Yanno, this is almost becoming old hat . . .

[voluptuary_manque]

Another church recognizes same sex marriage.

 

[sr71plt]

Apparently in the next couple of weeks various conferences of the United Methodist church in the United States are going to come into factional blows over the issue.

 

[49greg]

Wow. I never would have expected that. My parents were Presbyterian, so I guess you could say that I was raised as one, but except for a funeral 15 years ago I haven't been to church in 25 years maybe more.

Good for them, although I would love to see the old ladies in the church I had to go to as a kid hear about that decision. Sometimes their faces turned so sour I could imagine them as prunes.

 

[TamLin01]

The most efficient solution to "freedom of religion" related issues RE: gay marriage is for churches to just quit being wet blankets about it all the time. So, kudos.

 

[sr71plt]

I would have thought the most efficient solution for a gay couple would be a civil wedding. The church doesn't determine whether a gay couple can be married or not--the state does. There's no right to be married in a church. After the civil ceremony, they wouldn't have that much trouble finding a church that would let them attend if they wanted to be church-going route.

 

[TamLin01]

Some gay couples like church.

 

[sr71plt]

Some gay couples like church.

You don't have a right to have everything you want in life. If you haven't learned that by the time you get married, you're past due. Churches can't stop folks from marrying in the United States--it's a civil function and status (and gays can marry where state law permits it). But no one has a right to force a church to give them venue and/or a ceremony--or even its blessing. It's sort of lame and vanity-based to have to be married in a church if you aren't a member of the church anyway.

So what if the church doesn't recognize your marriage? They have no leverage over you that you don't give them. Just thumb your nose at them. If you can't marry someone without the church's blessing or in a church, you're probably not committed enough to your intended to be marrying him/her anyway.

 

[Katiecat]

Some gay couples like church.

Yep. I'm a United Methodist in a Reconciling Ministries (LGBT-inclusive and supportive) congregation. About 20-25% of our church members are LGBT. There has been a big divide in the UMC, with a lot of more conservative congregations and especially African congregations opposing same sex marriage, and more progressive congregations (like ours) supporting inclusion and LGBT rights, including the right to marry. A pastor was recently defrocked for officiating at his gay son's wedding, but then on appeal was re-instated. Many retired UMC ministers got together and made a public declaration that they would willingly perform same sex marriages. We keep hoping and praying for a positive, loving resolution in General Conference -- none of us want to see our denomination split over this, but we have to do the right thing and love and support our gay brothers and sisters as Christ would want us to do.

A new day is dawning.

 

[TamLin01]

You don't have a right to have everything you want in life.

But if a couple wants to get married in church and there's a church that wants them to get married there then everyone gets what they want. Lucky break, that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Some gay couples like church.

From what I've seen, I suspect several of the local RC parishes would fall apart if all the gay folk left.

 

[JKendallDane]

You don't have a right to have everything you want in life. If you haven't learned that by the time you get married, you're past due. Churches can't stop folks from marrying in the United States--it's a civil function and status (and gays can marry where state law permits it). But no one has a right to force a church to give them venue and/or a ceremony--or even its blessing. It's sort of lame and vanity-based to have to be married in a church if you aren't a member of the church anyway.

So what if the church doesn't recognize your marriage? They have no leverage over you that you don't give them. Just thumb your nose at them. If you can't marry someone without the church's blessing or in a church, you're probably not committed enough to your intended to be marrying him/her anyway.

You really just don't have the first clue, do you? Not a single one at all.

This has nothing to do with anyone "forcing" a church to perform a marriage ceremony for them, and has everything to do with a gay or lesbian couple wanting to celebrate their wedding with God's blessing in a church setting.

The Unitarians have done same sex ceremonies for more than 125 years, and according to records the Catholics were doing the same well over 1200 years ago. My denomination...Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches...has offered same sex wedding ceremonies since 1968 when Rev. Troy Perry performed what was referred to by Time magazine as "the first public same-sex wedding ceremony in the United States" in Los Angeles.

Florida Pastor Celebrates Birthday by Performing 20 Same-sex Weddings

That story, that went around the world several times in January, is about MY pastor and MY church. I attended those first weddings. I got to be a part of history as it was made. I cried right along with everyone else there. I toasted each "officially new" couple in the social hall after their set of "I do's" were over with. I watched people who had been together for more than two decades finally have their commitment recognized...civilly and religiously. I can guarantee that it was all about celebrating love and God that day.

Just because you can't comprehend gay people and church and God all in the same paragraph doesn't mean you should show your ignorance and try to bullshit your way through multiple posts in attempts to make it sound as if you have any kind of real knowledge of the topic.

 

[Handley_Page]

I would have thought the most efficient solution for a gay couple would be a civil wedding.

What's wrong with the term "civil union" (or similar), and leave the word 'wedding' for an M&F union?.

 

[Hypoxia]

What's wrong with the term "civil union" (or similar), and leave the word 'wedding' for an M&F union?.

Because civil union generally isn't marriage legally, and marriage has many legal, ethical and financial implications. Local, state, and national legislators are not, anytime soon, going to rewrite all laws to specify "civil unions" as equivalent to marriage. Corporations, NGOs, and other organizations will not en-mass rewrite their policies. Civil union vs wedding is like "separate but equal" -- they ain't equal.

So just distinguish between civil and church weddings. You wanna get married in a church-temple-mosque-etc setting? Fine. You wanna get married by a druid or ship's captain or Elvis impersonator or dwarf warlock? Fine. Have whatever ceremony you want. It's still a wedding. Two or more joined in life... at least until the divorce. Sure, everyone deserves the right to be equally overjoyed or miserable in marriage.

 

[lovecraft68]

About time they evolved.

The Bible was written in a time where everything that was a sin, was a sin...back then.

MY parents psycho church believes women should not wear make up because back in biblical times only "whores" wore make up....

End of the day what this has to do with is reputation and money....

The church tried to suppress homosexuality for years(among other things) and guess what? They lost the battle so now the choice is stick to your guns....or be seen as being to staunch and unforgiving and dwindle away to nothing.

Now if they can concede to "allow" same sex marriage-which is mighty magnanimous of them to "allow" people to live as they choose-what it really shows is how convicted are they really?

They are not....all of this is proof positive that the Church, every one of them, is nothing but a bunch of hypocritical bullshit... "God says this, but...okay we're losing money, let's rethink it..."

People should down hat they want, period as long they are not hurting others or themselves.

 

[sr71plt]

What's wrong with the term "civil union" (or similar), and leave the word 'wedding' for an M&F union?.

I don't see anything wrong with calling it a wedding. Is there something in the background of that word that you know is offputting that I don't? I see "wedding" and "civil union" as having different meanings, the wedding being the ceremony event (which could be done anywhere. My sister's a minister and has performed ceremonies at a miniature golf park and in a bowling alley). "Civil union," for me, would be the legal institution of being legally married--a longer term affair than a ceremony event.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

What's wrong with the term "civil union" (or similar), and leave the word 'wedding' for an M&F union?.

You are confusing the concepts. A "wedding" is a ceremony. It can be religious, legal, or both. The result of a "wedding" is a "marriage."

A "civil union" is a legal relationship between two persons that is legally recognized as somewhat short of a full-fledged marriage. It is a compromise created to mollify same-sex couples while denying them equal protection of law. It grants them some of the rights of marriage, but denies them the right to call themselves "married."

 

[Katiecat]

Because civil union generally isn't marriage legally, and marriage has many legal, ethical and financial implications. Local, state, and national legislators are not, anytime soon, going to rewrite all laws to specify "civil unions" as equivalent to marriage. Corporations, NGOs, and other organizations will not en-mass rewrite their policies. Civil union vs wedding is like "separate but equal" -- they ain't equal.

So just distinguish between civil and church weddings. You wanna get married in a church-temple-mosque-etc setting? Fine. You wanna get married by a druid or ship's captain or Elvis impersonator or dwarf warlock? Fine. Have whatever ceremony you want. It's still a wedding. Two or more joined in life... at least until the divorce. Sure, everyone deserves the right to be equally overjoyed or miserable in marriage.

I agree, except I would say we need to distinguish between "marriage" and "wedding". Marriage is the legal contract that is recognized by the government for purposes of taxation, insurance, spousal rights, inheritance, etc. Marriage is a civil right (as determined in Loving vs. Virginia) and as such, gay couples also have that right.

A wedding is a ceremony to celebrate the spiritual and/or solemn commitment a couple is making by entering into the marriage contract. Weddings are performed in all cultures, in all religions, and non-religious couples have weddings, too. All couples can throw a party and celebrate a wedding with their family and friends. Now if any particular religion or sect teaches that homosexuality is unnatural and evil -- a teaching that many of us believe is antiquated, bigoted, and in serious error, but people believe what they believe -- then that church/sect/denomination/religion will have to work it out for themselves. They can't and shouldn't be forced to perform a religious ceremony that is against their beliefs, but they also have no right to declare laws that other houses of worship can't, or that gay couples can't have civil ceremonies and have all the legal rights and protections of a government-recognized marriage contract.

 

[Handley_Page]

Because civil union generally isn't marriage legally, and marriage has many legal, ethical and financial implications. Local, state, and national legislators are not, anytime soon, going to rewrite all laws to specify "civil unions" as equivalent to marriage. Corporations, NGOs, and other organizations will not en-mass rewrite their policies. Civil union vs wedding is like "separate but equal" -- they ain't equal.

So just distinguish between civil and church weddings. You wanna get married in a church-temple-mosque-etc setting? Fine. You wanna get married by a druid or ship's captain or Elvis impersonator or dwarf warlock? Fine. Have whatever ceremony you want. It's still a wedding. Two or more joined in life... at least until the divorce. Sure, everyone deserves the right to be equally overjoyed or miserable in marriage.

I don't see anything wrong with calling it a wedding. Is there something in the background of that word that you know is off-putting that I don't? I see "wedding" and "civil union" as having different meanings, the wedding being the ceremony event (which could be done anywhere. My sister's a minister and has performed ceremonies at a miniature golf park and in a bowling alley). "Civil union," for me, would be the legal institution of being legally married--a longer term affair than a ceremony event.

Sorry, folks, I was forgetting that different States may have different ideas.
In the UK, the "civil union" (actually a 'civil partnership') has ALL the legal force & benefits, rights, tax structure, responsibilities and risks of a 'marriage'. There's no arguing, the piece of paper declaring the two as a "couple" is as weighty as a certificate of marriage.

 

[Katiecat]

Sorry, folks, I was forgetting that different States may have different ideas.
In the UK, the "civil union" (actually a 'civil partnership') has ALL the legal force & benefits, rights, tax structure, responsibilities and risks of a 'marriage'. There's no arguing, the piece of paper declaring the two as a "couple" is as weighty as a certificate of marriage.

Many here in the US see the fight for gay rights as a mirror, or an extension of, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. The states (most of them in the South) that did everything they could to maintain segregated schools, "separate but equal" public facilities like drinking fountains and bathrooms, and to allow businesses and employers to discriminate on the basis of race, are the same states that are trying to pass laws to allow discrimination against LGBT people.

The court case I mentioned above, Loving vs. Virginia, was truly a landmark decision. An interracial couple who legally married in Washington DC were arrested in their own home in Virginia for the "crime" of being a black man being married to a white woman. The Supreme Court decision was that individual states can't make laws that override a US citizen's civil rights that are guaranteed at the Federal level. If the anti-gay states keep trying to push the decision to our Supreme Court, I have high hopes that the case will have the same outcome -- that they will determine gay citizens have civil rights at a Federal level that individual states cannot override.

 

[JKendallDane]

Now if any particular religion or sect teaches that homosexuality is unnatural and evil -- a teaching that many of us believe is antiquated, bigoted, and in serious error, but people believe what they believe -- then that church/sect/denomination/religion will have to work it out for themselves. They can't and shouldn't be forced to perform a religious ceremony that is against their beliefs, but they also have no right to declare laws that other houses of worship can't, or that gay couples can't have civil ceremonies and have all the legal rights and protections of a government-recognized marriage contract.

Stated perfectly. Thank you!

No one even questions that Catholic priests, Southern Baptist pastors, Jewish Rabbis, Church of Christ evangelists, Lutheran and Presbyterian ministers, and many, many other denominations regularly refuse...with complete immunity...to perform the rite of marriage for someone not affiliated with their church. It's not considered discrimination and not actionable. All weddings are "at will" by each church except in the minds of the people slinging hyperbole about "all men of the cloth" will suddenly be forced at court-ordered gun point to marry a gay couple and forever taint their house of worship.

Aint gonna happen, but it does make for good hand wringing, gnashing of teeth, and fear-mongering fund raising for groups like 'Focus on the Family' and Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Who are, above all, about raising funds.