Why do they discriminate?

Once the definition of marriage is changed, it will be open to anything and everything, including polygamy, group marriage, person/animal marriage, you name it. That's one reason why we have to keep the definition of marriage as one man/one woman and not let the g@ys pervert it.

 

I think that marriage is something for churches and justices of the peace to handle. I advocate the separation of marriage and state.

 

I can only speak for Canada. I haven't a clue what the USA laws are.

In Canada, marriage is defined by the federal government, but the act is a provincial matter. For example, ministers are licenced by the province to perform marriage rights in accordance with the law.

The union of gays was inevitable, and the government wanted this action to fit in with government requirements.

As ministers, we petitioned the federal government to not force ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for just anyone. It agreed and labelled the gay ceremonies as union and kept the marriage for couples; male and female, and ministers free to refuse any marriage.

The government is not concerned with church definitions. Its only concern is the legal procedures and recording of both marriages and unions because they do affect taxes, pensions and legal aspects when a split or divorcement is involved, and, of course, children.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It is the word "marriage" that gays are after in the US.

They scoff at, and refuse to accept, that their cohabitation being known as "unions".

 

Our ministerial association, which includes many denominations, jumped the gun, so to speak, and we got our signed petition in before any documents were drawn up. Our compromise was not to fight the inevitable, but agree to the terms "union" for gays and "marriage" for others.

The churches are left to conduct our own services. We can also marry without a licence. We publish the banns on three successive Sundays and the minister submits the details to the government office to register the marriage.

Cheers,

Jim

 

>My question is if they demand equal rights and not be discriminated against, then why are they not demanding that polygamy be made legal?

Maybe they don't have a dog in that fight.

 

At this rate folks will soon be marrying their dog. After all who has the right to say that is right or wrong? Makes me want to puke!!

 

1) It should be up to the churches and justices of the peace.
2) It should be up to the churches and justices of the peace.
3) An animal cannot give legal consent.
4) A thirteen year old cannot give legal consent. I don't know if under current a law a thirteen year old can get married with the consent of a parent or guardian.

 

Sorry. If you want to know what I personally believe I only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. Anything else I do not recognize as a marriage. Does that answer your question?

 

Can't have it both ways. On one hand, you say you support the separation of marriage and the state. On the other hand, you say that legal consent is necessary. You can't have legal consent be an issue unless the state is involved. The church can't determine legal consent - only the state. So to be consistent with your separation of marriage and state belief, you should have answered yes and yes to nos. 3 and 4.

 

Let the church set the standards for marriage as long as the state sets the age limit for sexual contact. If the guy is satisfied to sleep in his own bedroom . . . . <G>

It's all about money, anyway. If the church people would demand that the rights to special tax breaks, legal benefits, and work related benefits be given up for married people then they would have a better argument for the church claiming authority over marriage.

 

! w@nted to type $omething here ju$t so ! can use $ome @nnoying $ymbols. :laugh:

 

It shouldn't really be up to the government to control who you can marry. Marriage is a religious thing and should stay there. However, since we have freedom of religion, if a religion chooses to marry same sex partners, then the government should have to acknowledge them in the same manner. Nobody should be forced to marry these folks and go against their own beliefs, but if you have two willing partners and a willing official, then I think the government should have to recognize it.