S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Lady Florida.]

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.

 

Yes, I was a bit confused about why a Catholic would defend them. They are quite anti-Catholic.

[SparklyUnicorn]

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.

 

Yep.  I was married by a JP at a country club.  We've been married over 14 years.

 

I paid the fee for the marriage license.  Says I'm officially married.  I didn't have to swear allegiance to a god.

[LucyStoner]

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?

As a philosophical conversation, I can see what you are saying. What Crimson was doing though was not that. She was defining marriage in her own religious terms and telling someone married 22 years that they aren't married. The fact that she doesn't want the government involved in marriage doesn't mean the government isn't involved in marriage. How many of us married posters have certificates that say anything other than Marriage Certificate or Certificate of Marriage?

 

Defining marriage on her own terms is as accurate as me defining red as being the hue everyone else thinks is called green.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Bolt - I like your post but it doesn't need to be that complex.

 

Currently marriage has civil and religious definitions. The government does not dictate what constitutes a religious marriage for any denomination. The fight is over certain religious groups wanting to dictate what is a legal marriage for everyone else (which they have always been allowed to do by default).

 

No changes really need to be made. If you want a marriage recognized by the state, you get a marriage license and then choose someone to officiate it. If you want it to be recognized by your church, you simply follow their rules. If not you follow the secular route.

 

We only need for some folks to grow up and quit trying to control other consenting adults.

[sunflowerlady]

Can I jump in to mention something related to the Southern Poverty Law Center?

 

Dh and I recently watched a fascinating documentary on Netflix. It was about a former white supremacist who left the movement after many years. He had covered his body and face with racist tattoos.

 

The documentary follows the process of removing the ones on his face. The Southern Poverty Law Center funded the treatment process.

 

It was so interesting how they helped someone who was once a part of one of the hate groups they monitored.

 

I think the title is "Erasing Hate". I highly recommend it.

[TranquilMind]

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.

People are trying to remove the Duggars from television for the religious views of the son, in particular.  There was a petition to do just that, and that is intolerant.

 

Their views are their business; and you do not have to support their business by watching them.   There are certainly enough people on with extraordinarily liberal views on TV - and then there is the Duggar family, and the Robertsons on the flip side.  That's it. 

 

Who is threatening the health and safety of anyone here?  The Family Research Council?  I wouldn't think it possessed any political strength whatsoever to do that. 

[TranquilMind]

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

The bolded has always seemed extremely inequitable to me.  And it almost says, "Go have any relationships you want with anyone, marrying sequentially if you like, but only the one in the Catholic Church counts." 

[LucyStoner]

The bolded has always seemed extremely inequitable to me. And it almost says, "Go have any relationships you want with anyone, marrying sequentially if you like, but only the one in the Catholic Church counts."

Believe me, my very devout parents (dad came back to the fold with gusto) found it odd.

 

My dad had been married 9 years and had a son. My mother was married less than a year, they lived together less than a month or so and the marriage only took place due to her abusive mother pressuring her to marry this jerky guy when she was still practically a child. So a sham marriage under duress that lasts weeks needs an anullment but that whole my dad was with someone else for 9 years and had a child just never happened? Um, ok. Weird.

[TranquilMind]

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.

We don't agree on a lot of things, but we do agree on this completely.

 

I have a real problem with those who want to silence others because they aren't liberal enough (today's end of the pendulum swing).    They have no basis to complain when the pendulum swings the other way and they are the ones then being silenced and marginalized.  Each side adds fuel to the fire, increasing the pendulum swing.  Just stating your own opinion and reasoning without attacking others is the way to go.   

 

In practicality, groups like FRC have little power anyway. 

[TranquilMind]

Believe me, my very devout parents (dad came back to the fold with gusto) found it odd.

 

My dad had been married 9 years and had a son. My mother was married less than a year, they lived together less than a month or so and the marriage only took place due to her abusive mother pressuring her to marry this jerky guy when she was still practically a child. So a sham marriage under duress that lasts weeks needs an anullment but that whole my dad was with someone else for 9 years and had a child just never happened? Um, ok. Weird.

Extremely weird.  And hypocritical. 

[LucyStoner]

I don't want them to be silent. If anything by all means keep talking about xyz rupugnant views so people can see them for what they are.

 

I do think that lobbying to bar homosexuals from having children or working with children is disgusting and hateful.

 

Seriously, this isn't CPAC or some other run of the mill group with aims I just don't like. This is a group run by people who do not truly believe in the First Amendment. No mosques should be allowed to be built? That is hateful by definition.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

It's always interesting to see to which side posters fall on once a hate group is mentioned.

 

I hope that one day it will be as abhorrent to all of us to support the aims of the FRC as it is the KKK.

 

I guess I'm assuming nobody homeschooling their kids would support the KKK.

 

Oh, Sadie. :( White supremacists do homeschool, lots.

[fraidycat]

It happens. There is a neo-Nazi forum with a homeschooling sub category.

So not surprising and so incredibly disgusting. :(

[LucyStoner]

So not surprising and so incredibly disgusting. :(

When my 60 year old friend homeschooled in the 80s for education and special needs reasons in (state name redacted to avoid panty twisting!), she found that most of the other homeschoolers were homeschooling in part due to racism. It's not a nice thought but white outrage at the desegregation of schools is in fact part of what fueled the early homeschooling movement.

[TranquilMind]

It happens. There is a neo-Nazi forum with a homeschooling sub category.

Really? Wow. 

[Lady Florida.]

Extremely weird.  And hypocritical. 

 

But sadly not uncommon. My mother was told by one priest at our church in NJ that she and my dad were excommunicated for divorcing (though neither of them ever received anything official kicking them out). Another priest in the same parish told her that she could say he abused her and request an annulment (he didn't and she wouldn't lie) just so she could stay in the church. At another church (our new church when we moved to Florida) since my dad died they just said she was a widow. Since the divorce was not officially recognized by the Church and my dad died, she was a widow. This allowed my brother to make his first communion. Otherwise as the child of someone who was divorced/excommunicated he wouldn't have been able to.

 

I left the Catholic Church long before I stopped believing in a god. The hypocrisy is why I left. I'm surprised my mother stayed as long as she did, considering how they treated her.

 

Sorry, Katie. Not sure how your post on a hate group that is also anti-Catholic got turned into a thread about "things we experienced as Catholics".

[Laura Corin]

 

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

 

FWIW, my country has a national religion, but you can get married in a registry office, a hotel or a barn,and the ceremony can be performed by a (non-ordained) registrar.

[zoobie]

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.

 

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Reminds me of how Southern Baptists (perhaps others? I only have personal knowledge of SBC churches) suddenly backpedaled on LDS being a cult once Mitt Romney was a serious Presidential candidate. 

 

I think the FRC is more dangerous than an organization such as Westboro. Although they share remarkably similar beliefs, the FRC is cloaked in a modicum of respectability and gets the ear of important politicians. No one takes Westboro seriously. A politician is not going to entertain a lobbyist from Westboro in shaping legislation!

[Mergath]

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.

 

Just because your church considers marriage to be a sacrament doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the concept.  They're pretty fond of Jesus too, but it doesn't mean they get to tell other religions, "No, you can't worship Jesus.  We had him first."  Catholics take communion, but that doesn't mean other religions don't get to- Lutherans also take communion.

[bolt.]

Bolt - I like your post but it doesn't need to be that complex.

 

Currently marriage has civil and religious definitions. The government does not dictate what constitutes a religious marriage for any denomination. The fight is over certain religious groups wanting to dictate what is a legal marriage for everyone else (which they have always been allowed to do by default).

 

No changes really need to be made. If you want a marriage recognized by the state, you get a marriage license and then choose someone to officiate it. If you want it to be recognized by your church, you simply follow their rules. If not you follow the secular route.

 

We only need for some folks to grow up and quit trying to control other consenting adults.

 

I think it does need to be that complex (or even more complex) if a solution is going to actually satisfy all stakeholders. If the solution is just "those who are clearly right get it their way, and those who are clearly wrong can either tantrum or grow up about it" -- well, then maybe simplicity will suffice. In fact, you are right, and that's probably what will happen.

 

The problem for the *other* stakeholders is that there was once this word, and the word actually described a real thing. The thing it described always had civil and religious dimensions, but since those dimensions overlapped perfectly, there was no issue with the one-word description. Since the "real thing" was very very special, and holy, and important in so many ways... it has become a thorny problem that the civil side wants to continue using the word in a situation where now the civil and religious dimensions aren't identical any more.

 

Try out the problem with a word like "student" -- the word "student" currently means "a person enrolled and actively being educated by an educational institution or other educational method." With that definition, a question like, "How many students are there in xyz state?" -- can have a fairly clear answer. But, let's say that state lmnop thinks that "student" should mean "a person who is an active, lifelong learner." So these states have a semantic conflict. One state has vastly more "students" than the other one. One might say, "Those people aren't actually students!" and the other might reply, "Certainly they are! How can you imply that I'm not really a student? I've just recently learned needlepoint and the python programming language."

 

Sooner or later the "real" meaning of "student" would be settled, but the easiest interim solution would be to say, "Fine, you're all students. Now can you tell me how many classroom-based students we are talking about? How many are accounted to be in primary, secondary schools or home-schooled children? What shall we call those students, other than just 'students' -- so that we can just let this issue go?"

 

If all these people want is the gift of a word to use, to comfort them after the word "marriage" has shifted from where it used to be... maybe that can ease them enough to let go of their grasping after, "Those people aren't actually married." sentiments. Let them learn to say, "They are married, in the civil sense, but there's another word that I can use to say the things about civil and religious dimensions, so that I don't feel like I'm tacitly agreeing that civil and religious still overlap, because I don't think they do anymore."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We don't agree on a lot of things, but we do agree on this completely.

 

I have a real problem with those who want to silence others because they aren't liberal enough (today's end of the pendulum swing).    They have no basis to complain when the pendulum swings the other way and they are the ones then being silenced and marginalized.  Each side adds fuel to the fire, increasing the pendulum swing.  Just stating your own opinion and reasoning without attacking others is the way to go.   

 

In practicality, groups like FRC have little power anyway. 

 

Using market forces to create change is a long standing tactic and is not censorship.

[Vera]

I was so angry at being told that I am not really married that I had to go make gingerbread houses with the kids. Thank you Crimson Wife!

[Mrs Mungo]

The problem for the *other* stakeholders is that there was once this word, and the word actually described a real thing. The thing it described always had civil and religious dimensions, but since those dimensions overlapped perfectly, there was no issue with the one-word description. Since the "real thing" was very very special, and holy, and important in so many ways... it has become a thorny problem that the civil side wants to continue using the word in a situation where now the civil and religious dimensions aren't identical any more.

ALWAYS? No, definitely not. This is flat out wrong and not up for debate. The concept of marriage has existed for a long, long time in societies outside of the Christian religion, even before Christ was born. Attempting to re-frame history doesn't help your argument.

 

Eta: I would argue that civil contract style marriage is what has *always* existed, even when it has existed alongside religious marriage.

[LucyStoner]

I was so angry at being told that I am not really married that I had to go make gingerbread houses with the kids. Thank you Crimson Wife!

Nothing says married like gingerbread. :P.

 

I am making carrot cupcakes for my SILs birthday with 4 kids tonight. I need to get my gingerbread and sugar cookie dough made though. Maybe this Sunday.

[Catwoman]

I was just thinking about the FRC thing, and it dawned on me that I am always suspicious of any organization that has the word "family" in its name, because it often seems to be a cover-up for some not-so-family-friendly agendas.

 

But they're FAMILY organizations, so they have to be trustworthy and nice, right? ;)

[SparklyUnicorn]

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)?

 

Not all Catholics think any one thing, but yes this would be in line with the beliefs of the Catholic church.  You cannot, for example, remarry, but you could get an annulment if your first spouse was not Catholic because that wouldn't count as a real marriage in the eyes of the church.

[SparklyUnicorn]

lol

 

I'm not married either, even though dh and I have been together for 19 years.

 

it's probably why I ended up with the demon-spawn lesbian daughter....

 

Gingerbread houses sound good about now.

 

 

Eh..real married people end up with kids like that too...

[SparklyUnicorn]

I was so angry at being told that I am not really married that I had to go make gingerbread houses with the kids. Thank you Crimson Wife!

 

Aww..well at least something fun came of it.  I don't let crap like this bother me. 

[Joker]

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)?

 

It's not a Catholic thing. We're in RCIA (getting ready to become Catholic) and we are viewed as being married even though we weren't Catholic and it wasn't in a Catholic church. There is nothing we have to do to have our marriage recognized or considered valid. It already is considered valid.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I love you people! I'm so going to run out of likes.

[foxbridgeacademy]

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.

:iagree:  :iagree:

[Cammie]

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

 

I don't have a million likes to give you...so I am giving you this - :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

[Ravin]

As a philosophical conversation, I can see what you are saying. What Crimson was doing though was not that. She was defining marriage in her own religious terms and telling someone married 22 years that they aren't married. The fact that she doesn't want the government involved in marriage doesn't mean the government isn't involved in marriage. How many of us married posters have certificates that say anything other than Marriage Certificate or Certificate of Marriage?

 

Defining marriage on her own terms is as accurate as me defining red as being the hue everyone else thinks is called green.

I've encountered the practical effects of this kind of thinking. When I informed my insurance company of my gender change, the update of my gender in their computer automatically switched our marital status to "cohabitants" because at the time same-sex marriage wasn't recognized in my state, and the company is opposed to it and therefore won't recognize a marriage unless they have to.

 

I was contemplating going to court to have them affirm our marriage as valid and enjoin the company from ignoring it, but the state quit fighting and let same sex marriage become legal under the 9th circuit's ruling for another state.

 

Our marriage did not go "poof" just because I had an identity designation changed on other legal documents.

[HRAAB]

It's not a Catholic thing. We're in RCIA (getting ready to become Catholic) and we are viewed as being married even though we weren't Catholic and it wasn't in a Catholic church. There is nothing we have to do to have our marriage recognized or considered valid. It already is considered valid.

 

Correct.  If two baptized Christians are married, it would be considered a valid marriage.  I have known several couples who were baptized and married in other churches who later converted to Catholicism.  Their marriages were considered valid.  My sister married a man who was divorced.  He was baptized in another Christian church, married and then divorced.  After he and my sister were married, he decided to convert and wanted their marriage blessed in the Catholic church.  Since his first marriage was considered valid, he had to get an annulment before their (my sister and his) marriage could be blessed.

 

I think the RCC's teaching on marriage are some of the misunderstood teachings in the church, not only by non-Catholics, but by Catholics and even some priests.  I've heard people talk about receiving contradictory information on marriage from priests.

 

I guess I'm really married.  Whatever.

[Cammie]

Wow  - guess the system over here would pretty much blow the mind of some posters...

 

We have Hindu marriage (and the government Hindu Marriage Act)

We have Muslim marriage (and the government Muslim Marriage Act)

We have Christian marriage (and the antiquated Christian Marriage Act - with provisions left from the 1800s)

We have inter-religious marriage (and the secular marriage laws)

We have all sorts of minority/tribal/other groups marriage and their government counterpart acts.

 

And it is all recognized as "MARRIAGE."  And it would I think be considered as hate speech (at least over here) to state that someone else's marriage is not a marriage because they are from a different religion.

[Catwoman]

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

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

Clicking on the "like" button just wasn't enough.

[Catwoman]

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 don't know any Catholic person -- not even one -- who would even think to suggest that a married couple was only in a civil union if they hadn't been married in a church.

 

They may have wanted a church wedding for themselves, but I have never heard anyone say that couples who made a different choice aren't really married.

[HRAAB]

I don't care if you (whoever you might be) got married in a church, Christian or otherwise, Catholic or not, no church, JP, same sex or not. My dd got married in our backyard by a close friend of theirs who is licensed to marry people in our state.  Her dh was never baptized.  They ARE married.  No one can invalidate your marriage.

 

 

[bolt.]

ALWAYS? No, definitely not. This is flat out wrong and not up for debate. The concept of marriage has existed for a long, long time in societies outside of the Christian religion, even before Christ was born. Attempting to re-frame history doesn't help your argument.

 

Eta: I would argue that civil contract style marriage is what has *always* existed, even when it has existed alongside religious marriage.

 

You are completely correct. I misspoke because I am trying to express the internal perspective of other people. I meant to make it clear that to the person, in their *experience* (meaning, their lifetime, in their home culture, in their language) "marriage" is a word that has 'always' had a specific, real meaning (for their whole life, so far).

 

I definitely know that the civil sense of marriage predates the Christian concept of a sacrament as far as human history.

 

However, I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to do. The "argument" I am making is that *people exist* who think these things. Since the people do exist, and they do think these things (or at least, they have told me they do) my "argument" is completely secure.

 

If you would like to understand these people better, and work together with them to help society (or at least get them to stop trying to stop other people from helping society) I can help with that. If you are looking for an "argument" you will have to direct your attention to CW.

 

(For myself, I pretty much think that civil contract style marriage is the best for everyone, and that religious people can embroider sacramentalism onto it on their own time. I just think having a special name for their-marriage-plus-sacrament idea might help them handle it better.)

[LucyStoner]

I was just thinking about the FRC thing, and it dawned on me that I am always suspicious of any organization that has the word "family" in its name, because it often seems to be a cover-up for some not-so-family-friendly agendas.

 

But they're FAMILY organizations, so they have to be trustworthy and nice, right? ;)

Yanno, you may well be on to something there Cat.

[LucyStoner]

Not all Catholics think any one thing, but yes this would be in line with the beliefs of the Catholic church. You cannot, for example, remarry, but you could get an annulment if your first spouse was not Catholic because that wouldn't count as a real marriage in the eyes of the church.

No, the non-Catholic marriage of a Catholic doesn't need an annulment and you can remarry because you were never married. Ie: my father as described on this thread. :P

 

In some circumstances Catholics are allowed to marry non-Catholics in the church.

[Veritaserum]

My marriage started with a ceremony that could only be attended by members of my church who had documentation that they were worthy (as deemed by their local religious authority) to enter that religious building. The ceremony contained no vows and was remarkably unsimilar to any wedding ceremony I had ever seen or read about. (I had not been allowed to see other wedding ceremonies within this church because I had not been granted permission to enter until I was getting married. Few people discuss the ceremonies outside of the religious building, so new initiates are often uninformed about what the ceremonies entail.) Despite these circumstances, the local county government issued us a marriage license, which was witnessed and signed as a binding legal document upon completion of the ceremony.

 

Marriage ceremonies vary widely, as do the couples getting married. If the government recognizes the authority and eligibility of the people involved, then it is a legal marriage whether or not anything religious is part of the ceremony.

 

As the mother of a daughter who is romantically attracted to other females, I hope that if she marries a woman (whether civilly or in a church that recognizes and blesses same sex marriage) that there will be more people who would recognize her marriage as a marriage and her family as a family.

 

The "protect the family" warcry has a very real and very negative effect on families that don't meet the definition of two heterosexual cis-gender parents of heterosexual cis-gender children. I've seen the harm this rhetoric does firsthand via the treatment my daughter has received here in our very conservative, "protect the family" community. These people don't care about protecting people like my daughter. One local politician recently said that kids like my daughter are "throwaway kids." This politician also claims to be pro-life. But the lives of queer kids don't matter? It disgusts me and enrages me and terrifies me. My daughter is no throwaway and I will speak out against anyone who would deny her the rights and privileges afforded to non-LGBT individuals.

[Ravin]

Yanno, you may well be on to something there Cat.

Nah. P-FLAG, Family Equality Council, Fortunate Families, the Family Acceptance Project, the Familia Es Familia Campaign, the Our Family Coalition, NELFA (Network of European LGBT Families Associations), the LGBT Family Law Institute, South Florida Family Pride, the Family Tree Community Center...

[LucyStoner]

I've encountered the practical effects of this kind of thinking. When I informed my insurance company of my gender change, the update of my gender in their computer automatically switched our marital status to "cohabitants" because at the time same-sex marriage wasn't recognized in my state, and the company is opposed to it and therefore won't recognize a marriage unless they have to.

 

I was contemplating going to court to have them affirm our marriage as valid and enjoin the company from ignoring it, but the state quit fighting and let same sex marriage become legal under the 9th circuit's ruling for another state.

 

Our marriage did not go "poof" just because I had an identity designation changed on other legal documents.

My brother's husband's company has covered domestic partners as long as they were together but the insurance company would regularly change his gender and marital status in their system because they didn't have any way in the computer to fit a FTM transgendered person who was partnered with a man and occasionally used healthcare services associated with female patients. It was a never ending switcheroo.

[Ravin]

My brother's husband's company has covered domestic partners as long as they were together but the insurance company would regularly change his gender and marital status in their system because they didn't have any way in the computer to fit a FTM transgendered person who was partnered with a man and occasionally used healthcare services associated with female patients. It was a never ending switcheroo.

That almost makes sense. I was talking about car insurance.

[TranquilMind]

Using market forces to create change is a long standing tactic and is not censorship.

You mean like targeting and putting your opponents out of business because you don't like their religious beliefs?   You mean silencing all viewpoints but your own in venues like college campuses?  You might think that is cool, but I don't.  I'm willing to listen to anyone who is presenting a viewpoint respectfully. 

[TranquilMind]

My marriage started with a ceremony that could only be attended by members of my church who had documentation that they were worthy (as deemed by their local religious authority) to enter that religious building. The ceremony contained no vows and was remarkably unsimilar to any wedding ceremony I had ever seen or read about. (I had not been allowed to see other wedding ceremonies within this church because I had not been granted permission to enter until I was getting married. Few people discuss the ceremonies outside of the religious building, so new initiates are often uninformed about what the ceremonies entail.) Despite these circumstances, the local county government issued us a marriage license, which was witnessed and signed as a binding legal document upon completion of the ceremony.

 

 

What?  Only "worthy" and documented members of your church could come to the ceremony?  What church does that?  I'm curious. 

[Catwoman]

What? Only "worthy" and documented members of your church could come to the ceremony? What church does that? I'm curious.

I'm glad you asked that. I'm wondering, too.

[Cammie]

You mean like targeting and putting your opponents out of business because you don't like their religious beliefs?   You mean silencing all viewpoints but your own in venues like college campuses?  You might think that is cool, but I don't.  I'm willing to listen to anyone who is presenting a viewpoint respectfully. 

 

People who have a business must accommodate people according to the law.

 

Before the civil rights era people routinely used the argument that they could not accommodate black people in hotels and restaurants because it went against their belief in segregation.

 

Now people want to have a business but not accommodate gay couples or other people who they don't agree with.  No difference.

 

If you have a business, you have to follow the law.  That includes no discrimination.

[Cammie]

I'm glad you asked that. I'm wondering, too.

 

I would guess Mormon?