"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
Got Natural Law?
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
"Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
FAIL.
Posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:47 PM PST by EnglishCon
The Church does not "own" marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry, a government minister has said.
Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone said the government was entitled to introduce same-sex marriages, which she says would be a "change for the better".
Her comments come as ministers prepare to launch a public consultation on legalising gay marriage next month.
Traditionalists want the law on marriage to remain unchanged.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
They will. That’s what this is all about.
When you have a protected class (gays) and a law that says refusal to provide a service to this protected class is a crime, then you can insist that the service providers offer the protected class all the “services” that they offer to others. If marriage is defined as something that is a service to be offered to everyone, regardless of the fact that traditionally it was not offered to persons of the same sex and has never been offered to those people by the churches, you can then insist that the churches provide this service.
The government may not be able to force the Catholics or Baptists to do this, but they’re certainly going to try and I honestly expect them to use threats of imprisonment or seizure of property to enforce this.
The bizarre thing is that being married in church is not legally necessary even now. If gays want to have a sham marriage in front of a willing JP, they are certainly free to do so in many states, and that’s all they need. The church and the clergy simply constitute the witnesses that are required by the state and would be found in any registry office or even Vegas “wedding chapel” or JP marriage in somebody’s garden.
The Catholic Church has a sacramental understanding of marriage, but that obviously depends on whether you accept it or not, and affects only Catholics who accept it and want to be married in a church wedding. Since none of these people by defnition would be gays, the state shouldn’t have any interest in who the Church offers the service of marriage to. But the state sees the Church as a threat to its power, and that’s why it wants to force “gay marriage” on the churches.
The long and short of it is that there is no need, even in terms of “non-discrimination,” for the state to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for gays...but the state is obviously going to do so, because destroying the church is very important to the left.
I don’t think that the marriage ceremony inside the individual , or religion church is under threat, if government butts out the only change in that regard is that the Mormon Church could resume polygamy ceremonies, as could the Muslim church, and the lesbian and homosexual churches could do what they wanted, and everything would be “marriage”, since the definition would become purely undefined.
Trick question. If the church doesn't own marriage, then why would they be concerned about a church sacrament?
If the secular and civil society wants to 'celebrate' same-sex weddings/marriage they are perfectly able to do so. Judges, for hundreds of years have married people.
They want to walk down the aisle, go to Vegas baby! Or let them, secularists, open and create their own wedding halls. Gee, look at all the really cool jobs they can create from the secular marriage counselor to wedding planner to caterer! The fact remains if secular society wants same-sex couples to get married, that is secular society's concern. There are/will be many avenues to which the government can 'approve' marriage, but this does not mean they are all "God approved."
There is absolutely no reason for the government to interfere with the religious sacrament that is marriage. The Church, the priest, the minister, the reverend has no authority to put together in the sacrament of marriage, that which God condemns as a sin. No one forces anyone to be a member of the Church, it is a free-will choice(except for islam).
So, why does the government feel such a 'need' as to declare the boundaries between civil and sacrament? They have existed for all of modern time.
Consider for just a moment who authorized the Church to conduct marriages as an agent of the government? They can just as easily take it away from the church.
Consider this wonky essay from a few years ago, By the power vested in me by the Great Cthulhu and the State of California
Exactly correct. The government decides. If one desires a divorce through the Catholic Church, one must go through a church annulment process. If you do not and begin dating or pursue a civil marriage outside the Church, one is living in sin.
The legal and the sacrament are separate concerns.
We are not this world, no matter how hard this world attempts to deceive us and subdue us otherwise - the truth remains - we are to subdue the world.
Purely for the mental exercise and discussion, and not something I condone at all, but:
By what right did the federal government have to stop polygamy?
........................................................
By the same right they had to stop prostitution.
It didn’t suit the majority.
Now the world has become so Fugged up that a majority see Homosexuality as “normal”.
At least enough see it that way that they are trying to get it approved.
Marriage is a holy sacrament. Government has NO business defining it.
No to steal the thread, but who you rooting for in the Wales Vs England Rugby Match today?
“...in a long term relationship that outlasted the marriages of most of my heterosexual friends...”
Degenerates don’t stop being degenerates just because they are “married”. Moral degeneration is a dynamic process that never stops. Superficial comparisons aside, trust me you would not want to see the inside of this relationship.
Very profound words. Thank you.
Right now, a man can shack up with 7 different women at once and engage in incredibly hedonistic conduct every night.
They can call it marriage between themselves.
They can probably get someone calling themselves a priest to officiate their union.
Does the fact that they don't have a government-issued marriage license change their identical-to-polygamous-marriage pattern of life?
I have friends who are in a committed relationship and I don't think they are not committed to each other because they don't have a marriage certificate. I have other friends who are married but I know for a fact that one of them is not in a committed relationship. The word has nothing to do with it, nor does the legality.
Read the news, governments are instituting a new thing called “gay marriage” across the country.
I think the West needs a revolution against these leftist scum. However,I also think that the conservative side is losing in most Western countries. The next Hitler will most definitely come from the left.
Hold back your tears, they impair your aim.
“Equalities minister”, what a wholly Orwellian term. Has anyone read Harrison Bergeron lately?
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
It’s the way for government to criminalize divorce and thus throw in jail the “perp”, much like England tried to do when we declared independence on civil terms and decided to make war.
True -the church does not OWN “marriage” cannot say who can or cannot marry. Nor can it dictate to the State who can or cannot be considered by the State as “married”.That having been stated— IMO the converse is equally True /Valid. The STATE doe snot OWN “marriage” and cannot dictate to the church
who it must recognize as “married”. What the church can and must do is dictate to the congregation and to the community
who it will accept as “married” And what doctrines are acceptable for membership in the church. And those not willing to accept such Church doctrine or Church discipline ought not attempt to force the church to change and accept wickedness/ and divisions-and needless controversy within the body. And this ought be respected by the community and by the State. We ought let church be church. And those who cannot accept the doctrine of a church —those not willing to live as reflection of the teaching of their church ought not pretend they belong— (they just disagree) And No church whose doctrines and discipline do not reflect what I can read in the Bible is worthy of my participation.Oh lest I forget when the State—in a Country that began or was once recognized among the Christian nations -when that State adopts legislation contrary to the laws dictated by God,Himself reflected in the Laws of Nature— and /or the
Divine Law reflected in the Holy Writ. Such laws are invalid and I cannot obey for as the Apostles told the unjust Judge
“we ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
It’s the way for government to criminalize divorce and thus throw in jail the “perp”, much like England tried to do when we declared independence on civil terms and decided to make war.
IE. instead of private parties sharing the moneys, the government is going to have a tax and slave...
Gay marriage is a trap to these “men”. You cannot get any Obama benefit without having to vote for him and pay him up some how. He is part and parcel of this mandated pyramid scheme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.