S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[LucyStoner]

So the FRC came up on the Duggar thread. Rather than respond there, I am starting another thread. I don't want to post on the Duggar thread.

 

Their second in command is anti-Semitic and anti-Islam and says that no new mosques should be allowed to be built in the USA. Charming. He was also rebuked by GWB during his military career for his anti-Muslim advocacy.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/03/07/frc-hot-mic-boykin-jokes-about-jews-says-obama-supports-al-qaeda-sends-them-subliminal-messages/

 

The FRC exists mainly to lobby against equal treatment under the law for gays, gay families and children with gay parents. If that's not a hateful mission, I really can't figure out how. Being personally opposed to gay marriage is one thing, supporting lobbying efforts to basically outlaw families that aren't the same as yours is wholly another.

 

The SPL center is a justice oriented human rights organization that has successfully taken on the Klan and similar groups. They aren't making up this nonsense about the FRC.

 

The rather outrageous views of the FRC leadership aren't secret.

[hornblower]

I see the Paradox of tolerance came up in the other thread.

[Mergath]

I see the Paradox of tolerance came up in the other thread.

 

I'm not pro-tolerance.  I'm pro-equality.  People have the right to support the denial of equal rights to various groups, but I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate that crap.

[LucyStoner]

Intolerance of the Duggars would be forming a group with the express purpose to ban large families or reality TV shows. Or threatening their health and safety or lobbying for them to have their children taken away. It is not intolerance to say that their son works for an organization that expresses morally repugnant views.

 

I don't care if you (royal you, no one in particular) think my brother is immoral or wrong. Your views are your business. I care if you support people who would make it a crime for him to live his life quietly and in peace or who would not oppose people harassing his daughters, who are my nieces and who deserve as much legal protection as my sons have always had because their married parents are straight.

[G5052]

Yes, I'm troubled by organizations that want to take basic rights away from groups and people different than them.  

 

We support some conservative causes, but not that one.  

 

 

[Catwoman]

So the FRC came up on the Duggar thread. Rather than respond there, I am starting another thread. I don't want to post on the Duggar thread.

 

Their second in command is anti-Semitic and anti-Islam and says that no new mosques should be allowed to be built in the USA. Charming. He was also rebuked by GWB during his military career for his anti-Muslim advocacy.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/03/07/frc-hot-mic-boykin-jokes-about-jews-says-obama-supports-al-qaeda-sends-them-subliminal-messages/

 

The FRC exists mainly to lobby against equal treatment under the law for gays, gay families and children with gay parents. If that's not a hateful mission, I really can't figure out how. Being personally opposed to gay marriage is one thing, supporting lobbying efforts to basically outlaw families that aren't the same as yours is wholly another.

 

The SPL center is a justice oriented human rights organization that has successfully taken on the Klan and similar groups. They aren't making up this nonsense about the FRC.

 

The rather outrageous views of the FRC leadership aren't secret.

Katie, it was very thoughtful of you to start a new thread rather than hijacking Stacey's. :hurray:

 

There is a lot of important info that should be shared about the FRC; I just didn't think Stacey's thread was the place for it, because she seemed so happy about having met the Duggars. I like the idea of a dedicated thread like this one.

[Crimson Wife]

  Being personally opposed to gay marriage is one thing, supporting lobbying efforts to basically outlaw families that aren't the same as yours is wholly another.

 

This is basically the same criticism that liberals make about pro-Life people: If you're against abortion, don't have one.

 

Imagine if that argument had been made against abolitionists: If you're against slavery, don't own slaves.

 

People who feel that the current law allows for something morally abhorrent have every right to lobby for the law to be changed. (FWIW, I don't think it's morallly abhorrent for the state to extend civil recognition to homosexual unions, but plenty of Christians do. My objection is to the government being in the marriage business at all. Marriage is a sacrament and therefore should be left up to individual houses of worship to determine rather than some bureaucrat).

[6packofun]

. I care if you support people who would make it a crime for him to live his life quietly and in peace

 

Wow, that's terrible!  A crime?!  Can you share a link about those specific efforts?  Are you referring to the FRC? 

 

Also, what does "outlawing families that aren't the same as yours" mean? 

[LucyStoner]

Actually, yanno maybe I am intolerant.

 

I would totally be down with a ban on reality TV shows in general. Because seriously, do we need most of what the genre has brought us?!

 

 

J/K

[Farrar]

No! Don't ban them! I need my Project Runway!

 

Actually, bizarrely, I think reality TV is one of the things that has helped the case of equality in this country. Before gay characters were on scripted mainstream TV like Modern Family, actual gay couples were buying houses on House Hunters and competing in reality shows. I think that was useful for a lot of Americans to see.

[LucyStoner]

Wow, that's terrible! A crime?! Can you share a link about those specific efforts? Are you referring to the FRC?

 

Also, what does "outlawing families that aren't the same as yours" mean?

I am referring to anti-gay lobbying in general.

 

Working to outlaw same sex adoption (or to keep it illegal where it still is) is one way that people work to outlaw families that aren't the same as theirs.

 

Classifying homosexuals as pedophiles who shouldn't be able to work or volunteer with kids is criminalizing ordinary everyday people.

 

There is ample information about the FRCs mission online.

 

My brother is a SAHD with two daughters. His husband works for a nationally known company. They volunteer to coach their kids' teams. My brother is the president of the PTA and volunteers at his daughters school basically FT, raising money and resources for a low income school and setting up educationally rich experiences and opportunities for kids from many backgrounds. They live on a quiet suburban street and my brother drives his daughters to school in a minivan. Their house is decked out with Christmas decorations. My brother is a bargain shopper, a rabid baseball fan and a Christian. In reality, his family isn't different than others. In the view of the FRC, they should not be custodial parents or soccer coaches or working in schools. In the view of the FRC, my nieces should not have the benefits and protections afforded to them by the legal civil marriage of their fathers. That's disgusting.

[hornblower]

 

 Marriage is a sacrament and therefore should be left up to individual houses of worship to determine rather than some bureaucrat).

 

Marriage is a civil contract.  Some marriages are both sacrament & civil contract, others are just civil contract.

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

This is basically the same criticism that liberals make about pro-Life people: If you're against abortion, don't have one.

 

Imagine if that argument had been made against abolitionists: If you're against slavery, don't own slaves.

 

People who feel that the current law allows for something morally abhorrent have every right to lobby for the law to be changed. (FWIW, I don't think it's morallly abhorrent for the state to extend civil recognition to homosexual unions, but plenty of Christians do. My objection is to the government being in the marriage business at all. Marriage is a sacrament and therefore should be left up to individual houses of worship to determine rather than some bureaucrat).

My brother and his husband were married in a long established Christian church. If the FRC had its way, that church would not have had the right to marry them. Unlike you and I, they couldn't be legally married until their younger daughter was old enough to walk and talk. They should have had the same civil protections as me from the time they wanted to join their lives. Their church should have had the religious freedom to marry them from the time they wanted to join their lives.

[Crimson Wife]

Marriage is a civil contract.  Some marriages are both sacrament & civil contract, others are just civil contract.

 

 

Marriage was a sacrament LONG before there was civil recognition of marriages.

[Scrub Jay]

Marriage was a sacrament LONG before there was civil recognition of marriages.

 

Why does this matter?  Not everyone is Christian.  Not everyone cares about "sacraments."

 

[LucyStoner]

Marriage was a sacrament LONG before there was civil recognition of marriages.

Actually, churches used to refuse to perform marriages, considering it too worldly and of the flesh. It was only because people demanded that the church become involved that the church did, at first merely consenting to blessing newly joined couples on the church steps. No joke.

 

Civil recognition of marriages and the legit religious freedom of churches to marry whom they wish is all our civil society should care about. Seeking to deny others civil protections under the law is what is actually intolerant.

[Mergath]

Marriage was a sacrament LONG before there was civil recognition of marriages.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure people were trading two goats and a chicken for a wife long before it was a sacrament.

[zoobie]

Marriage was a sacrament LONG before there was civil recognition of marriages.

I don't believe this is true. Early civilizations had marriage contracts before Christianity existed.

[Ethel Mertz]

I did a lot of research on the FRC (along with other organizations) in the late 1990s and they are as bad as it sounds on gay families. Thanks for the thread, Katie.

[hornblower]

Marriage was a sacrament LONG before there was civil recognition of marriages.

 

this just isn't true. All sorts of societies had marriage & the contracts that arose from that before any such thing as 'sacrament'.  See for example the Babylonian marriage contracts & Ancient Greek marriage

 

 

[Guest]

Except slavery is systematic oppression, and gay marriage is just something two people might do if they love each other and want to commit to each other. I can see where you're going with abortion, which does kill, no matter how one looks at it politically, and thus is harmful to the fetus being killed. (Though it's also certainly far, far more complicated than that.) But gay marriage? Whom does that oppress?

 

Marriage has been around for much of human history across many cultures in various forms. Why should anyone have a monopoly on deciding what its meaning and value is?

Exactly. I am overall, politically conservative, but have used this same point when debating with my dh about same-sex marriage. Honestly, I'm not super-comfortable with gay couples. But what does it hurt if they are legally married? I really just feel it is none of my beeswax and that consenting adults have the right to love and commit to whomever they want.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm not pro-tolerance.  I'm pro-equality.  People have the right to support the denial of equal rights to various groups, but I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate that crap.

 

LIking this wasn't good enough. It needs to be repeated. And so I will quote it, then repeat it in my own words.

 

Tolerance doesn't mean accepting people who discriminate, not even in the name of religious freedom. No one has to (or should) tolerate that crap.

[Lady Florida.]

Actually, churches used to refuse to perform marriages, considering it too worldly and of the flesh. It was only because people demanded that the church become involved that the church did, at first merely consenting to blessing newly joined couples on the church steps. No joke.

 

Civil recognition of marriages and the legit religious freedom of churches to marry whom they wish is all our civil society should care about. Seeking to deny others civil protections under the law is what is actually intolerant.

 

 

Yup. And for anyone who thinks marriage is a sacrament, there's this enlightening book.

 

A History of Marriage

[Joanne]

Tolerance is the lowest form of love.

 

It is an intermediary space to hold others.

 

I respect the right of FRC to assemble and exist. And the right of those who oppose FRC's agenda and policy.

 

But to tolerate does not mean I have to censor, restrain, or mute my response to the content of any group as long as my response is legal and not harmful.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This is basically the same criticism that liberals make about pro-Life people: If you're against abortion, don't have one.

 

Imagine if that argument had been made against abolitionists: If you're against slavery, don't own slaves.

 

People who feel that the current law allows for something morally abhorrent have every right to lobby for the law to be changed. (FWIW, I don't think it's morallly abhorrent for the state to extend civil recognition to homosexual unions, but plenty of Christians do. My objection is to the government being in the marriage business at all. Marriage is a sacrament and therefore should be left up to individual houses of worship to determine rather than some bureaucrat).

 

Marriage is not just a sacrament.  Marriage exists and has existed outside the realm of religion for quite some time.  Religions don't quite own marriage.  So while you may think it means something in particular, I don't think you can necessarily deny that it means something else to a lot of people.  It's disheartening to think that one tactic of disallowing gay marriage is to press for marriage to only be considered a sacrament.  I'm sure there would be lots of straight married people who would find that insulting. 

[Vera]

I have been married for 22 years and it has never been a sacrament or anything else religious in any way.

[MEmama]

Marriage is not just a sacrament. Marriage exists and has existed outside the realm of religion for quite some time. Religions don't quite own marriage. So while you may think it means something in particular, I don't think you can necessarily deny that it means something else to a lot of people. It's disheartening to think that one tactic of disallowing gay marriage is to press for marriage to only be considered a sacrament. I'm sure there would be lots of straight married people who would find that insulting.

I always wonder if the marriage-being-in-the-eyes-of-the-Christian-god argument means that DH and I shouldn't be allowed to be married either, seeing as the ceremony wasn't performed by a member of any religious organization (nor--gasp!--do we). And what about the other billions of Non-Christian yet happily married couples in the world, now and throughout history?

 

Insulting is right.

[Crimson Wife]

My brother and his husband were married in a long established Christian church. If the FRC had its way, that church would not have had the right to marry them. Unlike you and I, they couldn't be legally married until their younger daughter was old enough to walk and talk. They should have had the same civil protections as me from the time they wanted to join their lives. Their church should have had the religious freedom to marry them from the time they wanted to join their lives.

 

Eligibility for a marriage ceremony should be left up to the individual house of worship in accordance with the teachings of the affiliated faith. If liberal churches/synagogues/etc. want to have few restrictions on who can marry and conservative churches/synagogues/etc. want to have many restrictions, that's not for outsiders to interfere with (assuming that everyone involved is a consenting adult).

 

I don't believe it's the government's job to be the morality police. If I set up a contract with someone else, the government can provide legal recognition of that contract without making a judgment on the morality of that contract.

 

I object not to civil recognition of unions, but to the use of a term with moral implications (marriage) to describe a legal contract between two people. If we wouldn't want the government to get involved with regulating other religious ceremonies like baptisms, dedications, First Communions, bar/bat mitvahs, confirmations, etc. then we shouldn't want the government involved with marriages, either.

[LucyStoner]

Yeah, my friends were just married by a dude dressed as a pirate talking about the Flying Spaghetti monster. I was married by a justice of the peace.

 

My abusive brother was married by a Catholic priest though now a DV order enjoins him from contacting his ex wife except via email or text about pickup and drop off of their children so there goes the sanctity of that marriage. My brother referenced earlier in this thread was married by an American Baptist minister.

 

The church(es) do not own marriage.

[Mom-ninja.]

Yup. And for anyone who thinks marriage is a sacrament, there's this enlightening book.

 

A History of Marriage

That looks like a fascinating book. 

[LucyStoner]

Yup. And for anyone who thinks marriage is a sacrament, there's this enlightening book.

 

A History of Marriage

I just requested this from my library. I am 1st in line. Woot.

[hornblower]

Eligibility for a marriage ceremony should be left up to the individual house of worship in accordance with the teachings of the affiliated faith. If liberal churches/synagogues/etc. want to have few restrictions on who can marry and conservative churches/synagogues/etc. want to have many restrictions, that's not for outsiders to interfere with (assuming that everyone involved is a consenting adult).

 

I don't believe it's the government's job to be the morality police. If I set up a contract with someone else, the government can provide legal recognition of that contract without making a judgment on the morality of that contract.

 

I object not to civil recognition of unions, but to the use of a term with moral implications (marriage) to describe a legal contract between two people. If we wouldn't want the government to get involved with regulating other religious ceremonies like baptisms, dedications, First Communions, bar/bat mitvahs, confirmations, etc. then we shouldn't want the government involved with marriages, either.

I don't believe it's government's job to be the morality police either. That's why they shouldn't place rules or restrictions on same sex marriage.

 

You keep insisting marriage is a religious ceremony. It's not. It's a civil contract.

 

States make laws regarding marriage - marriage age, laws regarding consanguinity, laws regarding dissolution of marriage.  We do not live in a theocracy & most Western people do not wish to live in a theocracy. These are civil matters & quite different from the religious ceremonies you've mentioned.

 

Nobody is talking about forcing a certain church to marry people they don't want to marry. Churches can marry who they want. This is about recognition of marriage in society.

 

Some churches don't recognize certain marriages because they're post divorce - that's their prerogative. The laws recognize them though so long as the divorce was appropriately completed according to the laws.

[Vera]

Eligibility for a marriage ceremony should be left up to the individual house of worship in accordance with the teachings of the affiliated faith. If liberal churches/synagogues/etc. want to have few restrictions on who can marry and conservative churches/synagogues/etc. want to have many restrictions, that's not for outsiders to interfere with (assuming that everyone involved is a consenting.

How are those of us who don't attend a house of worship supposed to get married?

[Crimson Wife]

I have been married for 22 years and it has never been a sacrament or anything else religious in any way.

 

You have been in a civil union for 22 years. My church would not consider you married, and if you were to convert, you would need to first be married by a priest or deacon. Now marriages performed by other faiths are recognized as valid if they would be considered valid by those faiths. Converts only have to have a marriage ceremony if they hadn't previously had a ceremony in another house of worship.

[MEmama]

Eligibility for a marriage ceremony should be left up to the individual house of worship in accordance with the teachings of the affiliated faith. If liberal churches/synagogues/etc. want to have few restrictions on who can marry and conservative churches/synagogues/etc. want to have many restrictions, that's not for outsiders to interfere with (assuming that everyone involved is a consenting adult).

 

I don't believe it's the government's job to be the morality police. If I set up a contract with someone else, the government can provide legal recognition of that contract without making a judgment on the morality of that contract.

 

I object not to civil recognition of unions, but to the use of a term with moral implications (marriage) to describe a legal contract between two people. If we wouldn't want the government to get involved with regulating other religious ceremonies like baptisms, dedications, First Communions, bar/bat mitvahs, confirmations, etc. then we shouldn't want the government involved with marriages, either.

So...just to get this straight, because it really does confuse me. Governments should stay out of marriages, and yet regulate who can marry at the same time?

 

And, for all of us who consider ourselves married because we signed some documents and said I Do in front of an ordained person who made it legal...do you consider our marriages merely civil unions? I ask because that could have huge implications in how the government taxes us and so forth, right? Are you calling my 20 year marriage something else because it has nothing to do with your god?

 

I'm getting all worked up, but honestly this is such a losing battle. Even this country is moving forward despite the howling, and in time no one will care anymore. People will have figured out that the neighbor's commited relationship (let's call them marriages) doesn't threaten their own, and actually makes for better communities. There's a long way to go yet on the journey to equality, but it's coming. I really do believe that.

 

Eta: I see that you do consider it a civil union. Good thing for many of us this country separates church and state.

[Vera]

I have been MARRIED for 22 years. Your church's opinion does not change that fact.

[Crimson Wife]

How are those of us who don't attend a house of worship supposed to get married?

 

You can't. Just like you couldn't have a baptism or confirmation or bar/bat mitzvah or any other sacrament.

 

You can get legal recognition for your union by filling out some paperwork and paying a fee to a bureaucrat. Which I personally have no objection to homosexual couples doing. A legal contract =/= marriage.

[LucyStoner]

Crimson, when people go to get a marriage license that will entitle them to the legal benefits of marriage where do they go? My certificate of marriage from the state says "marriage". Not civil union. YOU don't get to tell me or anyone else that my marriage is not a marriage but is in fact a civil union.

 

Where do people go when they need to dissolve their marriage? Or apply for child support when a spouse leaves them?

 

The government has long had a significant hand in "marriage"

 

If the government isn't involved in marriage why do the FRC and Marriage Defense Fund sue in civil courts to block the unions of same sex couples?

[regentrude]

You have been in a civil union for 22 years. My church would not consider you married, and if you were to convert, you would need to first be married by a priest or deacon. Now marriages performed by other faiths are recognized as valid if they would be considered valid by those faiths. Converts only have to have a marriage ceremony if they hadn't previously had a ceremony in another house of worship.

 

To people not belonging to your church is it completely irrelevant how their union is viewed by you and your church.

 

What is relevant to them is that they can be custodial parents of their children, can be considered spouses under their partner's health insurance, can have spousal privilege in court, can have visitation rights in the hospital, and receive the tax benefits this society has decided should be given to married couples.

 

You are free to forgo all these legal, secular rights if they are not important to you and only the sacramental part matters to you.

 

I am pretty sure the people fighting for marriage equality don't care to change your church's stand. They simply care about the secular, legal protection of their union.

[Lady Florida.]

That looks like a fascinating book. 

 

 

I just requested this from my library. I am 1st in line. Woot.

 

 

I confess I haven't read it, but a homeschool mom I know who is also a UU minister told me about it. She read it and said it was really interesting.

[Lady Florida.]

You have been in a civil union for 22 years. 

 

 

Hmmm. Looks to me like she's married. 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Could somebody tell me if all Catholics consider non-Catholics to not be married but in civil unions? IOW, is this a CrimsonWife thing or a Catholic thing?

 

What about non-Catholic Christians? Are they also considered by Catholics to be not married before God (in spite of vows and all)?

[albeto.]

No! Don't ban them! I need my Project Runway!

 

Actually, bizarrely, I think reality TV is one of the things that has helped the case of equality in this country. Before gay characters were on scripted mainstream TV like Modern Family, actual gay couples were buying houses on House Hunters and competing in reality shows. I think that was useful for a lot of Americans to see.

 

I think reality tv is a symptom of a greater dis-ease than homophobia. My son and I were talking about the book, The God Virus. Having grown up with a religious mother, and being a bit of a science genius, he was fascinated by the description of religion as a virulent system. He'd read a few pages then tell me something about the mechanics of cellular biology in the context of disease. At one point he explained how there's some protein in some virus or bacterial infections that suppress the cell's reaction to neighboring cells' alerts to danger (a biologist will have to fill this in, I'm sure I'm butchering the concept). The point being, in some infections, the body's immune system is overridden by the virus because the virus puts out another message - Ignore Alerts To Danger. How appropriately this works for religion as well: Ignore Alerts To Dangerous [unsupportive Thoughts or Questions]. The FRC capitalizes on this by sending out its own "warning signals," through the path of misinformation and misrepresentation of reality. The same concept is being supported on the Meeting the Duggars thread: Ignore Dangerous Thoughts and Questions That Challenge A Belief-That-Must-Be-Maintained. 

 

My personal opinion is that our culture has evolved in such a way that religion has had a mutualisitic relationship with government for so long, that most people think of religion as being fairly harmless, if not beneficial. This is getting less and less so, as information about the reality of various religious beliefs and the behaviors they inspire become known to a wider audience (Uganda's bill to imprison and execute people for the "crime" of sin). The internet makes access to objective information that much easier to come by, making this process to Ignore Danger harder to do. Consider the idea CW promoted, the idea that Christian marriage precedes other marriages. This claim is factually, and demonstrably wrong. If history is any indicator of future trends however, people who believe this are less likely to consider that outside information, relying instead on the practice of ignoring "dangerous" outside information in order to maintain strongly held beliefs. While it may be easier to do for some, for the younger generations are less and less likely to adopt this method. Cue the Duggars: a seemingly harmless, sweet family that puts a socially appropriate face on an increasingly socially inappropriate belief. 

 

Ultimately I think, this mutualistic relationship has evolved in such a way as to make non-religious information appear less valuable, in part by making it seem to be goofy and unreliable. Reality tv supports this dynamic by trivializing the value and content of what we consider information (for example, Discovery and History channels, and creationist museums). I don't think any of this is planned out, it's just the direction the infected body (society) takes, and the virus will mutate as necessary to maintain its existence. So while gay couples may have been portrayed normally and unbiased on reality tv, reality tv and entertainment in general are part of the mutualistic relationship that had, until fairly recently, supported traditional (read religious) social beliefs without the expectation of serious challenge. 

[MEmama]

Could somebody tell me if all Catholics consider non-Catholics to not be married but in civil unions? IOW, is this a CrimsonWife thing or a Catholic thing?

 

What about non-Catholic Christians? Are they also considered by Catholics to be not married before God (in spite of vows and all)?

My Catholic friends definitely know we are married. So there's that.

[Lady Florida.]

Could somebody tell me if all Catholics consider non-Catholics to not be married but in civil unions? IOW, is this a CrimsonWife thing or a Catholic thing?

 

What about non-Catholic Christians? Are they also considered by Catholics to be not married before God (in spite of vows and all)?

 

 

I believe she is confusing rules for Catholics with the Church's views on marriage of non-Catholics to other non-Catholics. A Catholic couple who marries at the courthouse but not in the Church would not be married, according to the Catholic Church. A non-Catholic couple who have no plans to convert are not the Church's concern. Their rules are for Catholics. 

 

 

*I'm a Cradle Catholic who lived through Vatican II changes and left the Church in the mid 90's. I have not kept up with current Church stuff since it no longer applies to me. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You can't. Just like you couldn't have a baptism or confirmation or bar/bat mitzvah or any other sacrament.

 

You can get legal recognition for your union by filling out some paperwork and paying a fee to a bureaucrat. Which I personally have no objection to homosexual couples doing. A legal contract =/= marriage.

Are you really not understanding that the word "marriage" has both secular and religious meanings?

You do realize that many cultures have managed to develop marriages that look the same as Christian marriages, even without being exposed to Christian beliefs?

[Leav97]

You have been in a civil union for 22 years. My church would not consider you married, and if you were to convert, you would need to first be married by a priest or deacon. Now marriages performed by other faiths are recognized as valid if they would be considered valid by those faiths. Converts only have to have a marriage ceremony if they hadn't previously had a ceremony in another house of worship.

 

So let me see if I understand you.  You're saying your church will recognize the marriages of other faiths.  If a same sex couple was married in my church, UU, your church would recognize their wedding.  

[LucyStoner]

Could somebody tell me if all Catholics consider non-Catholics to not be married but in civil unions? IOW, is this a CrimsonWife thing or a Catholic thing?

 

What about non-Catholic Christians? Are they also considered by Catholics to be not married before God (in spite of vows and all)?

This is definitely a CrimsonWife thang and not a Catholic thang.

 

Actually Crimson's understanding of it does not jive with the Catholic Church. They consider nonCatholics to be married if they were married in a different faith or only by the state. The only civil marriages they don't recognize as marriages are those entered into by confirmed Catholics outside of the church.

 

My cradle Catholic father did not need a church annulment for his prior non-Catholic (9 year) marriage. My converted to Catholicism mother did need an annulment for her (less than a year) prior marriage. They were only allowed to marry in the Catholic Church after her marriage was annulled. There is a lot of confusion about this and many people are mistaken. I've heard people tell converted married Catholics that they need to remain abstinent until they have their marriage held again in the church. This is not true.

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-these-converts-need-to-have-their-marriage-convalidated

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/if-a-protestant-convert-to-catholicism-was-previously-married-outside-of-the-church-w

[LucyStoner]

Also, Catholics definitely don't need to be defending anything to do with the FRC. The FRC is an ideologically Protestant organization which is pretty squarely anti-Catholic. They have maligned and insulted Catholic relief workers and a number of Bishops.

 

The Duggars, Bill Gothard, ATI etc...all not down with Catholics.

[bolt.]

I think it makes some degree of sense to separate two distinct ideas of "marriage" which are (currently) pretty much one-and-the-same in the general western culture, but have not always been the same thing, and need not remain the same thing.

 

Idea A: State-recognized marriage: a contract, freely entered, generally motivated by romantic love, to share a life together, with benefits like married-taxation, social recognition of spouses, family benefits plans, etc.

 

Idea B: Mystical-religious marriage: a metaphysical unity of two people, with spiritual implications, believed to be overseen by (a) G/god/ess/e/s that results in a distinct religious status, which is recognized by one's personal faith community, and possibly by other faith communities, or by society at large.

 

I get why CW doesn't think that "idea B" really belongs in the government's jurisdiction. It's kind of an intangible special thing, which is narrowly defined and not exactly available to people who don't belong to the same faith communities. Many faith communities, including *most* Christians (who aren't fundamentalists) recognize that non-members/non-believers do 'do marriage' even if they aren't thinking of it in a sacramental way, but it is still the same thing even if they aren't thinking of it that way.

 

I think some other countries, and many times in history, marriage as it pertains to the government was limited to "idea A" type marriage -- and that if people wanted religious overtones (idea B) for their particular marriage, they could independently go and get whatever sacramentalization they personally were looking for. Ie: You get married in your own eyes when and however you want to. If/when you consider yourselves married, and wish to register that fact with your government, that's what the government's role is there for. I think various countries already work this way (?)

 

For myself I think both "A" and "B" are marriage, but I wish we had a way to verbally distinguish the ideas. I love that same-sex couples can get married according to "idea A". I consider it a grave injustice anywhere where the gov't does not forward the full package of rights-of-married-people to same sex couples. However, I respect that some people, and some entire faith communities, don't think that same sex couples qualify for their particular "idea B" set of ideals about marriage.

 

If the ideas were verbally distinct, the gov't could say, "Hey, we're only talking about 'idea A' equality here. You're still free to define marriage according to 'idea B' as long as you respect the provisions of the laws around 'idea A'." -- And various faith communities could say, "Thanks for nothing, we always knew you couldn't touch our 'idea B' marriage ideals, because they are not of this world. You can do 'idea A' for anyone at all, we don't care."

 

This is the most serious case of "arguing semantics" that proves how much semantics really matters. CW doesn't want "idea A" to be called marriage at all. To her, I think, if it's not "A and B together" it's not a whole marriage and doesn't deserve the word. She wants "idea A" to get it's own less-than-marriage word, but as we see here, people really object to their marriages, the backbones of their whole lives, being given an less-than word instead of the full-status ordinary word.

 

A solution? I don't know. We can't have the gov't deciding what is and isn't a sacrament... but we can't take the word "marriage" and hoard it only for religious groups. It's a part of our society (and almost all societies) and people will want to continue "getting married" whether they are religious people or not.

 

Perhaps we could resort to Biblical Greek to describe the Biblical idea (as we do for other sacraments like baptism and eucharist) and pick up the word "gamos" (marriage/wedding) or "gameo" (I marry/ to marry) for the sacramental end of things. I don't think it's worth fighting for the word "marriage" to be used exclusively religiously. Maybe just let the English word describe 'the customs of our current society' and have the Greek word (a "Bible word" from the New Testament) to describe the particular overtones of the Christian sacramental understanding?