself as homosexual.

Gasp The nerve of me!

 

[Publisher]

I’m a member of the clergy of the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church… Not trying to deceive anyone. That’s why it just says Catholic, without any qualifiers.

Gasp The nerve of me!

Do you have the “Pre-Nicene New Testament” by Robert Price? It’s very informative and one of my favorite texts traceing the development of the NT canon through the end of the first century to Nicea.

I look forward to your comments and perspectives.

 

[rossum]

The very right of marriage, as stated by the Supreme Court has its very basis in procreation:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).” - Loving v Virginia (1967)

I would like to see someone explain how marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival” without procreation as an integral component of marriage.

1. I note that the Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right in US law.
2. I note that there is no legal prohibition on the marriage on infertile, or aged couples.
3. Hence procreation is not fundamental to marriage. Our “existence and survival” can be furthered in other ways, such as adoption, etc, within a childless marriage.

All this applies to US law, which is different from the rulings of the Catholic Church, witness the different treatments of divorce.

rossum

 

[pepipop]

1. I note that the Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right in US law.
2. I note that there is no legal prohibition on the marriage on infertile, or aged couples.
3. Hence procreation is not fundamental to marriage. Our “existence and survival” can be furthered in other ways, such as adoption, etc, within a childless marriage.

All this applies to US law, which is different from the rulings of the Catholic Church, witness the different treatments of divorce.

rossum

Hence, using this interpretation, there is no reason why a father/son and mother /daughter may not ‘marry’ either.

 

[genesius28]

Do you have the “Pre-Nicene New Testament” by Robert Price? It’s very informative and one of my favorite texts traceing the development of the NT canon through the end of the first century to Nicea.

I look forward to your comments and perspectives.

I don’t, but that sounds interesting… I’ll have to look for it. I have several other books on the development of the canon, as well as copies of the Nag Hammadi Library, and various other non-canonical Christian texts.

 

[genesius28]

1. I note that the Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right in US law.
2. I note that there is no legal prohibition on the marriage on infertile, or aged couples.
3. Hence procreation is not fundamental to marriage. Our “existence and survival” can be furthered in other ways, such as adoption, etc, within a childless marriage.

All this applies to US law, which is different from the rulings of the Catholic Church, witness the different treatments of divorce.

rossum

Well said.

 

[rlg94086]

1. I note that the Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right in US law.
2. I note that there is no legal prohibition on the marriage on infertile, or aged couples.
3. Hence procreation is not fundamental to marriage. Our “existence and survival” can be furthered in other ways, such as adoption, etc, within a childless marriage.

All this applies to US law, which is different from the rulings of the Catholic Church, witness the different treatments of divorce.

rossum

As you completely ignored my citation from Loving v Virginia and didn’t answer my challenge, your points fall flat.

 

[Publisher]

I don’t, but that sounds interesting… I’ll have to look for it. I have several other books on the development of the canon, as well as copies of the Nag Hammadi Library, and various other non-canonical Christian texts.

You would find it interesting I think…it includes some of the Nag Hammadi Library with a historical introduction to each of the “54 formative writings” used as scripture in the first centuries by the people called “Christians”…proto-orthodox/catholic, Gnostic, Manichees, Marcionites, Ebioonites, and even the Mandaeans.

I don’t want to hijack the thread…just wanted to say welcome friend.

 

[genesius28]

Hence, using this interpretation, there is no reason why a father/son and mother /daughter may not ‘marry’ either.

They’re already considered family to begin with, so what would be the point in getting married?

 

[genesius28]

You would find it interesting I think…it includes some of the Nag Hammadi Library with a historical introduction to each of the “54 formative writings” used as scripture in the first centuries by the people called “Christians”…proto-orthodox/catholic, Gnostic, Manichees, Marcionites, Ebioonites, and even the Mandaeans.

I don’t want to hijack the thread…just wanted to say welcome friend.

That sounds great! I’ll definitely look for it.