Skip to main content

View Diary: Fundies, I get it, I really do, but grow up (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So who's "free exercise" takes precedence? (14+ / 0-)

    My particular denomination has no problem with marriage equality -- so why should certain denominations be able to take precedence when it comes to setting civil law?

    There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

    by Cali Scribe on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:29:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What the Civil law should do is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mapamp, VClib

      remain neutral -- not endorse anybody's religion.  Marriage, for civil purposes, needs to be a civil contract.  Government can set limits on who can contract (age for example) but not for religious reasons.  

      Government, however, cannot say to a religion, if you perform religious marriages, you have to perform same-sex marriages even if they violate your religion.  There's no compelling reason, for example, to make the Catholic Church perform same sex marriages.  

      •  That's one reason why I've seen a poster (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher

        that says "churches don't perform marriages, they perform weddings." Or more specifically, a minister doesn't officiate over a marriage, but over a wedding.

        liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

        by RockyMtnLib on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 06:49:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Words are important sometimes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, mmacdDE

          frankly, sometimes I think the solution is for the government to provide mechanisms for everyone to enter into a civil contract and record it (which is what civil marriage is).  

          The "marriage" part would be symbolic -- you could have whatever symbolic term you want to justify your relationship, but it's separate and apart from the government's civil contract.  (My friends who are a long-term gay couple had a wedding several years ago, and consider themselves married, even though the civil law in Louisiana does not let them enter into the civil contract.)  You could have a two part deal like some countries do.  You sign your civil contract and record it at the local courthouse (sort of like your marriage license) and that's the binding civil aspect, and it's done with the signature and recordation.  If you want to have a symbolic ceremony, if you want to call yourself married, that's up to you.  Churches would not have to recognize your ceremony, and would also be completely free not to consider you "married" in their religious sense.  Your legally binding civil contract, however, would be given the same effect as any other legally binding civil contract, because it's separate and apart from the religious/spiritual/philosophical aspect.

    •  You Cut, I Choose (0+ / 0-)

      As a kid we used to split a small carton of ice under the rule that one person splits the other chooses which piece.

      So if they can say YES or NO to having religion, then I get to choose WHICH! Get ready to be a Pastafarian!

      The Democrats create jobs. The Republicans create recessions.

      by Tuba Les on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 02:35:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site