Latter Day Federalists

The Weekly Standard ^ | March 29, 2004 | Maggie Gallagher

[Destro]

They get a civil union.

[Destro]

It's time for traditional churches to make a stand & to stop recognizing the states power over them on this issue or eventually they will be forced to perform marriages against their faith.

That is next.

[nopardons]

That isn't marriage.

Why should HETEROSEXUALS, who aren't religious,be prevented from MARRYING?

And for centuries, sea captains could marry people;not only in this country but in others too. So could/can judges and mayors and governors.

[GoLightly]

And they will come at it from two directions. Loss of tax exempt status & equal protection.

[Destro]

Why do you need a clerk from the mayor's office to perform a marriage ceremony?

[GoLightly]

If people of faith are no longer getting married as the state defines it, why would you care?

[nopardons]

Some people can't or do not want a BIG wedding, others aren't religious,still other want a BIG wedding,but not a religious one, or are of two different faiths. There are many different reasons.

There was a time, when people had family gatherings and had no clergy performing the ceremony and this WAS when Christianity was THE leading religion. They also would get " married" on the steps of the church;again, without benefit of clergy. I'm talking about the Middle Ages. Then, the church saw money in it and all of a sudden, church wedding became de riegiure (sp?). The church, at that time, also ran the courts. Why should a religion run the courts and have the lawyers? They did though.

This nation has laws.One of those laws has to do with states recognizing the marriages performed in one state,in all of the others. If marriage wasn't regulated, by the government, there would not be a commonality amongst all states. Who knows what kind of crazy things would happen? And before you start calling me names, or making claims about me and my positions, which I haven't actually stated, bear in mind that I am only stating facts, not opinions.

[nopardons]

By "faith",what do you mean...Christians,or any religion?

Because there are consequences and ramifications to what you propose, that you haven't thought out.

[Destro]

Names? Whay would I call you names? I am just saying marriage is not a holy thing if done by a city clerk. That is as far as I will take the point.

[nopardons]

Is it "holy" if an Imam performs the ceremony? What about a Mullah? How about a Rabbi?

Are only Christian marriages "holy"?

If a judge or a sea captain or a mayor or a governor,or a city clerk performs a marriage ceremony, is it invalid or just not "holy"?

Where in the Bible, does it say that a member of the clergy is the ONLY person who is allowed to perform a marriage ceremony?

Thanks, in advance, for your answers.

[nopardons]

And just WHAT exactly, has any of what you've posted, have to do with the problem of the criminally performed homosexual marriages ,which is what the topic of this thread is ?

[Destro]

yup, strayed off topic.

[GoLightly]

I mean any religion. I realize this is radical, scarey radical & I have thought out a lot of the ramifications, though prolly not all of them. I took into account the exsistance of all kinds of nutty wannabe religions & the kinds of "marriages" they might come up with. Most will stick with the state system we already have in place, cuz the laws are not against their beliefs. I took into account the laws involving Social Security & old grannys only married in faith living on dog food after their husband has died. I'm sure it would the the first thing legislators would feel the need to fix, where the state has to recognize marriages of traditional faiths, as defined by those faiths, instead of the other way around.

The most important thing I took into consideration was the profit factor, the huge chunk of lawyers discovering a new motivation to write laws to lure the *majority* back into the system again.

In the meantime, people of the traditional faiths will have been given motivation to reconnect with their church in a better way, cuz the churches have learned to stand up for what they are supposed to stand for.

My goal is not to fix the state system, so much as it is to push the state out of the religion business. Secular humanism should be recognized for what it is, a false religion, a set of beliefs that create man as god.

[nopardons]

Most people get married by clergy;heck, the clergy is even marrying HOMOSEXUALS.

You wanna rethink this all again, now? :-)

[GoLightly]

What you stated proves why my idea will never happen, not why it's wrong. ;o) My bigge$t hurdle would be convincing the churche$ to get with the progam, though pulling out how well they did, back when they held all of the power might offer them a bit of incentive.

I'm waiting to see the results of the recent case of the priest arrested for performing a same sex cerimony, in NY I think.

[nopardons]

Priest? It was a Unitarian MINISTER and a RABBI,on the steps of City Hall, in Manhattan.

The Catholic church,after Christianity had been around for more than a millennia ( as in several 100s of years more ),got into marrying people for the power and the money.But many nations were STILL involved with marriage,as sin recording them,etc.

Rabbis can still issue divorce decrees, but our government demands that secular ones must take precedent, as it does with Catholic annulments.

Your idea is based solely upon your own ideas, with no basis in historical fact,which is something else you need to consider.And religious bodies ( churches,temples,mosques, Wiccan groves/circles have NO incentive, whatsoever,to go against prevailing laws of the land.

The last time the " church " had the kind of power you're alluding to, was before the Protestant Reformation.

[nopardons]

And WHAT has any of this to do with the article? NOTHING!

[cyborg]

Somone in some liberal media press has an agenda because I've heard them refer to these ministers as PRIESTS.

[nopardons]

That or just utter stupidity and sloppy "journalism".

[cyborg]

Liberal episcopalian Frank Grizzlybear Griswold ministers are technically priests too but I have a feeling it's a slam against the RCC. I HOPE it's just sloppy journalism as it seems there's a lot of that these days.