California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

you know, the way i see it, it's not the government's job to define what a marriage is— it's basically the job of the church. the church is where marriage comes from— it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state. it would be like the government trying to define what constitutes a baptism, and trying to give hindus the right to baptize. even though they are baptized, they still aren't accepted by the church because they're hindus, so it's not a real baptism.

i, do, however, believe in civil unions, which means that they have every right a married couple does except it is not called marriage. they can file taxes jointly, they can visit each other in the hospital, they have spousal confidentiality in court, etc. unlike marriage, i believe this is a civil right that should be mandated all over the country. i just do not think that the government should force churches to recognize a civil union as a marriage.

I agree that the government shouldn't force any religion to recognize marriage between same sex couples, or anyone else the religion doesn't want to recognize. But the court decision that started all of this doesn't force anyone to do anything. It simply opens the state government's recognition of legal marriage to include same sex couples. What the church or any other religious group decides to do about it is strictly up to them. But now (unless prop 8 passes) if a religion decides that they want to allow marriage for same sex couples, then those couples will be able to enjoy the legal benefits of being married just the same as my wife and I do. Previously, they could have a marriage ceremony and call themselves married, but they weren't legally recognized as such by the state government. It's just about making equal rights available, not mandates on religions.

[bryantm3]

which is why the name marriage should not be applied to civil unions.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

[QUOTE=bryantm3;104338]you know, the way i see it, it's not the government's job to define what a marriage is— it's basically the job of the church. the church is where marriage comes from— it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state. it would be like the government trying to define what constitutes a baptism, and trying to give hindus the right to baptize. even though they are baptized, they still aren't accepted by the church because they're hindus, so it's not a real baptism.

QUOTE]


So are you saying marriage did not exist before The Bible was written?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state.

OK, here is what I consider to be a good proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

No arguing or challenging this please. It's a sacrament.

And should Churches start taking their holy book more seriously/literally, and imposing these rules, and if enough people are actually willing to buy into it all, then we should leave everyone to it and not try to change it - separation of church and state, and all that....

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Can I just be a slut?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

Can I just be a slut?

You go right ahead jOHN. Don't mind us....

[Dirty0900]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

Can I just be a slut?

How much?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

You're too young, I wouldn't even let you pay.

per edit: I swear, that was always supposed to read "even" from the get go, I'm not a chicken-hawk.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

which is why the name marriage should not be applied to civil unions.

So then are you saying that even if a particular religion announces that they will recognize and perform same sex marriages, you still think the government (state or federal) should not recognize those marriages legally? Or are you saying that marriage in general, straight or gay, should only be recognized as "civil unions" by the government. Sorry....I'm just having trouble following what your reply here means. I never said anything about applying the name "marriage" to a civil union - I'm talking about actual marriage, period.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Deckard

OK, here is what I consider to be a good proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:



No arguing or challenging this please. It's a sacrament.

And should Churches start taking their holy book more seriously/literally, and imposing these rules, and if enough people are actually willing to buy into it all, then we should leave everyone to it and not try to change it - separation of church and state, and all that....

all of those, except the one referring to divorce, come from the old testament.
when jesus was born, he fufilled the law and there was no longer purpose for the restrictive laws in the old testement, such as animal sacrifice, kosher laws, laws for beating your children, against homosexuality, etc. they became null and void and the laws were replaced by grace... Romans 4-6 discusses this in length:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=31;

the one verse omitted from your examples, of course, is in Mark, referring to divorce.

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

here is another instance where jesus states that the old law is no longer valid but the law of grace, or love, takes its place. the church still teaches that divorce is wrong for this reason. the old testament is primarily used for historical purposes and tracing various miracles throughout the years rather than as strict law.

but then again, you're the expert.