Christian Marriage is a lifelong 1m1w covenant

Post Reply New Topic

Only if that priest has authorization from the gov. to do that. Any priest or equivalent from any religion is able to do that. Again, the state is not involved in any religious practice in that case. All it is, is a private citizen who has the authorization to register a marriage on state record. It does not tell people 'you cant marry this person because of religious reasons'

Have you actually discussed this with an Anglican priest. My first marriage was in an Anglican church. The oriest had to be satisfied with our belief, which included going on a course, and attendance. Of course, we had to be present to hear the bans read. This insistance was obviously and individual matter with that particular priest. I've even heard of a priest refusing to marry a couple because he thought they wanted a service at his church because it was photogenic. It is certainly for the indiivdual priest to make the decision as to whom he will marry, so long as that decision is legal.

It is accepted that a minister, and often a lay person, will usually be able to offer a marriage only as far as that church is concerned, in which case a Registrary Office ceremony and certificate is required.

I married my present wife in a Chinese Government Registar's Office. I obtained a translation of the little red marriage book which was authorised by the Chinese government notary. This certifcate has been deemed satisfactory by the UK government Department of Pensions.

Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 didn't provide provision for Catholic Priest to preside over legal marriages in the UK, and I also a believe a Catholic church cannot be used. Methodist church or priest is fine, as they a Protestant.

I believe my sister had this issue. Most Catholics are unaware, as most people just go to a town hall to register the marriage. It is only those that have bespoke marriages such as in the countryside might be affected.

This is one law that is archaic but there isn't the will to change it, as it doesn't interfere with everyday life much.

As I don't believe in legal marriage that would take care of these issues of fairness.

Sorry I'm mistaken

It is actually the building that is relevant. In England it cannot be Catholic church or anything except CoE, a synagogue or Quaker meeting house where both partner are of those faiths. Any Church in Wales (there is a Church of Wales but it can be any), Catholic or Presbyterian in N. Ireland.

I'm not sure about the UK, I was speaking about the US. A priest can refuse to marry a couple since he is not a government employee, he merely holds the ability to register the marriage to the state once it is completed. If he does not have that, the couple would need to file their marriage before the state separately (the state does not care if the couple marries in a church or not, if the papers are filed for marriage then they're married as far as the law is concerned).

The point was, even though a priest can do all the legal paperwork for the couple getting married, it does not mean the priest IS part of the state (aka the state is not endorsing or being a part of the religious rite/beliefs). Note: When I use the word 'priest' it can be any religion not just christian.

Any significant relationship that has an import on someone's living situation, should be recognized. The "muck" is when legal and religious marriage gets conflated. While of course non-religious hetero marriages haven't really offended Christians, at the same time they still appear to be conflating religion with the state, hence the protracted and painful battle we've had over same sex marriage.

And what is the result? An anti-democratic resolution that heaps up yet another mockery on the constitution. What can we look forward to? More of the same for who knows how long, until polygamy comes up before the Supreme Court, presumably. Think of how consistently people have voted against SSM at the state level. So if the State gave up on presuming to say who is "married" and who isn't, then they would be able to dispense rights according to living situations.



1. I am not a Roman Catholic. While I don't condemn people for being Roman Catholics and consider them saved, I would appreciate it if you didn't address me as if I was one. There are many more forms of Christianity, and the legitimacy of Christian marriage doesn't come from Rome, it comes from certain theological beliefs.

2. I am also not in favor of oppressing anyone, and from the rest of this post of yours I can easily tell that my Christianity alone has you lumping me together with people who I disagree with on this very issue.



I didn't declare that anywhere. If you can, try and find that statement. I'll be waiting with the perfect confidence that you can't. The issue seems to be that you've seriously misinterpreted me.



"Others like me"? "Crying about"? I've never said at any point in this thread that my beliefs about marriage should be enforced on anyone, and it appears to me that you've posted this in a very responsive and generalizing manner. You need to take stock of the fact that I endorse a very different option than the Christians you seem more familiar with.

The State should not recognize any marriage. What it should recognize is domestic partnerships, because it has no right to give value judgments about any relationship. It's denial of rights up until the Supreme Court ruling, was basically a value judgment that SSM was wrong. Polygamy and polyamory is still regarded the same way by the government.

The inevitable course of events here, is just the same as we've already seen: numerous legal battles, and people voting against it repeatedly at the state level, for decades until it finally appears before the Supreme Court where they will have the opportunity to do what they've done just now and behave in an anti-democratic fashion, giving a "constitutional" ruling on something that the constitution doesn't even talk about. Everyone, regardless of their beliefs and the kind of relationship(s) they desire, should be entitled to the same legal rights. However, because the State has assumed control of this (when the constitution was originally framed they didn't have this kind of control), it has unnecessarily divided our country and encumbered people with an arduous process, an expensive process, that eventually pushed us into a solution that wasn't democratic or even basically constitutional. If the State, on the other hand, gave up on controlling marriage, it would help in uniting the country and people with relationships of all kinds would receive the legal rights they deserve.

Does this surprise you that a Christian feels this way? Taxes have nothing whatsoever to do with theology.



No offense, but these statements here are plainly being given to a straw man, and I would really appreciate it if you read my posts so far more carefully. You have seriously misrepresented me and on that basis you are calling me an oppressive hypocrite. What's more, you appear to have either a narrow view of Christianity if you think that we all defer to Rome, or the mistaken assumption that I am a Roman Catholic. If you're really interested in the form of Christianity that I do profess, I invite you to take a closer look and see what our love is really all about. There is room for mutual respect here.

Marriage, is a cultural tradition in the U.S. that is NOT RELIGIOUS specific.
Denying marriage as a legal edifice to protect folks in fiscal and reproductive issues
to anyone is a real problem. And if the country decides more than one woman or more
than one man is okay for a marriage that will stand as well;
not likely though as there is no 66 percent outcry for THAT.
LET'S face reality and NOT FACTS ALONE;
THE Supreme court is about POLITICS
too. It's just human nature
to be conservative and
or liberal; and
Judges and
or the Law
WILL
NEVER EVER totally
BE BLIND TO THIS;
unless we get robot
judges; that will
still be programmed
by fallible
liberal and
conservative
humans.
LAW Books don't run
humans alone;
humans do;
and gay
marriage
is A proof of that; EVEN
AT the Supreme Court
LEVEL. It is reality;
tolerate it; accept it
or NOT; but there
ain't no changing
reality
for now;
with the current
Supreme Court
Justices in tow.

That's why I quit
watching politics;
it is as predictable
as human nature.

IT's a balancing ACT.