Bush calls for gay marriage ban
paul
"US President George W Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment that
would ban marriages of same-sex couples. It comes after a court in
Massachusetts ruled in favour of gay weddings, and thousands of same-sex
couples married in San Francisco earlier this month. Mr Bush said he
wanted to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most
enduring human institution".
Correspondents say Mr Bush has seized the initiative on an important
issue in presidential election year. "If we are to prevent the meaning
of marriage from being changed forever our nation must enact a
constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," said Mr Bush.
He said that while some states might want to have legal arrangements for
gay people, marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman. He
urged Congress to approve the amendment.
This would be a major political event, as it takes three quarters of US
states, as well as two-thirds of the Senate and the House of
Representatives to change the constitution.[1]
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said earlier that President Bush
wanted to end "growing confusion" on the issue following events in
Massachusetts and San Francisco. "The president believes it is
important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in
this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."
The BBC's Justin Webb says that by coming down firmly on one side the
gay marriage debate, President Bush is defining it as a political issue.
Mr Bush's main Democratic opponents for the presidency do not back gay
marriage, but do not support a ban either - making the president seem
firm and principled and the Democrats weak and vacillating, says our
correspondent.
Earlier on Tuesday, California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he
would be asking the state Supreme Court on Friday if San Francisco's
decision to allow same-sex marriages violated state law. More than
3,000 gay couples have been married since San Francisco mayor Gavin
Newsom began issuing licences on 12 February. California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for "take immediate steps" to get a
court ruling on the issue.
San Francisco officials are fighting back, and have already filed their
own lawsuit with the state Supreme Court, arguing that California's
prohibition on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Peter Ragone, a
spokesman for Mayor Newsom, said they were following "the state
constitution, which explicitly outlaws discrimination of any kind". The
weddings followed a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling last November
that it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marriage. That
decision could result in gay weddings in Massachusetts as early as May.
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the president's actions were
prompted partly by the ruling in Massachusetts. "We need to act now,"
he said. "The constitutional process will take time." The amendment was
submitted by Republican congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave calling for the
protection of the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
[1] US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
US constitution has 27 amendments; they require passage by Congress
and ratification by three-quarters of US state legislatures. The last
was ratified in 1992. The first 10 amendments are collectively known
as the Bill of Rights. Only one amendment has ever been repealed -
Prohibition - by a subsequent amendment.
BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518117.stm
(C) Copyright acknowledged © BBC 2004
--
paul
beholder, eye of ... perspective, point of ...
http://www.watman.clara.co.uk/horns_of_a_dilemma.html
charlie
news:qr3n30dfnqhtrej82...@4ax.com:
I suppose this is what we should expect from George W Bush & his right
wing coalition. The saving grace is that it is so difficult to pass
constitutional amendments, that it is likely to take a very long time if
it gets the support at all....
charlie
Lyn David Thomas
paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> [1] US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
> US constitution has 27 amendments; they require passage by Congress
> and ratification by three-quarters of US state legislatures. The
> last was ratified in 1992. The first 10 amendments are collectively
> known as the Bill of Rights. Only one amendment has ever been
> repealed - Prohibition - by a subsequent amendment.
> BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518117.stm
It doesn't have to be state legislatures or congress, it could be 3/4 of
specially convened state conventions elected for the purpose of
discussing the amendment. Those are almost certainly going to be anti
given the current climate being generated.
It is interesting that they seem to think there there is some law of
conservation as regards marriage. If you widen the base you some how
dilute it - thus weaken it, all seems strange.
--
Lyn David Thomas
St Mym
<an...@anon.net> wrote:
>I suppose this is what we should expect from George W Bush & his right
>wing coalition. The saving grace is that it is so difficult to pass
>constitutional amendments, that it is likely to take a very long time if
>it gets the support at all....
And that if it does it will settle the issue and the gay lobby can
concentrate on getting proper civil partnerships for all rather than
joining the religious right in getting obsessed with a mere word.
--
st mym.
saeva indignatio.
Neil Matthews
>paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote in
>news:qr3n30dfnqhtrej82...@4ax.com:
>
>> BBC reports: Bush calls for gay marriage ban
>>
>> "US President George W Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment
>> that would ban marriages of same-sex couples. It comes after a court
>> in Massachusetts ruled in favour of gay weddings, and thousands of
>> same-sex couples married in San Francisco earlier this month. Mr Bush
>> said he wanted to stop activist judges from changing the definition of
>> the "most enduring human institution".
>
>I suppose this is what we should expect from George W Bush & his right
>wing coalition. The saving grace is that it is so difficult to pass
>constitutional amendments, that it is likely to take a very long time if
>it gets the support at all....
Charlie, can you please trim articles (like I've done above)when
replying? We don't need to see the whole thing again, just enough so
that we know what you're referring to.
Thanks.
--
Neil Matthews in Cambridge, UK
Stu
Why all the fuss about marriage? It's a ceremony for a religion which
promotes hetrosexual relationships. Personally I think getting
recognition & equal rights for civil partnerships is the real issue.
Gregoire Kretz
> Mr Bush said he
> wanted to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most
> enduring human institution".
Prostitution?
> The amendment was
> submitted by Republican congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave calling for the
> protection of the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
I always twitch when I hear people's delegates use religious vocabulary
in a liberal state.
Sanctity.
Chambers place it between sanatorium and sanctimonious.
Greg
PS: seems to have cured your double-spacing, Paul. :)
--
g k t z {a} wanadoo . fr
- You know what I think?
- Yes, that's why I've been avoiding you.
Tom Hens
St Mym <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> wrote...
The religious right is just as vehemently opposed to civil partnerships as
they are to marriages. It's not the "mere word" that bothers them, it's the
thing itself.
But the main problem is that this "mere word" does not just appear in the
specific laws that define marriage itself, it appears in a lot of other
legislation, case law, administrative rules, etc., across a multitude of
levels of government and jurisdictions, and also in rules and regulations
within private companies and organisations. If you create a
separate-but-equal "civil partnership" alongside "marriage", it will be
quite easy to keep rights granted to people in a marriage from those in a
civil partnership. For instance, a company that allows certain benefits to
married partners of employees could easily withhold those from a "civil
partner". As the Massachussets Supreme Court pointed out in its refusal to
accept such a separate arrangement instead of full marriage rights,
experience has shown that "separate but equal" usually ends up meaning not
equal at all.
In the case of the US, there is the additional aspect that whereas states
are supposed to recognize marriages from other states, there is no such
requirement for any "civil partnership", AFAIK. (That's why the Mormons
abolished polygamy, because otherwise the other states wouldn't have
accepted Utah into the Union. Maybe they should have thought of the clever
ruse of renaming their marriages "civil multiple partnerships", then all
the other Christians would have been perfectly OK with it...)
Tom Hens
Stu <s...@nospam.co.uk> wrote...
> <stu stands with flame retardant filters at the ready but...>
>
> Why all the fuss about marriage? It's a ceremony for a religion which
> promotes hetrosexual relationships.
Marriage isn't a religious ceremony, it is a civil contract between two
indivuals, of any or no religion, regulated by law. Just because lots of
Christians like to pretend marriage is somehow "theirs" doesn't make it so.
> Personally I think getting
> recognition & equal rights for civil partnerships is the real issue.
Marriages *are* civil partnerships.
Rexx Magnus
> I always twitch when I hear people's delegates use religious vocabulary
> in a liberal state.
>
> Sanctity.
> Chambers place it between sanatorium and sanctimonious.
Sanctity, a pair of boobs going down like the titanic. :)
To email me, visit the site.
Tom Hens
Andrew Hodgson <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote...
> OTOH, I also
> have a problem with the fact that most of the gay friends I know who
> are in partnerships would be totally unsuitable for even a partnership
> ceremony, and so struggle on some points as to giving such a ceremony
> equal rights to a marriage.
As opposed to all your straight friends, I suppose, who are by nature
suited for marriage. That's why they never divorce, why there is no such
thing as adultery, let alone spousal and child abuse, among married
straight people.
I'm reminded of someone who wondered when an American congressman from the
religious right made a big deal out of "protecting marriage" which of his
four marriages he was intent on protecting.
Tom Hens
Gregoire Kretz <gr...@spamtrap.fr> wrote...
<snip>
> > The amendment was
> > submitted by Republican congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave calling
> > for the protection of the "sanctity of marriage" between men
> > and women.
>
> I always twitch when I hear people's delegates use religious vocabulary
> in a liberal state.
So do I. But you have to remember that in the thinking of a lot of these
religious rightwingers, the US isn't a secular state at all. They're
convinced it's founded on "Judeo-Christian principles" (whatever those
are), and that the separation between church and state is something thought
up later by evil "liberals" and "secular humanists".
Lyn David Thomas
"Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
> > I always twitch when I hear people's delegates use religious
> > vocabulary in a liberal state.
>
> So do I. But you have to remember that in the thinking of a lot of
> these religious rightwingers, the US isn't a secular state at all.
> They're convinced it's founded on "Judeo-Christian principles"
> (whatever those are), and that the separation between church and state
> is something thought up later by evil "liberals" and "secular
> humanists".
I have always found this interesting, a very large proportion of the
founding fathers and certainly most of the first presidents were not
conventional Christians at all, in fact I'd go as far as to say that
they were not Christian. They were deists - what in modern terms we
would describe as unitarians. They didn't believe in the divinity of
Christ. They wanted as federal state (some states retained a form of
establish religion for some time) which was not tied to any variant of
any religion.
--
Lyn David Thomas
St Mym
<tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>Marriages *are* civil partnerships.
But not the be-all and end-all
Construct a legal alternative.
charlie
news:2004022518002...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk:
Thankfully I feel this proposal is dead in the water, before it has even
seen the light of day. The check's & balances of the American
constitution seem to be such that this will never be approved by Senate /
Congress & the neccesary 3/4 of the state legeslatures to become part of
the constitution. Overall although I myself do not favour marriage it
should be availiable to all regardless of wether the relationship is same
sex or not.
charlie
Geoff Coupe
news:rnap30tlgpt97h83s...@4ax.com...
>I am strongly of the opinion that the word "marriage" should
> not be used between a same sex couple, and that the partnership
> ceremony should be distinctly different to a marriage.
And why do you think these things? I'm curious. I'm married. I have a legal
document stating this, issued under the full authority of Dutch law. The
fact that I am married to a man is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, our
families and friends. What is relevant is that we have both sworn that we
enter into the responsibilities of marriage as defined by this authority.
> I did not have a problem with what GB
> said yesterday, indeed, it was probably one of the more sensible
> things he has said through the whole of his career.
>
Naturally, I would disagree. To my way of thinking, Bush very rarely makes
any sense whatever.
- Geoff Coupe
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gcoupe
Tom Hens
Andrew Hodgson <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote...
> Tom Hens in <01c3fbb9$1b109920$LocalHost@gateway>:
>
> >
> >Andrew Hodgson <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote...
> >
> >> OTOH, I also
> >> have a problem with the fact that most of the gay friends I know who
> >> are in partnerships would be totally unsuitable for even a partnership
> >> ceremony, and so struggle on some points as to giving such a ceremony
> >> equal rights to a marriage.
> >
> >As opposed to all your straight friends, I suppose, who are by nature
> >suited for marriage. That's why they never divorce, why there is no such
> >thing as adultery, let alone spousal and child abuse, among married
> >straight people.
>
> Absolutely not. I just said that of the people I know, where if I
> were in their shoes, I would not be considering such a ceremony.
Have any of these people asked you to make this decision for them?
The point is not what *you* would do in a particular situation, the point
is that your straight friends can get married if they want to (and the
divorce rates show how misguidedly many of them do so), and your gay
friends can't. I currently have no interest in getting married either, but
I know I could if I met the right man and we both wanted to.
> The
> same goes for some of the straight people I know also, but either
> perhaps where I live, or due to other factors, we don't get the
> general partner swapping et al that I see some of my gay friends doing
> on a fairly regular basis.
Personally I've never noticed a noticeable difference in relationship
patterns between the straight and gay people I've met, and while I've never
kept statistics on the matter, I guess most of the straight couples I know
aren't married either (in many cases I simply don't know -- I am not in the
habit of asking people for official documentation of their marital status,
or whether or not they have a "registered partnership", when I meet them.
For that matter, I'm also not in the habit of asking them whether they're
gay, straight, or somewhere in between, and inquiring into who they
possibly have sex with besides their regular partner.)
But what has any of that to do with restricting marriage to straight
couples? A married couple can go in for as much "general partner swapping
et al" as they like to, as long as both of them are OK with it and neither
wants a divorce (or as long as one of them doesn't find out about it, of
course). Being married doesn't impose sexual fidelity on anyone. If it did,
most female prostitutes, and quite a few male ones too I bet, would be out
of a job.
Tom Hens
Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:16:07 GMT
> "Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
<snip>
> > So do I. But you have to remember that in the thinking of a lot of
> > these religious rightwingers, the US isn't a secular state at all.
> > They're convinced it's founded on "Judeo-Christian principles"
> > (whatever those are), and that the separation between church and state
> > is something thought up later by evil "liberals" and "secular
> > humanists".
>
> I have always found this interesting, a very large proportion of the
> founding fathers and certainly most of the first presidents were not
> conventional Christians at all, in fact I'd go as far as to say that
> they were not Christian. They were deists - what in modern terms we
> would describe as unitarians. They didn't believe in the divinity of
> Christ. They wanted as federal state (some states retained a form of
> establish religion for some time) which was not tied to any variant of
> any religion.
The lack of knowledge of their own country's history among these American
rightwingers is stupefying. Witness the outrage not too long ago when a
court ruled, quite correctly, that the words "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance, which most children in public schools are required to recite
daily, constitutes a violation of the separation between church and state.
Most of the people who went into hysterics about that were clearly not
aware of the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance is a nineteenth-century
creation, and that the words "under God" were only added to it in the
1950s. (The words "In God we trust" were added to US banknotes around the
same time.) They thought it was something that went back to the founding
fathers, who they revere without knowing anything about them. As you point
out, most of them were hardly Christians, certainly not in the sense of the
word that present-day American rightwingers use, and some of them were, in
private, outspoken about their dislike of Christianity. (Of course, most of
them also owned slaves while waffling about how all men are created equal,
which seems to bother nobody.)
Tom Hens
St Mym <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> wrote...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:07:53 GMT, being the year 2755 AUC, "Tom Hens"
> <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
> >Marriages *are* civil partnerships.
>
> But not the be-all and end-all
>
> Construct a legal alternative.
Both European countries that have same-sex marriages, the Netherlands and
Belgium, also have legal alternatives in the form of what one could call a
"civil partnership" (or "marriage-lite"), that are open to both same-sex
and opposite-sex couples. They do not give people entering into such a
partnership the full rights or responsibilities of marriage. I don't see
what that has got to do with restricting marriage to couples with one penis
and one vagina between them.
Lyn David Thomas
charlie <an...@anon.net> wrote:
> Thankfully I feel this proposal is dead in the water, before it has
> even seen the light of day. The check's & balances of the American
> constitution seem to be such that this will never be approved by
> Senate / Congress & the neccesary 3/4 of the state legeslatures to
> become part of the constitution.
I don't have your confidence... there is a mechanism for bypassing the
state legislatures, state conventions. I think it would be relatively
easy to get a bandwagon rolling on this one that would overcome the
objections of the legislatures. I think it could very easily happen.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Geoff Coupe
> Geoff Coupe in <403d0957$0$568$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>
> >I'm married. I have a legal
> >document stating this, issued under the full authority of Dutch law. The
> >fact that I am married to a man is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, our
> >families and friends. What is relevant is that we have both sworn that we
> >enter into the responsibilities of marriage as defined by this authority.
>
I suspect only in countries such as Belgium that have come to a similar
civilised conclusion as the Netherlands.
> As I said, I
> am quite happy with the partnership theory, but I really do believe
> that marriage is not appropriate for same sex couples.
>
You still haven't said why.
> On another subject, how easy is it with one of these partnership
> agreements to get separated (i.e, what processes do you have to go
> through)?
a) I am married. I would need to get divorced - a legal process governed by
the courts. Same as for anyone who is married.
b) If I had a registered partnership, I could separate from my partner with
mutual consent. This would not require a pronouncement in the courts.
More info is available in the fact sheet published by the Dutch Ministry of
Justice:
http://www.justitie.nl/english//Themes/family_law/same-sex_marriages.asp?ComponentID=34250&SourcePageID=35375#1
Jonathan Bratt
David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
Yup - the god botherers would go all out to railroad something like this
through.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Rexx Magnus
>> The
>> same goes for some of the straight people I know also, but either
>> perhaps where I live, or due to other factors, we don't get the
>> general partner swapping et al that I see some of my gay friends doing
>> on a fairly regular basis.
>
> Personally I've never noticed a noticeable difference in relationship
> patterns between the straight and gay people I've met,
*snip*
I haven't either - I think it's probably just that gay couples are more
likely to be able to discuss it with each other (and other people) more
openly.
Jonathan Bratt
<ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> writes
>Marriage is between a _man_ and a _woman_. Anything else is against
>the general mainstay of a marriage, which is why I strongly feel that
>marriage is not right for same sex partners. If such a scheme was to
>ever happen, I doubt very strongly whether I would choose to enter into
>it.
Would u deny other the choice?
--
Jonathan Bratt
Tom Hens
Geoff Coupe <gcoupe.re...@xs4all.nl> wrote...
> "Andrew Hodgson" <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote in message
> news:804q3014teetsuc10...@4ax.com...
> > Geoff Coupe in <403d0957$0$568$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> >
>>>I'm married. I have a legal
>>>document stating this, issued under the full authority of Dutch law.
>>>The fact that I am married to a man is irrelevant in the eyes of the
>>>law, our families and friends. What is relevant is that we have both
>>>sworn that we enter into the responsibilities of marriage as defined
>>>by this authority.
> >
> > Yes, but is this recognised elsewhere outside Holland?
>
> I suspect only in countries such as Belgium that have come to a similar
> civilised conclusion as the Netherlands.
Belgian marriage law does indeed include a clause that specifically
recognises same-sex marriages from any other country that has them.
It's one of the major problems with the not-quite-marriage solution,
"registered civil partnership" or whatever it's called, that the countries
who have these kind of arrangements all have wildly diverging definitions
for them, and it's hence almost impossible to recognise them across
borders. If a couple that has entered into a civil partnership in the
Netherlands moves to Belgium, they will again be just two single people in
the sight of Belgian law. If they are married, on the other hand, they will
be married in Belgium too.
Tom Hens
Andrew Hodgson <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote...
<snip>
> >> As I said, I
> >> am quite happy with the partnership theory, but I really do believe
> >> that marriage is not appropriate for same sex couples.
> >>
> >You still haven't said why.
>
> Marriage is between a _man_ and a _woman_.
It isn't in Belgium and the Netherlands.
> Anything else is against
> the general mainstay of a marriage, which is why I strongly feel that
> marriage is not right for same sex partners.
You aren't offering an argument, you're merely repeating the same thing
with more words. What is your notion of a marriage necessarily involving
people of opposite gender based on?
> If such a scheme was to
> ever happen, I doubt very strongly whether I would choose to enter
> into it.
How is whether or not you personally want to get married relevant to this
discussion?
Rexx Magnus
>>>
>>You still haven't said why.
>
> Marriage is between a _man_ and a _woman_. Anything else is against
> the general mainstay of a marriage, which is why I strongly feel that
> marriage is not right for same sex partners. If such a scheme was to
> ever happen, I doubt very strongly whether I would choose to enter
> into it.
>
> Andrew.
Why, though?
Why should marriage be restricted to whether the participants can pop out
a sprog between them?
So many couples nowadays still don't get married and manage to have
children, and stay together for many years - so evidently marriage doesn't
fulfil that much of an important role in many people's lives anyway. It's
hardly a requisite for a happy family life.
Steven Capsuto
> "Andrew Hodgson" <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote in message
> news:804q3014teetsuc10...@4ax.com...
> > Geoff Coupe in <403d0957$0$568$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> >
> > >I'm married. I have a legal
> > >document stating this, issued under the full authority of Dutch law. The
> > >fact that I am married to a man is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, our
> > >families and friends. What is relevant is that we have both sworn that we
> > >enter into the responsibilities of marriage as defined by this authority.
> >
> > Yes, but is this recognised elsewhere outside Holland?
>
> I suspect only in countries such as Belgium that have come to a similar
> civilised conclusion as the Netherlands.
I wonder if Canada is recognizing other countries' same-sex marriages,
or just their own.
--
Steven Capsuto, Philadelphia, PA, USA
http://www.stevecap.com
Steven Capsuto
> > Marriage is between a _man_ and a _woman_.
> > the general mainstay of a marriage,
The "it's-always-been-that-way" argument isn't very convincing. The
meaning of marriage has changed often, usually for the better.
The time-honored definition of marriage through most of human history
was that a wife was her husband's property. He could, for instance,
force himself upon her sexually and it wasn't considered rape. In
many (most?) places, if a married woman slept with a man other than
her husband, she and the other man were deemed to have committed a
crime, but a married man who slept with a single woman had not
committed a crime. A wife was her husband's property, but he was not
hers. The same idea underlay the traditions of marriage in most
places where polygamy was legal: a man could have multiple wives, but
a woman could not have multiple husbands.
This owner/owned relationship was what made a marriage a marriage, and
it was the essence of wedlock for far longer than today's radically
different and, IMHO, far preferable approach.
When that older idea of marriage began to change, traditionalists
trotted out all the arguments that are now being used to oppose gay
marriage: you're toying with the basic definition of marriage; doing
so flies in the face of tradition, God and Nature; this will destroy
the meaning of family, and with it the very structure of civilization.
The same arguments surfaced again when women pushed for the right to
vote: it will weaken marriage as an institution, because women already
vote "through their husbands," who vote on behalf of the family unit.
Weaken the family and you weaken civilization.
The "it's-always-been-that-way" argument was also used to justify
slavery and countless other notorious practices.
Frankly, I wasn't too enthusiastic about same-sex marriage as an
equal-rights issue until I started to hear Mr. Bush and others explain
why they oppose it. Their arguments are so rooted in references to
sanctity, holiness, sacraments, the saving of children's souls, etc.
-- concepts administered by religious organizations, not secular
governments -- and so drenched in thinly veiled irrational prejudice
that they have more or less won me over to the gay-marriage camp.
Steven Capsuto
> Gregoire Kretz <gr...@spamtrap.fr> wrote...
> So do I. But you have to remember that in the thinking of a lot of these
> religious rightwingers, the US isn't a secular state at all. They're
> convinced it's founded on "Judeo-Christian principles" (whatever those
> are),
Judging from the fact that I've heard such people talk about "the
Judeo-Christian concept of original sin" and the "Judeo-Christian
concept of the Trinity", I have to assume that "Judeo-Christian"
actually means "Christian." :-)
Rexx Magnus
> Judging from the fact that I've heard such people talk about "the
> Judeo-Christian concept of original sin" and the "Judeo-Christian
> concept of the Trinity", I have to assume that "Judeo-Christian"
> actually means "Christian." :-)
No, it doesn't cover Christianity in a blanket manner.
St Mym
I think it means 'christianity - but with more smiting'.
Steven Capsuto
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:36:27 GMT, Steven Capsuto scrawled:
>
> > Judging from the fact that I've heard such people talk about "the
> > Judeo-Christian concept of original sin" and the "Judeo-Christian
> > concept of the Trinity", I have to assume that "Judeo-Christian"
> > actually means "Christian." :-)
>
> No, it doesn't cover Christianity in a blanket manner.
My point is that it's a term used by radical Christian political
activists to let them pretend that they speak for more than just one
religion. However, much of what they subsume under "Judeo-Christian"
(the "Judeo-Christian concept of salvation") is at odds with Judaism.
As a Jew -- albeit a secular one -- I'd be just as happy if they
stopped pretending they speak for us.
--
Steven Capsuto, Philadelphia, PA, USA
http:///www.stevecap.com
Tom Hens
Steven Capsuto <stev...@dca.net> wrote...
I certainly cannot recall ever hearing the word used by anyone Jewish. I
wonder how all the Jews who were massacred by Christians over the centuries
would feel about the term.
Tom Hens
Steven Capsuto <stev...@dca.net> wrote...
I certainly cannot recall ever hearing the word used by anyone Jewish. I
wonder how all the millions of Jews who were massacred by Christians over
JohnM
<ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> writes
>Geoff Coupe in <403dac52$0$559$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>
>>"Andrew Hodgson" <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote in message
>>news:804q3014teetsuc10...@4ax.com...
>>> Geoff Coupe in <403d0957$0$568$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>>>
>>> >I'm married. I have a legal
>>> >document stating this, issued under the full authority of Dutch law. The
>>> >fact that I am married to a man is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, our
>>> >families and friends. What is relevant is that we have both sworn that we
>>> >enter into the responsibilities of marriage as defined by this authority.
>>>
>>> Yes, but is this recognised elsewhere outside Holland?
>>
>>I suspect only in countries such as Belgium that have come to a similar
>>civilised conclusion as the Netherlands.
>
>who have different versions of the marriage/partnership agreements, so
>being married in one country could mean something completely different
>in another. It will take a very long time to get this sorted out, if
>it ever will be.
>>
>>> As I said, I
>>> am quite happy with the partnership theory, but I really do believe
>>> that marriage is not appropriate for same sex couples.
>>>
>>You still haven't said why.
>
So if you lived in 1945 would you also be saying that marriage is
between a man and a woman of the same _colour_ ? Because in the US and
South Africa (until 1984) it was defined thus in the 'general mainstay'
of society.
>Anything else is against
>the general mainstay of a marriage, which is why I strongly feel that
>marriage is not right for same sex partners. If such a scheme was to
>ever happen, I doubt very strongly whether I would choose to enter
>into it.
That 'general mainstay' of marriage stops also some people of different
religions from marrying each other, insisting that one party converts or
that the children be instructed in one religion. Should we also have
such custom enshrined in law? That everyone married in the UK must bring
up their children as Anglicans? Or that 'real marriage' is one between
Anglicans only or between Catholics only and that marriage between
Catholics and Anglicans, say, is not 'real' marriage' because by
definition it would break the principles of one of the denominations
involved?
The law in a secular state stays outside of religion and gives rights to
everyone irrespectively. The point is not what _you_ would do but
allowing others to do as they wish based on the principle of equality.
--
JohnM
Author of Brazil: Life, Blood, Soul
http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/spaver.htm
St Mym
<stevieiny...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Stu wrote:
>
>> Why all the fuss about marriage? It's a ceremony for a religion which
>> promotes hetrosexual relationships. Personally I think getting
>> recognition & equal rights for civil partnerships is the real issue.
>
>The fuss about marriage is for two reasons.
>
>Firstly: symbolic. For gay people to be denied the chance to marry is
>clear and plain discrimination; no more, no less.
Only if you accept and promote it as such.
> It is just as
>important for many gay couples to affirm their love for each other and
>their relationship with a ceremonial event as it is for straight
>couples.
So ceremonial event = marriage does it?
>Secondly: pragmatic. There are a lot of advantages to being married
>over being "together"; tax and financial privileges, benefits at work,
>and the rights of "next of kin" to name but three. These are all
>advantages that are worth fighting for.
Not an argument in favour of 'marriage'. They are advantages (which, in
any case, I am not sure any form of partnership should confer) conferred
by law - law can confer them on any status.
>
>The reasons people are arguing about "marriage" rather than just
>"civil partnerships" cross both of these. Yes, it is symbolic - we
>don't want an 'equal but different' ceremony, we want the same
>ceremony. Why should we not have it?
Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory? The important thing is
equality, not conformity. This is a bogus argument, driven by faulty
thinking, that generates opposition for no good reason.
Briefs Bandit
news:e94240lmt5c2p4s9j...@4ax.com...
The US has a "separate bur equal" policy for decades. I sense this is
similar to your "similar but different" reasoning. The end result was Brown
v. Board Of Education (Topeka, Kansas) where the policy was overturned. In
practice, the separate facilities were wholly unequal and disadvantageous to
those enduring it. Civil Unions don't equal marriage. Although over here a
gay or lesbian couple can, in effect, incorporate, it still doesn't provide
the 1000+ Federal benefits of actual marriage.
James
Steven Capsuto
> Not an argument in favour of 'marriage'. They are advantages (which, in
> any case, I am not sure any form of partnership should confer) conferred
> by law - law can confer them on any status.
One can argue whether governments should be in the marriage business
to begin with, but as long as they are they should administer it in an
evenhanded, rational manner. As long as nonreproductive marriages are
allowed (marriages between the elderly, for instance), it's hard to
make a rational case for barring same-sex marriage.
>
> >The reasons people are arguing about "marriage" rather than just
> >"civil partnerships" cross both of these. Yes, it is symbolic - we
> >don't want an 'equal but different' ceremony, we want the same
> >ceremony. Why should we not have it?
>
> Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory?
For the same reasons why "separate but equal" racially segregated
government schools were not satisfactory. The drive for separate
institutions, in both cases, is driven by a belief that one group is
inherently suspect, inferior and possibly dangerous. If you doubt
that, look at the rhetoric coming out of the anti gay marriage camp.
That presupposition of unworthiness leads the separate institutions to
be unequal.
> The important thing is
> equality, not conformity.
You seem to be confusing two things: the availability of the same
legal options to all citizens (equality) and whether any given couple
-- gay *or* straight -- feels the need to buy into the institution of
marriage (conformity). Again, if it's available for some, it should
be available for all unless there is a relevant qualitative difference
between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. Since reproduction
clearly isn't what's at issue, given the government's willingness to
marry the elderly, the sterile and infertile, people who've had
surgery to avoid reproducing, etc., the principle of equality would
seem to require making the option of marriage available to all couples
or none at all. What people choose to do with the option of marriage
once it is offered is their own business.
--
Steven Capsuto, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Stu
In modern usage it refers to any union between two people, civil or
religious.
I may well be mistaken, but I thought "marriage" was originally a
religious sacrament, and the bible promotes marriage as being between
man and a women. Both ourselves & our American friends are a Christian
country, allegedly.
If you accept the full and complete definition of marriage in modern
society (modern being at post Websters 1913) then I agree there is no
reason against same sex marriages.
\Mar"riage\, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See {Marry},
v. t.]
4. Any intimate or close union.
If you take the traditional definition of the religious sacrament to the
letter I don't believe same sex partnerships fits into this category.
That being said, marriage was devised as a monogamous relationship but
Moses didn't seem to notice this.
From a religious point of view, the dilution of marriage started a very
long time ago, and to now block further dilution would seem discriminatory.
I'm babbling and I'm not really sure I've made a point, but I'm trying
to put in electrons what I'm thinking so please be gentle :)
Stu
Gregoire Kretz
> I wonder if Canada is recognizing other countries' same-sex marriages,
> or just their own.
I thought the case was still pending anyway?
Greg
--
g k t z {a} wanadoo . fr
- You know what I think?
- Yes, that's why I've been avoiding you.
Gregoire Kretz
> In message <2004022607161...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk>, Lyn
> David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
> >I don't have your confidence... there is a mechanism for bypassing the
> >state legislatures, state conventions. I think it would be relatively
> >easy to get a bandwagon rolling on this one that would overcome the
> >objections of the legislatures. I think it could very easily happen.
> >
>
> Yup - the god botherers would go all out to railroad something like this
> through.
Until the next backlash from the electorate.
'Spinning wheel, gotta go 'round...' :)
Gregoire Kretz
> Sanctity, a pair of boobs going down like the titanic. :)
If it had had boobs maybe it wouldn't have sunk. :)
Robert Marshall
>
> I think it depends on what meaning you attach to the word
> "marriage". In modern usage it refers to any union between two
> people, civil or religious.
>
> I may well be mistaken, but I thought "marriage" was originally a
> religious sacrament, and the bible promotes marriage as being
> between man and a women. Both ourselves & our American friends are
> a Christian country, allegedly.
>
Can I recommend a trip over to France where all weddings are secular
and have been since the revolution (or was it 1908, Greg?). A wedding
ceremony in church in France is not a marriage!
Though I think the Christian view has always(?) been that marriage is
a creation thingy so religious content is not necessary to make it a
marriage. That being taken on board I'm not even sure that a
difference in gender is necessary.
(what happened to that cross posting proposal between here and uk.r.c?
(g,d & r))
R
--
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau
Lyn David Thomas
Stu <s...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> I think it depends on what meaning you attach to the word "marriage".
> In modern usage it refers to any union between two people, civil or
> religious.
>
> I may well be mistaken, but I thought "marriage" was originally a
> religious sacrament,
No it was as contract between people which settled who would inherit
what.
Religion got involved too, but it was mainly about inheritance.
>and the bible promotes marriage as being between
> man and a women. Both ourselves & our American friends are a
> Christian country, allegedly.
Well the USA officially promotes no religion, its forbidden by its
constitution to have any state religion. And while one part of the UK
has an official state religion at least two parts of it don't and in one
part of it the status of the national church is a bit ambiguous at best.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Stu
> and have been since the revolution (or was it 1908, Greg?). A wedding
> ceremony in church in France is not a marriage!
I believe my questioning of Moses' view of marriage & the associated
ceremony which presumably accompanied it, predates 1908.
My point was how the meaning of the word changed from it's perceived
ideal at its inception to it's use in society. To not recognise this
change is bigoted. To try and force these ideals, which one could
truthfully say have hardly been upheld over the years, on minorities is
discriminatory.
Apologies, that last sentence was terrible, i hope no one is recovering
from a hangover reading that ;)
Stu
Steven Capsuto
> I think it depends on what meaning you attach to the word "marriage".
> In modern usage it refers to any union between two people, civil or
> religious.
>
> I may well be mistaken, but I thought "marriage" was originally a
> religious sacrament, and the bible promotes marriage as being between
> man and a women. Both ourselves & our American friends are a Christian
> country, allegedly.
I don't know who alleges this. The founders and Constitution of the
U.S. don't allege this. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote
(and I'm quoting from memory, so this may not be his exact wording),
that "It should not be the State's concern whether my neighbor
preaches that there are twelve gods or none at all." Sharing any one
religious belief should not be a requirement to take advantage of
government-administered institutions. With Britain replacing (or
having replaced?) its blasphemy laws with protection of all religious
viewpoints, both are secular countries where everyday civil law is
concerned.
Religious marriage and legal marriage are separate concepts, even when
they coincide at the same wedding. If they didn't, then governments
of predominantly Christian nations would not recognize the marriages
of non-Christians, interfaith marriages, and certainly not a marriage
between atheists, for example.
The religious issues of marriage are administered by religious
organizations -- many of which, incidentally, have performed same-sex
ceremonies for decades, even in the absence of legal recognition. But
civil marriage is administered by governments and does not require
adherence to any particular faith. Given that, the biblical
definition of marriage (which, as you pointed out, allows for
polygamy) has no relevance to this conversation.
> If you take the traditional definition of the religious sacrament to the
> letter I don't believe same sex partnerships fits into this category.
Again, what's at issue is civil marriage: recognition by governments.
The concept of a "sacrament" exists in only one religion --
Christianity -- and only in about four or five denominations of
Christianity at that. Unless we're going to limit civil marriage to
members of those few sects, the concept of sacraments is irrelevant.
> That being said, marriage was devised as a monogamous relationship but
> Moses didn't seem to notice this.
Marriage predates both Christianity and Judaism. No one knows what it
was "devised as," but it's more plausible that it was devised as a
property arrangement (husband owning wives) than the theory you
propose.
> From a religious point of view, the dilution of marriage started a very
> long time ago,
You confuse change with dilution. Arguably, it became "diluted" when
polygamy was replaced with monogamy, but I doubt you'd consider that a
bad thing.
> I'm babbling and I'm not really sure I've made a point, but I'm trying
> to put in electrons what I'm thinking so please be gentle :)
As long as I don't have to be gentile while I'm being gentle. :-)
Lyn David Thomas
stev...@dca.net (Steven Capsuto) wrote:
> With Britain replacing (or
> having replaced?) its blasphemy laws with protection of all religious
> viewpoints, both are secular countries where everyday civil law is
> concerned.
Indeed - the UK has no established religion - and most of the religious
disabilities have gone (the main exception being that of the religion of
the monarch) - to all intent and purpose the UK is a secular state.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Gregoire Kretz
> > Can I recommend a trip over to France
Any time. Just avoid Paris.
> > where all weddings are secular
> > and have been since the revolution (or was it 1908, Greg?).
I think you're right. It may have been separated with the revolution but
there's been so much start and stop in the following century that they
really had to formally separate church and state later on.
> > A wedding
> > ceremony in church in France is not a marriage!
Priest: so tell me in your words why you want a religious wedding?
Colleague: Why, because it looks fabulous of course!
Another colleague's wife works at the registrar for domestic
partnerships. Apparently the first one was celebrated with music and
flower petals - I guess that's not something you see too often in a
tribunal. :)
> My point was how the meaning of the word changed from it's perceived
> ideal at its inception to it's use in society. To not recognise this
> change is bigoted. To try and force these ideals, which one could
> truthfully say have hardly been upheld over the years, on minorities is
> discriminatory.
>
> Apologies, that last sentence was terrible, i hope no one is recovering
> from a hangover reading that ;)
*Sgrmbl*
I'll get you for that.
Michael King
Are you sure the UK does not have an established church and therefore an
established religion ?
Michael
--
AIM/MSN/Yahoo! = kmichaelking
ICQ = 235962719
JohnM
<m...@spit.roast.me.uk> writes
>Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory? The important thing is
>equality, not conformity. This is a bogus argument, driven by faulty
>thinking, that generates opposition for no good reason.
>
I agree about that. I have never understood why it must be exactly the
same marriage as heterosexuals have and be called that at all costs.
Surely, as you say, the goal is equality in law with conventional
marriage.
Boswell has noted that the Eastern churches celebrated a form of gay
marriage called adelphopoiisis brother-making ceremony (or better,
sibling-making as the word stem adelpho can be used for sisters as well
as brothers depending on the ending). this was a full Christian ceremony
that celebrated and bonded the friendship between two males (or, I
suppose, females though the status of women did not allow it).
The only argument against the "separate but equal" argument is that it
was used for racial segregation so it carries with it a lot of baggage
and mistrust.
Robert Marshall
>
> > Can I recommend a trip over to France where all weddings are
> > secular and have been since the revolution (or was it 1908,
> > Greg?). A wedding ceremony in church in France is not a marriage!
>
> I believe my questioning of Moses' view of marriage & the associated
> ceremony which presumably accompanied it, predates 1908.
>
Moses Who?
> My point was how the meaning of the word changed from it's perceived
> ideal at its inception to it's use in society.
Though marriage ceremonies were uncommon - at least in the UK apart
from the rich and powerful until, mumble, maybe the last 200 years
> To not recognise
> this change is bigoted. To try and force these ideals, which one
> could truthfully say have hardly been upheld over the years, on
> minorities is discriminatory.
>
I don't think we're disagreeing!
Robert
Niles
|Marriage predates both Christianity and Judaism. No one knows what it
|was "devised as," but it's more plausible that it was devised as a
|property arrangement (husband owning wives) than the theory you
|propose.
There was something I read here once about the Babylonians inventing
marriage as an economic tool to force men to work: if they didn't work,
their wives and children starved.
n
--
| Niles, Nottingham
"Excuse me! | ICQ UIN 12724766
-- I'm a virtuous person now." | outpages.com/nilex
| www.niles.org.uk
Tom Hens
Stu <s...@nospam.co.uk> wrote...
> > Can I recommend a trip over to France where all weddings are secular
> > and have been since the revolution (or was it 1908, Greg?). A wedding
> > ceremony in church in France is not a marriage!
>
> I believe my questioning of Moses' view of marriage & the associated
> ceremony which presumably accompanied it, predates 1908.
I don't think invented mythological figures like Moses can be said to have
views on anything. It makes as much sense as debating Zeus's views on
marriage.
Tom Hens
JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> In article <e94240lmt5c2p4s9j...@4ax.com>, St Mym
> <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> writes
> >Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory? The important thing is
> >equality, not conformity. This is a bogus argument, driven by faulty
> >thinking, that generates opposition for no good reason.
>
> I agree about that. I have never understood why it must be exactly the
> same marriage as heterosexuals have and be called that at all costs.
> Surely, as you say, the goal is equality in law with conventional
> marriage.
Please explain: what is the difference between "exactly the same marriage
as heterosexuals have" (which you don't want) and "equality in law with
conventional marriage" (which you do want)? I'm afraid I can't grasp this
subtle distinction.
> Boswell has noted that the Eastern churches celebrated a form of gay
> marriage called adelphopoiisis brother-making ceremony (or better,
> sibling-making as the word stem adelpho can be used for sisters as well
> as brothers depending on the ending). this was a full Christian ceremony
> that celebrated and bonded the friendship between two males (or, I
> suppose, females though the status of women did not allow it).
Why do people keep on dragging the internal affairs of various sects of
Christianity and Judaism into this discussion? What do rituals that
Christians currently perform in their churches, or long-dead Christians
allegedly used to perform in theirs, have to do with my right to marry?
BTW, I'm not a historian or a Latin scholar, but I did read one of
Boswell's books a long time ago and caught him in at least two blatant
mistakes in quoting Latin sources. In one of these he turned a line (from
Martial) into the exact opposite of what the author meant to support a
dubious argument he was making. I've been highly suspicious of him ever
since. If an amateur in this field like me can find such glaring errors in
his work without looking for them, one cannot help but wonder how much of
the rest is reliable.
> The only argument against the "separate but equal" argument is that it
> was used for racial segregation so it carries with it a lot of baggage
> and mistrust.
Indeed. The *only* argument against "separate but equal", then as now, is
that it's nothing more than a transparent rhetorical ploy to cover up
blatant inequality.
How on earth can two legally defined concepts, i.e. "marriage" and "civil
partnership", be completely equal, yet at the same time somehow different?
When I see discussions on this topic on Usenet, I sometimes feel like I've
stumbled into a conference of 14th century scholastic theologians.
Tom Hens
Gregoire Kretz <gr...@spamtrap.fr> wrote...
> Stu <s...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Can I recommend a trip over to France
>
> Any time. Just avoid Paris.
>
> > > where all weddings are secular
> > > and have been since the revolution (or was it 1908, Greg?).
>
> I think you're right. It may have been separated with the revolution but
> there's been so much start and stop in the following century that they
> really had to formally separate church and state later on.
The right to marry people was taken away from the church and turned into a
purely secular matter by the Code Napoléon, which was largely a
codification of earlier French revolutionary laws. It was also imposed on
the countries Napoleon conquered. This is why church marriages have been
abolished in Belgium since 1796, and in the Netherlands since 1811. (In
France itself, I think it was 1792, but I'm not sure.) Napoleon went, but
his laws remained.
JohnM
me.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> writes
>
>How on earth can two legally defined concepts, i.e. "marriage" and "civil
>partnership", be completely equal, yet at the same time somehow different?
>When I see discussions on this topic on Usenet, I sometimes feel like I've
>stumbled into a conference of 14th century scholastic theologians.
Sorry to snip so much Tom, but it is your last statement that I fully
agree with. It does seem to me, too, that when people talk about same-
sex unions they are arguing not just semantics like your theologians. I
don't care what it's called as long as the end result is the same. In
the UK we are not that religious and if the result of a civil
partnership is the same as heterosexual marriage in law, I don't care
what is it called. People WILL call it gay marriage in the vernacular
anyway and "civilly-partnered" couples will call each other "married".
The rest is, indeed, scholasticism. However, I do take the point which I
also stressed about the baggage of 'separate but equal' and reserve
judgement to see how things go.
JohnM
<alex....@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>There was something I read here once about the Babylonians inventing
>marriage as an economic tool to force men to work: if they didn't work,
>their wives and children starved.
It's the opposite in Africa Niles. It's the women who work the fields so
the more women you marry, the more workers you have (and the more
offspring who also bring you wealth).
Mike Peterson
"Jonathan Bratt" <jonny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:qm5ZofCk...@aol.com...
> In message <2004022607161...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk>, Lyn
> David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >charlie <an...@anon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Thankfully I feel this proposal is dead in the water, before it has
> >> even seen the light of day. The check's & balances of the American
> >> constitution seem to be such that this will never be approved by
> >> Senate / Congress & the neccesary 3/4 of the state legeslatures to
> >> become part of the constitution.
> >
> >I don't have your confidence... there is a mechanism for bypassing the
> >state legislatures, state conventions. I think it would be relatively
> >easy to get a bandwagon rolling on this one that would overcome the
> >objections of the legislatures. I think it could very easily happen.
> >
>
> Yup - the god botherers would go all out to railroad something like this
> through.
> Jonathan Bratt
>
Yes, like Fred Phelps, the religious-right of the US is looking for easy
targets because monetary contributions to them are slowing down as they, the
religious-right, have achieved their major goals: electing a Republican
president, electing Republican control to both Houses of Congress, and
slowing the legalisation of abortion. So they now have their sights on the
"gay agenda" as a divisive issue to keep money flowing into their coffers.
I am NOT a member of the foil hat brigade. :-)
Lyn David Thomas
Yes I am, the UK does not, England does, but England does not equal the UK.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Rexx Magnus
>> If such a scheme was to ever happen, I doubt very strongly whether I
>> would choose to enter into it.
>
> Fair enough, that's your prerogative. I know quite a few straight
> couples who feel the same way.
Simple answer then. As there are plenty of straight couples who don't want
to get married, all we have to do is get weddings abolished. :)
To email me, visit the site.
Rexx Magnus
>> I believe my questioning of Moses' view of marriage & the associated
>> ceremony which presumably accompanied it, predates 1908.
>
> I don't think invented mythological figures like Moses can be said to have
> views on anything. It makes as much sense as debating Zeus's views on
> marriage.
>
Not when if you take the view that the bible is totally fictional, that
we've been basing this thing called marriage on said fictional text - thus
the views of fictional characters in said text are important. ;)
Michael King
Then we agree that the established church in England is the Anglican church.
I refer to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=185.
Population Census 2001.
England 83.6% Total England 83.6%
Scotland 8.6% )
Wales 4.9% ) Total not England 16.4%
NI 2.9% )
Thus for 83.6% of the UK's population there is an established church and for
only 16.4% there is not.
I would suggest then that for the overwhelming majority of the population of
the UK there is an established church. I cannot square this with your
original statement.
While it is true that England <> UK (heaven forbid), the minority parts of
the union cannot be said to hold majority.
M
Tom Hens
Rexx Magnus <tras...@uk2.net> wrote...
Thinking that the institution of marriage is based on the bible doesn't
qualify as a "view", even a weird one. It's delusional, theocratic
nonsense.
Tom Hens
Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...<snip>
> > Are you sure the UK does not have an established church and therefore
> > an established religion ?
>
> Yes I am, the UK does not, England does, but England does not equal the
> UK.
You're playing semantic games. The prime minister of the United Kingdom
(who needn't be either English, Anglican or even Christian) gets to appoint
the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishops of the Church of England still sit in
the House of Lords and can vote on legislation affecting the whole United
Kingdom. Conversely, non-English members of the UK parliament can also vote
on matters concerning the Church of England, since Parliament has to
rubberstamp some of the decisions of their synod. If that doesn't
constitute having an established religion in the United Kingdom, what does?
Just why people in the UK keep putting up with these bizarre mediaeval
arrangements is beyond me. But then, they also still put up with members of
parliament who are there by right of birth.
Rexx Magnus
>> Not when if you take the view that the bible is totally fictional, that
>> we've been basing this thing called marriage on said fictional text -
>> thus the views of fictional characters in said text are important. ;)
>
> Thinking that the institution of marriage is based on the bible doesn't
> qualify as a "view", even a weird one. It's delusional, theocratic
> nonsense.
>
>
You'll happily provide a reference as to where marriage was concieved
before the bible popped up, then? :)
Tom Hens
Rexx Magnus <tras...@uk2.net> wrote...
Yes. As soon as you provide me with a reference as to where and when the
bible "popped up", I'll happily provide you with references to marriage
existing long before that, as well as in cultures that never even heard of
the bible.
> :)
You seem to be adding this to the end of just about every post you make.
Why?
Lyn David Thomas
"Tom Hens" <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
> Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...<snip>
>
> > > Are you sure the UK does not have an established church and
> > > therefore an established religion ?
> >
> > Yes I am, the UK does not, England does, but England does not equal
> > the UK.
>
> You're playing semantic games.
Not at all, its a semantic argument to argue that the UK as a state has
an established church when only one component of it does.
> The prime minister of the United Kingdom
> (who needn't be either English, Anglican or even Christian) gets to
> appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishops of the Church of England
> still sit in the House of Lords and can vote on legislation affecting
> the whole United Kingdom. Conversely, non-English members of the UK
> parliament can also vote on matters concerning the Church of England,
> since Parliament has to rubberstamp some of the decisions of their
> synod. If that doesn't constitute having an established religion in
> the United Kingdom, what does?
It is only established for one part of the UK, thus as it doesn't cover
the whole of the UK the UK as such can't be said to have an established
church. If the Church of England controled the anglican communities of
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland you may have had a point. But it
doesn't. It is restricted to England only.
> Just why people in the UK keep putting up with these bizarre mediaeval
> arrangements is beyond me. But then, they also still put up with
> members of parliament who are there by right of birth.
Not any more... those are going, and yes I agree with you in a general
sense, it make no sense for the established church of one section of the
UK to have the right of representation in Parliament, while the leaders
of the other (semi) established church in the UK doesn't - to say
nothing of the leaders of other religious communities.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
Michael King <kmicha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then we agree that the established church in England is the Anglican
> church.
>
> I refer to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=185.
> Population Census 2001.
> England 83.6% Total England 83.6%
> Scotland 8.6% )
> Wales 4.9% ) Total not England 16.4%
> NI 2.9% )
>
> Thus for 83.6% of the UK's population there is an established church
> and for only 16.4% there is not.
This argument that because England is the biggest bit of the UK is
irrelevant. There is no state Church for the UK. There may be one for
one component where the majority of the population live, but that does
not equate with there being an official United Kingdom wide state
church.
> I would suggest then that for the overwhelming majority of the
> population of the UK there is an established church. I cannot square
> this with your original statement.
>
> While it is true that England <> UK (heaven forbid), the minority
> parts of the union cannot be said to hold majority.
We are talking about different things. There is no UK state church,
just an English state church, very different things. I suggest you take
another look at the nature of the state we live in.
Remember the Church of England doesn't exist outside England. There may
be affiliated Churches elsewhere in the World but that isn't the same
thing.
--
Lyn David Thomas
Owain
"Stu" wrote
| I may well be mistaken, but I thought "marriage" was originally
| a religious sacrament, and the bible promotes marriage as being
| between man and a women. Both ourselves & our American friends
| are a Christian country, allegedly.
For some reason the following appeared in rec.travel.europe
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4040178D.F3B158BF%40Rayy.com
I don't know how accurate the poster was when he wrote the following. As
others have said, either way it shouldn't affect our secular law.
Owain
<selective quote>
Emperor Nero, who reigned between 54 and 68 ad, took the marriage vows with
a young man named Sporus, in a very public ceremony ...
Legal references to marriages of two males, that still exist, occur
as early as the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Montaigne saw it
performed in Rome in his lifetime. Venetian ambassadors to
Rome in the 17th and 18th centuries wrote of the same sex
marriage practice. The heterosexual marriage (as thought of today)
derives principally from Roman secular customs. It originally
consisted of the ceremony at which the husband took over the
possession of the wife from her father, because women and
children were property of the father and the girls were
transferred as property to the husband. In 1215, heterosexual
marriage was officially declared a sacrament by the
Roman Catholic Church, and consent was recognized as a
necessary component of the union.
In contrast, the same-sex marriage service was from the beginning
performed in a church (not outside the church or at home as
heterosexual marriages as a property transfer contract), and was
always thought of as a sacrament. It always involved consent,
because men were equal and not property, and the same-sex service
pre-dates as a religious service any heterosexual one.
The church had a "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century)
and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) married his companion John.
Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late
12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales
(Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish
Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at
Mass by the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the
same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together",
as reported by a contemporary report. In Rome same sex marriages
were performed up to the first half of the 18th century, when
it was observed by the Venetian ambassadors to Rome. It was
performed in the Italy and to the east up through the 18th and
19th centuries. These services appears in Greek liturgical manuals
of the 17th and 18th century which are officially approved
by the Roman Catholic Church.
Since the time of the same sex marriage with Jesus pictured as
the best man of St. Serge to St. Bacchus and their subsequent
martyrdom, it became the archetype for the same-sex marriage,
that prayers woud say things like "united like Serge and Bacchus."
To say that marriage has always been between one man to one
woman flies in the face of legal and liturgical documents that
date back before 2000 years ago.
</uote>
.
Rexx Magnus
>>You'll happily provide a reference as to where marriage was concieved
>>before the bible popped up, then? :)
>
>
> I find it hard to believe that mankind only formulated the concept of
> marriage as a result of the arrival of the bible. What happened in the
> 3000 years before it appeared on the scene?
People had associations that were a bit less 'binding'?
Rexx Magnus
>> You'll happily provide a reference as to where marriage was concieved
>> before the bible popped up, then?
>
> Yes. As soon as you provide me with a reference as to where and when the
> bible "popped up", I'll happily provide you with references to marriage
> existing long before that, as well as in cultures that never even heard
> of the bible.
>
>> :)
>
> You seem to be adding this to the end of just about every post you make.
> Why?
>
Because when I want to be serious, or not intend something as lighthearted
humour, I won't add it.
JohnM
stirlingcity.co.uk> writes
>
>Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) married his companion John.
>
He went through the 'brotherhood' ceremony a difrerent ceremony as I
said from marriage in the Eastern churches.
>At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish
>
>Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at
>
>Mass by the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the
>
>same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together",
>
>as reported by a contemporary report. In Rome same sex marriages
>
>were performed up to the first half of the 18th century, when
>
>it was observed by the Venetian ambassadors to Rome. It was
>
>performed in the Italy and to the east up through the 18th and
>
>19th centuries. These services appears in Greek liturgical manuals
>
>of the 17th and 18th century which are officially approved
>
>by the Roman Catholic Church.
That is certainly false. Nothing in the Greek or any other Eastern
churches need be approved by the Catholic church ever since the Schism
of 1053 (or was it 1054?). In fact non-approval probably is better
politically than approval.
St Mym
Oh dear, hook, line and sinker :)
--
st mym.
saeva indignatio.
St Mym
<stevieiny...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>St Mym wrote:
>
>> Only if you accept and promote it as such.
>
>Straight people can get married. Gay people can't. Tell me how that is
>NOT discrimination.
It isn't unless you define marriage to make it so.
>> Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory?
>
>Because it rarely works out equal.
So concentrate your fire there.
>We have the opportunity to try to create equality from the word go.
Exactly. So get on with creating it, rather than getting hung up on a word
and an already existing, unequal status.
>Why should we settle for something less?
Why should you accept the terms of engagement of your enemy.
St Mym
<tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>Please explain: what is the difference between "exactly the same marriage
>as heterosexuals have" (which you don't want) and "equality in law with
>conventional marriage" (which you do want)? I'm afraid I can't grasp this
>subtle distinction.
Really? Then why do you dismiss the latter as "a transparent rhetorical
ploy to cover up blatant inequality." ?
>Why do people keep on dragging the internal affairs of various sects of
>Christianity and Judaism into this discussion? What do rituals that
>Christians currently perform in their churches, or long-dead Christians
>allegedly used to perform in theirs, have to do with my right to marry?
A lot, if your obsessive pursuit of a bogus symbolic 'equality' has the
effect of rousing enough opposition from those groups to make sure that
you diminish the chances of getting real, practical equality.
> When I see discussions on this topic on Usenet, I sometimes feel like I've
> stumbled into a conference of 14th century scholastic theologians.
Well you're the one obsessed with quasi-theological terms.
Leave the religious fools to "their" word and deal with the real issues.
You sound just like some old right-wing bigot moaning about how the word
gay has been hijacked...
Lyn David Thomas
St Mym <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >Yes I am, the UK does not, England does, but England does not equal the UK.
>
> Oh dear, hook, line and sinker :)
Explain?
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That is certainly false. Nothing in the Greek or any other Eastern
> churches need be approved by the Catholic church ever since the Schism
> of 1053 (or was it 1054?). In fact non-approval probably is better
> politically than approval.
Didn't the Vatican set up a puppet eastern right church - as an attempt
to undermine the Greek and other orthodox churches? Maybe that is a
reference to that?
--
Lyn David Thomas
Tom Hens
St Mym <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> wrote...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:34:45 GMT, being the year 2755 AUC, "Tom Hens"
> <tom....@iname.com.DELETE.THIS.BIT> wrote:
>
> >Please explain: what is the difference between "exactly the same
> >marriage as heterosexuals have" (which you don't want) and "equality
> >in law with conventional marriage" (which you do want)? I'm afraid
> >I can't grasp this subtle distinction.
>
> Really? Then why do you dismiss the latter as "a transparent rhetorical
> ploy to cover up blatant inequality." ?
You must be confused, I did no such thing. I was asking someone who seems
to be in favour of "a legally recognised civil partnership between two
people that carries the exact same rights and responsibilities as
marriage", but against "marriage", what the supposed difference between
those two things is, leading him to oppose one and support the other. I
really don't get this level of legal sophistry. If you know how two legally
defined concepts can be exactly equal, yet at the same time somehow
different, please provide a concrete example.
Separately, I also pointed out that "separate but equal" in practice never
meant equal, and there is no reason to think it would suddenly start doing
so in this case. As I already said, that is one of the points the
Massachussets Supreme Court made, whose judges I assume know a lot more
about this than I do. Do you really think that the same people who oppose
same-sex marriages can be fooled into supporting a new, supposedly separate
legal entity that would be exactly the same as marriage, only under a
different name? They're not *that* stupid. And that if such a separate
entity were to be created, that they wouldn't be doing their best to keep
it as second-class as possible?
There clearly are people who like a form of "marriage-lite", as is shown by
the number of (opposite- and same-sex) couples in the Netherlands and
Belgium who go for registered partnerships rather than marriage. I don't
know why, but such people exist. But those registered partnerships aren't
"separate but equal" to marriage, they're separate and not equal, on
purpose. Just as the various forms of civil partnerships in France,
Germany, the Scandinavian countries, etc. are separate and not equal.
> >Why do people keep on dragging the internal affairs of various sects of
> >Christianity and Judaism into this discussion? What do rituals that
> >Christians currently perform in their churches, or long-dead Christians
> >allegedly used to perform in theirs, have to do with my right to marry?
>
> A lot, if your obsessive pursuit of a bogus symbolic 'equality'
How is having the same law apply to everyone either "bogus" or "symbolic"?
And how would creating a separate new entity for same-sex couples that is
different from marriage result in "equality"?
> has the
> effect of rousing enough opposition from those groups to make sure that
> you diminish the chances of getting real, practical equality.
I am not a politician who is by the nature of the game often required to
settle for a lot less than what he would really like to get. If for
practical political reasons, in a particular country you can get only
"civil partnership" legislation through that offers some of the benefits of
marriage to gay couples, then by all means go for it. But why I or anyone
else should stop pointing out that some Christians still haven't gotten it
through their thick skulls that marriage is a civil institution defined by
laws, not by their God, is beyond me.
> > When I see discussions on this topic on Usenet, I sometimes feel like
> > I've stumbled into a conference of 14th century scholastic theologians.
>
> Well you're the one obsessed with quasi-theological terms.
Where I live, civil law isn't "quasi-theological". Which particular
theocracy do you live in?
> Leave the religious fools to "their" word and deal with the real issues.
It's not a word, it's a legal institution. Good luck on your project to con
those "religious fools" into supporting the introduction of same-sex
marriage, by the clever ruse of putting the word "civil partnership" at the
top of the form instead of "marriage". They'll feel *so* stupid when then
realise how cleverly you've rumbled them.
Tom Hens
Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:03:40 GMT
You're thinking of the Uniate Churches, who recognize papal supremacy, but
retain their own languages and (eastern orthodox) liturgy.
Rexx Magnus
>>Why should we settle for something less?
>
> Why should you accept the terms of engagement of your enemy.
...Or marriage! ;-)
St Mym
stev...@dca.net (Steven Capsuto) wrote:
>St Mym <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> wrote in message news:<e94240lmt5c2p4s9j...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Not an argument in favour of 'marriage'. They are advantages (which, in
>> any case, I am not sure any form of partnership should confer) conferred
>> by law - law can confer them on any status.
>
>One can argue whether governments should be in the marriage business
>to begin with, but as long as they are they should administer it in an
>evenhanded, rational manner.
Indeed, by establishing civil partnerships as an envelope to give whatever
rights that state sees fit to *all* partnerships that seek public
recognition - whatever they are called.
>> Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory?
>
>For the same reasons why "separate but equal" racially segregated
>government schools were not satisfactory.
Terms are not rendered unusable because there are bad examples of their
use - this is the "they stole that nice word 'gay' argument again.
>The drive for separate
>institutions, in both cases, is driven by a belief that one group is
>inherently suspect, inferior and possibly dangerous. If you doubt
>that, look at the rhetoric coming out of the anti gay marriage camp.
But the anti-gay camp are also opposed to Civil Partnership status, they
are not behind the drive.
>> The important thing is
>> equality, not conformity.
>
>You seem to be confusing two things: the availability of the same
>legal options to all citizens (equality) and whether any given couple
>-- gay *or* straight -- feels the need to buy into the institution of
>marriage (conformity).
No, the confusion is over the notion that "marriage" is the only status
that matters - to accept the 'marriage is special' agenda of the religious
right is to fight the wrong battle.
>Again, if it's available for some, it should
>be available for all
Indeed, but we disagree on what the "it" is.
Steven Capsuto
If the terminology is going to be different, there ought to be a good
reason for it. Imagine if the law arbitrarily said that people of
South Asian descent (or non-Christians or any other group) can still
cast ballots in national elections but the words "voting" and
"elections" can't be used in connection with them: it'll be called
"civil opinion" instead. Wouldn't the mere fact that they are singled
out constitute government endorsement of their supposed inferiority
and promote prejudice?
As for whether the push for full-fledged marriage is
counterproductive, I think it is very useful. It redefines center and
increases the possibility of civil unions' being approved. Certainly
here in the States, the recent actions of the Massachusetts court and
the city of San Francisco have made civil unions sound like a moderate
to conservative solution, whereas six months ago civil union was
typically painted as a radical social change.
In addition, as others have pointed out, marriage makes portable the
protection for gay couples and for families headed by gay couples. A
Vermont civil union is valid only in Vermont, and even there it lacks
most of the thousand or more legal and financial benefits and
protections that a nationally or internationally recognized marriage
would bring.
--
Steven Capsuto, Philadelphia, PA, USA
http://www.stevecap.com
St Mym
Reeled in.
Him, not you.
Michael King
Lyn David Thomas
Yes I am....
--
Lyn David Thomas
Lyn David Thomas
OK you are forgiven :-)
--
Lyn David Thomas
Steven Capsuto
> >to begin with, but as long as they are they should administer it in an
> >evenhanded, rational manner.
>
> Indeed, by establishing civil partnerships as an envelope to give whatever
> rights that state sees fit to *all* partnerships that seek public
> recognition - whatever they are called.
In law, what things are called matters. I'm fine with taking away the
legal status of the word "marriage" and saying that that term will
apply to non-legally-binding ceremonies performed by religious
institutions, and applying the term civil partnership to the legal
forming of unions. But it seems unnecessarily confusing when there's
already a perfectly good, clear term like "marriage" to use.
>
> >> Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory?
> Terms are not rendered unusable because there are bad examples of their
> use
If they were really equal, they wouldn't need a separate name.
> - this is the "they stole that nice word 'gay' argument again.
>
How is that an example of what you just described?
> >The drive for separate
> >institutions, in both cases, is driven by a belief that one group is
> >inherently suspect, inferior and possibly dangerous. If you doubt
> >that, look at the rhetoric coming out of the anti gay marriage camp.
>
> But the anti-gay camp are also opposed to Civil Partnership status, they
> are not behind the drive.
>
The antigay camp is not a monolith. Again, what is the justification
for creating a separate, lesser institution? Every civil partnership
bill I've ever seen confers fewer protections than marriage -- hence
the need for a different term.
> >> The important thing is
> >> equality, not conformity.
> >
> >You seem to be confusing two things: the availability of the same
> >legal options to all citizens (equality) and whether any given couple
> >-- gay *or* straight -- feels the need to buy into the institution of
> >marriage (conformity).
>
> No, the confusion is over the notion that "marriage" is the only status
> that matters - to accept the 'marriage is special' agenda of the religious
> right is to fight the wrong battle.
Using a separate term for same-sex unions *is* buying into the
"marriage is unique" argument.
On a semi-related note: It just occurred to me that the terms of
engagement on this issue are bound to be different in our two
countries. For instance, whatever one might think of the NHS, you at
least have some form of universal health coverage, so one of the main
issues that's at stake for marriage/partnership in the U.S. wouldn't
apply in most of Europe.
>
> >Again, if it's available for some, it should
> >be available for all
>
> Indeed, but we disagree on what the "it" is.
>From your posts I'm getting an idea of what you're against. What are
you for? Perhaps a broadly defined law that allows for a wider
definition of who can form partnerships, not limited to the
traditional two-person, hetero, theoretically monogamous model?
JohnM
<m...@spit.roast.me.uk> writes
>A lot, if your obsessive pursuit of a bogus symbolic 'equality' has the
>effect of rousing enough opposition from those groups to make sure that
>you diminish the chances of getting real, practical equality.
That's what concerns me, as well, Mark. I want results not theory that
might get us nowhere.
JohnM
David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
The Uniates - mostly Ruthenian/Rusyn (as in Robert Maxwell) and
Ukrainian. Eastern Orthodox rites but they recognize the Pope as head of
the Christian church. The supposedly amazing wooden churches of Ruthenia
are in my travel itinerary this year possibly.
St Mym
<kmicha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>in article t999401cf2umrhg1s...@4ax.com, St Mym at
>m...@spit.roast.me.uk wrote on 02/03/2004 15:17:
>
>You missed my reply obviously
No, I just chose to comment at this point in the thread.
St Mym
(Steven Capsuto) wrote:
>> Indeed, by establishing civil partnerships as an envelope to give whatever
>> rights that state sees fit to *all* partnerships that seek public
>> recognition - whatever they are called.
>
>In law, what things are called matters.
No it doesn't. What the law says about them is what matters.
> I'm fine with taking away the
>legal status of the word "marriage" and saying that that term will
>apply to non-legally-binding ceremonies performed by religious
>institutions, and applying the term civil partnership to the legal
>forming of unions. But it seems unnecessarily confusing when there's
>already a perfectly good, clear term like "marriage" to use.
Looks like a clarification to me
>> >> Why is 'equal but different' not satisfactory?
>> Terms are not rendered unusable because there are bad examples of their
>> use
>
>If they were really equal, they wouldn't need a separate name.
?
I can't parse that, Steven. For a thing to be equal to another thing it
must be called the same?
>> - this is the "they stole that nice word 'gay' argument again.
>>
>How is that an example of what you just described?
Terms are not rendered unusable because there are bad examples of their
use.
>> >The drive for separate
>> >institutions, in both cases, is driven by a belief that one group is
>> >inherently suspect, inferior and possibly dangerous. If you doubt
>> >that, look at the rhetoric coming out of the anti gay marriage camp.
>>
>> But the anti-gay camp are also opposed to Civil Partnership status, they
>> are not behind the drive.
>>
>
>The antigay camp is not a monolith. Again, what is the justification
>for creating a separate, lesser institution?
Who said lesser? You.
>Every civil partnership
>bill I've ever seen confers fewer protections than marriage -- hence
>the need for a different term.
Circular logic.
>> the confusion is over the notion that "marriage" is the only status
>> that matters - to accept the 'marriage is special' agenda of the religious
>> right is to fight the wrong battle.
>
>Using a separate term for same-sex unions *is* buying into the
>"marriage is unique" argument.
Not when I do it. I'm buying *out* of the marriage is the only game in
town mindset.
>On a semi-related note: It just occurred to me that the terms of
>engagement on this issue are bound to be different in our two
>countries. For instance, whatever one might think of the NHS, you at
>least have some form of universal health coverage, so one of the main
>issues that's at stake for marriage/partnership in the U.S. wouldn't
>apply in most of Europe.
Yes, the difference is very noticeable isn't it.
You are not going to win this one in the US I fear, you are against the
instinctive views of too many people, and giving the nasty right the lever
they need. So whilst the europeans get genuine rights, genuine progress,
you will end up with nothing because you're demandung something you will
not get.
>> >Again, if it's available for some, it should
>> >be available for all
>>
>> Indeed, but we disagree on what the "it" is.
>
>>From your posts I'm getting an idea of what you're against. What are
>you for? Perhaps a broadly defined law that allows for a wider
>definition of who can form partnerships, not limited to the
>traditional two-person, hetero, theoretically monogamous model?
Non-use by the state of the term marriage to define the only acceptable
partnership would be a start.
St Mym
(Steven Capsuto) wrote:
>Largely in response to posts by the Blessed St. Mym:
>
>If the terminology is going to be different, there ought to be a good
>reason for it. Imagine if the law arbitrarily said that people of
>South Asian descent (or non-Christians or any other group) can still
>cast ballots in national elections but the words "voting" and
>"elections" can't be used in connection with them: it'll be called
>"civil opinion" instead. Wouldn't the mere fact that they are singled
>out constitute government endorsement of their supposed inferiority
>and promote prejudice?
So don't single out a group.
>As for whether the push for full-fledged marriage is
>counterproductive, I think it is very useful. It redefines center and
>increases the possibility of civil unions' being approved. Certainly
>here in the States, the recent actions of the Massachusetts court and
>the city of San Francisco have made civil unions sound like a moderate
>to conservative solution, whereas six months ago civil union was
>typically painted as a radical social change.
Heh! Trimmer! :)
Luke Alexander
<snip>
> In one of these [Boswell] turned a line (from
> Martial) into the exact opposite of what the author meant to support a
> dubious argument he was making.
Do you know which book it was from?
I've read some pretty spiteful responses to Boswell, and I don't recall
this point being raised. If it was as simple as you are suggesting, then
his opponents would have made more of an issue out of it.
Tom Hens
Steven Capsuto <stev...@dca.net> wrote...
<snip>
> In law, what things are called matters. I'm fine with taking away the
> legal status of the word "marriage" and saying that that term will
> apply to non-legally-binding ceremonies performed by religious
> institutions, and applying the term civil partnership to the legal
> forming of unions. But it seems unnecessarily confusing when there's
> already a perfectly good, clear term like "marriage" to use.
Especially since that word (and related terms like "spouse") are used in no
doubt thousands of other pieces of legislation, outside the body of law
that specifically defines marriage. Amending all of them to replace
"marriage" with "civil partnership", and "spouse" with "civil partner", to
mean exactly the same thing, seems like an incredible exercise in futility.
Tom Hens
St Mym <m...@spit.roast.me.uk> wrote...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:14:11 GMT, being the year 2755 AUC,
stev...@dca.net
> (Steven Capsuto) wrote:
<snip>
> >In law, what things are called matters.
>
> No it doesn't. What the law says about them is what matters.
<big snip>
> >>From your posts I'm getting an idea of what you're against. What are
> >you for?
<snip>
> Non-use by the state of the term marriage to define the only acceptable
> partnership would be a start.
The words used don't matter at all, therefore, the state should stop using
the word "marriage" to denote civil partnerships. Yes, that makes perfect
sense to me. And which country are you thinking of that defines marriage as
"the only acceptable partnership"? I'm not aware of unmarried couples being
proscribed in any civilised country.
Could you please just for once get specific, and explain how "marriage" and
"civil partnership" would be different, yet at the same time completely
equal, if you had the power to make whatever laws you wanted?
Michael King
m...@spit.roast.me.uk wrote on 02/03/04 23:30:
snigger
Steven Capsuto
> Trimmer! :)
Glad you noticed. The exercise routine is obviously paying off.
Gregoire Kretz
> Thus for 83.6% of the UK's population there is an established church and for
> only 16.4% there is not.
>
> I would suggest then that for the overwhelming majority of the population of
> the UK there is an established church.
Yes, but only when they're in England. :)
Greg
--
g k t z {a} wanadoo . fr
- You know what I think?
- Yes, that's why I've been avoiding you.
Gregoire Kretz
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:34:45 GMT, Tom Hens scrawled:
>
> > I don't think invented mythological figures like Moses can be said to have
> > views on anything. It makes as much sense as debating Zeus's views on
> > marriage.
>
> Not when if you take the view that the bible is totally fictional, that
> we've been basing this thing called marriage on said fictional text - thus
> the views of fictional characters in said text are important. ;)
Hm. So we can pick the prophets we want, then?
Good, on with the arbitrary! What did Jane Grigson think about mariage
then?