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 ...
Great...use a source from Great Britian for your opine. Perhaps you should try a Country where a Church was created to allow King Henry to divorce his wife so he could break one of Gods laws.
This is not Britain, I naturally did not expect that we were going to devote an entire thread on this marriage topic to British law.
If your people are so under control of your state church that you can replace the secular government, and your people want to transfer authority to them, then give it a shot, in this nation we are free, and Anglicans don’t rule us.
I hope that you have the guns to force your church rules onto the Muslims and homosexuals, and atheists, and such.
I’m not pretending. I’m fully aware of the risk.
If you want strict rule about the type of behavior that is acceptable, say so. Just understand that bequeathing the govt with that kind of power can bite you in the ass.
G’night FRiend.
Great...use a source from Great Britian for your opine. Perhaps you should try a Country where a Church was created to allow King Henry to divorce his wife so he could break one of Gods laws. Gee does Government own my car because it requires me to buy a license?
Your entire argument is to let anyone and everyone define marriage for themselves, that there will no longer be a universal definition in America.
That means that all religions, all churches, all individuals, all atheists, all cults, all homosexuals, define marriage for themselves.
That isn’t logical.
Because the law is showing cracks in a few states, we just give up and end the entire concept of one man, one woman, marriage,or even monogamy, forever, and that is better?
You might wish to check which post you were trying to reply to.
I read it earlier, it didn’t make sense.
States that are already slipping because their voters are liberal, are not going to pass that, or even a much better written version of that fantasy.
Your inability to comprehend something does not render that thing nonsensical.
It’s borderline perfect.
But I leave you to your hopelessness.
Sorry if I offended you...not seeing well this early.
Fine it is perfect and will solve all divorce and child issues.
How do you expect to pass it in states that are just now or recently passing homosexual marriage?
I think the point is that the state is going to use legal power to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for couples that are not a man and a woman.
It would be one thing if the state just wanted to force its own registry offices to do this, in which case it would be a question of conscience for employees who do not agree on moral grounds, but would not exert power on the churches themselves. The state and the gay lobby are not satisfied with this, however.
The government won’t be forcing preachers to show up at their Southern Baptist church in Texas, or anywhere else, and perform marriages that they don’t want to.
They can’t even make a Catholic Priest marry a Lutheran and a Methodist.
Come on mate. I asked a simple question of you. And I know you are fully capable of insightful analysis, telling it like it is and honesty.
Stop[ evading and answer the question. This sinner wants to know.
What question are you asking?
Of course it does. Everybody knows that. Jesus Himself said it was from "before Moses," that it was "from the beginning."
What Jesus did was to restore and ennoble it even further: One man. One woman. For God. For good.
The Church doesn’t own it - God does and He considers it holy and sacred. I still marvel that Job lost everything except the shrew of a wife - God blesses the union of a man and a woman even if only one is actually fulfilling the duties.
You don’t mean that we are still at you trying to introduce polygamy and homosexual marriage do you? Is that your agenda, or do you want to enslave everyone to the particular church that you attend?
I'm open to discussion on this, one way or the other.
My default position seems to be: I am highly skeptical of civil marriage.
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.