This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I've only been to one. It was in Minnesota. No bible or religious references were made. It was probably performed according to this law. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517.09
Wow, you really seem married to that idea. I'm just not sure how it marries with the concept of freedom of religion. Also, if we decree that only some religious institutions may use a particular word, and only to mean one particular thing, how does that marry with the idea of freedom of speech? But I guess since nobody has ever used that word for anything else ever, it won't be a problem.
F that noise. If you, as I do, had a gay relative who'd been in a committed, loving relationship for nearly 40 years and was finally married (in a church, mind you) after literally decades of thinking that it could never happen, would you really walk up to them and say, "Well, primarily you really just have a civil union"? Can you stop and think for just a second about somebody besides yourself and how hurtful that would be to them? Their relationship is not for YOU to define, you haughty, smug little worm.in some people's mind, the term "marriage" has an extra level of legitimacy. It's all about the symbolism, the actual substance has become secondary.
Also, it does appear that many people have severe problems with basic reading comprehension. I only said that religious institutions should not be forced to perform gay marriages, period. All gay marriages would also (dual term dunderhead!!) be primarily be civil unions, just like a very large number of heterosexual marriages are civil unions.
I guess to satisfy those who are enraged merely over vocabulary, we can simply say gays can have civil marriages but not necessarily sacramental marriages.
in some people's mind, the term "marriage" has an extra level of legitimacy. It's all about the symbolism, the actual substance has become secondary.
Also, it does appear that many people have severe problems with basic reading comprehension. I only said that religious institutions should not be forced to perform gay marriages, period. All gay marriages would also (dual term dunderhead!!) primarily be civil unions, exactly like a very large number of heterosexual marriages are civil unions and are not sacramental marriages. Married heterosexual atheists, I assume, all have civil unions, not sacramental marriages, for example.
I am reminded again and again of the story by Jonathan Swift in which two countries go to war over which end of a soft-boiled egg to crack open.
I guess to satisfy those who are unduly enraged merely over vocabulary, we can simply say gays can have civil marriages but not necessarily sacramental marriages.
Even divorced Catholics can only have a civil union/marriage, not a sacramental marriage, unless the prior marriage had been annulled.
Civil union = civil marriage ≠ sacramental marriage.
Do I need to spell it out more: C I V I L U N I O N is exactly the same thing as C I V I L M A R R I A G E which is not at all the same thing as
S A C R A M E N T A L M A R R I A G E.
For some of the Chattering Condescending Chorale People here, I fear that even this is not clear enough....
AMEN!
Kind of like how Xmas existed before Christianity and the earth isn't 6000 years old etc.