Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Why ? Because in a democracy, the state represents the people, ALL the people. When you are married with a religious ceremony, you are married on behalf of a God or Gods - when you are married with a state ceremony, you are married on behalf of the people, all the citizens of the State. When you marry in a religious ceremony, you vow to respect the rules set by your God - when you marry in a state ceremony, you vow to respect the laws of the State, the laws of the people, the laws that all citizens have voted for together. In other words, with a separation between the two ceremonies because they represent differents concepts, a religious marriage may not be valid in the eyes of the citizens of a different religion or of no religion at all but a civil marriage is valid in the eyes of all the citizens of the State, whatever their religious opinions because it is made on their behalf, under rules they have voted for. Now explain why you think that people should signify that they are willing to abide by the rules of their God and dispense from signifying their willingness to abide by the rules of their country.

When I got married I made vows to my wife. Not to the state or to God. In my "religious" ceremony performed by my Anglican minister father, I chose to have a communal prayer for the marriage.

Any "law" which would forbid my wife and I from praying at my own wedding would be draconianly discriminatory, and I would ignore it.

I seriously think there is a gross misconception about religious ceremonies, civil ceremonies and legal marriage and the differences between all three.

For example: You can have a religious ceremony, and if you lose the wedding certificate, or don't send it in on time you are NOT legally married, no matter what vows were made.

For example2: A couple has total free choice over the vows they make, even in a religious ceremony. They can reference the biblical example of vows or not, or make up their own. As things stand now every couple has free choice about the amount of God they want in a ceremony. There IS no God mentioned if people don't want it.

This is what I don't understand... I feel like I'm in a parallel universe or something. The system NOW caters for any and every religious/atheist worldview. Just not the homosexual one.

But whether or not a homosexual can marry is a SOCIAL issue. Homosexual couples cannot be married in American because THE STATE does not recognise it's legality.

My church could marry a homosexual couple and THE STATE wouldn't recognise it. A civil celebrant could marry a homosexual and THE STATE would not recognise it. The WEDDING CERTIFICATE will not be ratified by the GOVERNMENT if it is a male and male.

[Yorick]

Mouse that did not answer my question.

Please list the things you would deem as necessary to make a ceremony legal, for I am at a loss as to know what on earth you guys mean by this all.

As it stands there are NO legal elements to a ceremony. All the elements are CULTURAL/SOCIAL/SPIRITUAL. As I've said repeatedly, signing the certificate is the only legal element.

Am I going insane here? Why is there this huge communication block? Can we PLEASE simplify this and state what LEGAL elements people believe should be in a ceremony.

I'll state mine:

NONE. Nothing in the ceremony should be required by law. The ceremony should remain a purely cultural, social or spiritual event (or neither) of the choosing of the couple. As long as they sign the wedding certificate at some stage of the day the wedding can be whatever the couple choose.

It's exactly as it is now, but I'm trying to get some clarity.

[Yorick]

All I can assume is that there are some HUGE social differences between America/Australia and Europe/Britain.

This whole thing is wierding me out.

Even the perception of a Church is bizzarre Claude!. A church can be any building. My church meets in a film academy. If I wanted to get married in my church, I'd be getting married in a film academy.

What if my church met on the beach like Christian Surfers do? Would Christians be the only ones forbidden from getting married on that beach because it's their church?

A dedicated church building is owned by the members of the church. Not God. God is not paying the water rates or taxes, humans are. A collection of humans. They choose to dedicate the space to God, but that is all. Churches can and do get sold.

"The Limelight" is an old church building in New York City that is a nightclub. It hasn't been a church in years. Would getting married in a nightclub be forbidden?

Many churches buy old factory spaces. The members collectively own them. They can and do have parties, concerts, whatever else in them. Woudl weddings be the only thing forbidden??

This whole thing is bizzarre.

[Yorick]

Where the hell is Timber Loftis??

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Yorick: Mouse that did not answer my question. Please list the things you would deem as necessary to make a ceremony legal, for I am at a loss as to know what on earth you guys mean by this all.

It's quite simple. It's not what I deem necessary. What makes a ceremony "legal" is prescribed in a whole raft of Regulations made pursuant to primary legislation such as the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 for example.

As a member of a democratic society I am prepared to accept these formalities must be adhered to either during a civil or religious ceremony if I wish to have a marriage recognised by the state. It's quite open to me to go through whatever ceremony my faith dictates and I may well be "married" in the eyes of my faith. However, as I have repeatedly stated, unless the religious ceremony conforms to statutory requirements, I will not be married and cannot expect to be granted and rights and benefits of the status conferred by the civil authorities.

Should I feel that my religion is being unfairy discriminated against, in a democracy, the way to cure this is obvious. Use the democratic process to generate a change in the law.

I really don't see how I can put my position any more clearly.

[ 08-04-2003, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Yorick: Where the hell is Timber Loftis??

Hiding from you ?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: All I can assume is that there are some HUGE social differences between America/Australia and Europe/Britain. This whole thing is wierding me out. Even the perception of a Church is bizzarre Claude!. A church can be any building. My church meets in a film academy. If I wanted to get married in my church, I'd be getting married in a film academy. What if my church met on the beach like Christian Surfers do? Would Christians be the only ones forbidden from getting married on that beach because it's their church? A dedicated church building is owned by the members of the church. Not God. God is not paying the water rates or taxes, humans are. A collection of humans. They choose to dedicate the space to God, but that is all. Churches can and do get sold. "The Limelight" is an old church building in New York City that is a nightclub. It hasn't been a church in years. Would getting married in a nightclub be forbidden? Many churches buy old factory spaces. The members collectively own them. They can and do have parties, concerts, whatever else in them. Woudl weddings be the only thing forbidden?? This whole thing is bizzarre.

Yorick, maybe France is a special case, I don't know. The separation of church and state is fundamental to all French citizens. For us, it means that a citizen can have any opinion and belief, BUT when he is performing a public service, he or she MUST put them aside, as then he or she represents the Republic. So to me it is simply unconceivable that a civil officer performing a civil marriage should put forth his personal opinions and beliefs while performing his civil duty. Thus, to me and to all French people, (a) a civil ceremony is absolutely required because it expresses the will of the couple to be a part of the Republic community and to accept the Republican rights and duties thereof, and (b) it is unconceivable that this civil ceremony should be mingled with a religious one, because then the civil officer and the attendants would not be putting aside their personal opinions and beliefs as is required from citizens attending a civil, Republican, duty. We feel that it is the best way to ensure a functioning community of widely different people - ensuring to all freedom of opinions and beliefs and practice of them BUT not allowing them to interfere with their public duties. The Republic is what cement all of us French citizens, it represents the core of rights and duties and choices of ALL citizens.

So, when you advocate that a marriage could be valid with no ceremony at all or with a ceremony both secular and religious, my cultural feeling is that YOU are interfering with my Republican right of being non-religious. Because you are asking the Republic, on my behalf as on the behalf of all French citizens, to grant rights to people who would not have fulfilled the primary requisite the Republic asks of them. Put it simply, you are asking me to pay for something I haven't chosen to buy.

In the same line of thought, a big debate has been going on for years in France about whether wearing an Islamic veil at school should or not be allowed. I, along with the supporters of this "laïcité" (which my dictionary says translates as "secularity") which is the core and fundament of the French Republic, say NO, NO, NO ! Because the fundamental principle of our "laïc" Republic is that you can wear any religious item you want but NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE - hence, not in a public school.

EDIT : Read this. I couldn't find any article on the Web about the concept of separation of church and state as we understand it in France, but this article may have you understand somewhat better what I mean.

[ 08-04-2003, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: It's quite simple. It's not what I deem necessary. What makes a ceremony "legal" is prescribed in a whole raft of Regulations made pursuant to primary legislation such as the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 for example. I really don't see how I can put my position any more clearly.

Listing what makes a ceremony legal, and what are legal requirements to a ceremony are two different things. It doesn't help matters at all because as we both know you posted information that shows marriage is legalised with NO ceremony.

I'm asking if you can personally post what YOU regard as necessary components in a ceremony.

Why is this so hard. No-one is doing it. Everyone is happy to post that they'd like two ceremonies, but aren't able to tell me the difference.

For example Mouse, even under your proposal, there is nothing stopping me having a religious ceremony, and no civil one, and yet still being married by simply waiting a year.

This is why I need PERSONAL clarifications from contributors to this discussion.

(Ironically the spiritual "grafting" Jesus speaks of takes time, so in my mind it would take a good year to be fully spiritually married in any case.)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Yorick, maybe France is a special case, I don't know. The separation of church and state is fundamental to all French citizens. For us, it means that a citizen can have any opinion and belief, BUT when he is performing a public service, he or she MUST put them aside, as then he or she represents the Republic. So to me it is simply unconceivable that a civil officer performing a civil marriage should put forth his personal opinions and beliefs while performing his civil duty. Thus, to me and to all French people, (a) a civil ceremony is absolutely required because it expresses the will of the couple to be a part of the Republic community and to accept the Republican rights and duties thereof, and (b) it is unconceivable that this civil ceremony should be mingled with a religious one, because then the civil officer and the attendants would not be putting aside their personal opinions and beliefs as is required from citizens attending a civil, Republican, duty. We feel that it is the best way to ensure a functioning community of widely different people - ensuring to all freedom of opinions and beliefs and practice of them BUT not allowing them to interfere with their public duties. The Republic is what cement all of us French citizens, it represents the core of rights and duties and choices of ALL citizens. So, when you advocate that a marriage could be valid with no ceremony at all or with a ceremony both secular and religious, my cultural feeling is that YOU are interfering with my Republican right of being non-religious. Because you are asking the Republic, on my behalf as on the behalf of all French citizens, to grant rights to people who would not have fulfilled the primary requisite the Republic asks of them. Put it simply, you are asking me to pay for something I haven't chosen to buy. In the same line of thought, a big debate has been going on for years in France about whether wearing an Islamic veil at school should or not be allowed. I, along with the supporters of this "laïcité" (which my dictionary says translates as "secularity") which is the core and fundament of the French Republic, say NO, NO, NO ! Because the fundamental principle of our "laïc" Republic is that you can wear any religious item you want but NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE - hence, not in a public school. EDIT : Read this. I couldn't find any article on the Web about the concept of separation of church and state as we understand it in France, but this article may have you understand somewhat better what I mean.

Maybe France is a special case.

I simply don't see what holding oaths to the state has to do with getting married.

My definition of a wedding ceremony is two people making vows TO EACH OTHER.

The vows are made in the presence of family and freinds and God. They are made IN the state who then grants rights once your status have changed.

Involving the state in vows at all seems ludicrous to me.

Maybe it's French patriotism verses the infamous Australian anti-patriotism. I don't know.

I do know that being married in Australia is actually harder. We didn't find any "tax breaks" or the like. I distinctly recall certain obstacles, some financial, that at the time had me feeling that the state was trying to discourage marriages!


I think the viel most certainly SHOULD be allowed btw. Restricting them from choosing to wear it is a horrifying restriction! Basically your law means someone could conceivably wear one as a joke, as a practical joke or fancy dress costume say... but not if it holds religious significance. Thoughtcrime.

This is my issue with your interpretation of churches and forbidding civil ceremonies in them.

The church building can be anything anywhere, but because of the thoughts of the people who own or rent it, it cannot be used for certain functions any other building can.

I do know, that if faced with the prospect of performing two ceremonies I would flatly refuse. I would either forgo the civil one and be "defacto" in the eyes of the state, or pray at the civil ceremony.

I pray all the time. If I'm going to get arrested for PRAYING, what does that say about the society? There are only a few nations that have arrested people for praying, and those include Maoist China and the Soviet bloc.

That's the issue I find most serious with this law of yours Claude. What is stopping the celebrant from internally praying at every ceremony they perform? How is the state going to know? And what business is it of theirs? It becomes thoughtcrime does it not?

[Yorick]

Perhaps it has something to do with Frances history of "Cardinal Richelieu" figures mixing politics and the Catholic Church.

Perhaps it has to do with the Australian disdain for things like governmental decrees over person, ever since the British founded the prison colony.

- We have a culture in Australia, where, if there is a policeman waiting in a speed trap up the road (and there are lots of them), cars that pass it flash their lights at oncoming traffic to warn them so they slow down, and avoid being fined. Despite it being illegal to warn speed offenders in such a manner. Why? Anti-authority. A part of the collective psyche.

I've not seen that anywhere else.