posted
It seems that the county that I hail from (which decided last week to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples) has reversed its decision pending an Oregon Supreme Court decision later this month. Not only that, but they have stopped issuing licenses altogether (straight couples can still get licenses for other counties and hold the ceremony in Benton County).
Linky <-- Link changed to something more permanent
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but it seems to be a compromise that allows the county to avoid discrimination of any kind while staying within the bounds of Oregon law as it stands now. I sure hope they start issuing licenses again once the court has ruled, even if the county cannot allow gays to marry.
P.S. I have no intention of starting up angry debates again. I just think it's an interesting way for Benton County to deal with the issue.
posted
This is a great idea and I wonder if other cities will adopt it. I think there is growing support for separating the legal issues of marriage from the religious aspects of marriage (which clearly the proposed Constitutional Amendment would not do...it would clearly combine the two). Stopping the process for all people during this national debate is an interesting take on things. Granted, if only one courthouse does this, no big deal as people can go elsewhere, but it would be very interesting if more areas took this up...a kind of "strike" if you will.
posted
I can't say I see any humor in this, boys. I respect the county for finding the Chariots of Fire solution: it allows them to hold fast to their position of equality without intentionally breaking the law. How that qualifies as 'silly' escapes me.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Burying your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away.
I've been doing some thinking, and I think that the best way to compromise as I see it, is to establish a real, measureable difference between homosexual unions and traditional, religious man and wife marriages.
Instead of introducing a "civil union" that is, in essence, a down grade to marriage if you will, why not just let anyone who wants to get married get married, and start treating marriage as a totally civil relationship?
Then, states that want to emphasize traditional marriage in a religious context, can do so through instiuting laws like Louisiana's Covenant Marriage Law . Have a separate classification for couples that want to commit under the blessing of their religious organization, to a lifetime commitment and let that law define a covenant marriage as one between a man and a woman that is a lifetime commitment.
It doesn't diminish marriage as it stands now - that option is still open to everybody, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples can get married and get every benefit that entails. What it does do is give those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament ordained by God and is meant to be something sacred, intended between man and woman only, a way to exercise that belief by making an additional commitment under the blessing of our churches.
If I were queen of the world and could design the requirements for a covenant marriage it would be this:
The couple being married must be a heterosexual couple.
There must be a minimum of one year after filing an intent to enter into a covenant marriage before the marriage license is issued.
During that 12 month period the couple must attend premarital counseling offered by either a professional counselor or a clergyperson.
Covenant marriage ceremonies can only be performed by licensed clergypersons, Justices of the Peace will only be able to perform the regular marriage ceremony.
The couple must legally commit that before divorce proceedings can take place, the couple will seek marriage counseling by either a clergyperson or licensed counselor.
The marriage cannot be dissolved through no-fault divorce.
Let us that want to protect the institution of marriage that we hold sacred put our money where our mouth is. We want marriage to be something that more than the joke people like Britney Spears make it? Then let's make a commitment that cannot be dissolved the moment we change our moods. A covenant marriage will not have any legal status different from any other marriage. NO advantages to couples in covenant marriages over those who get married in the regular way. Some churches can choose to only perform convenant ceremonies if they wish. Others, who perhaps believe that homosexual unions should be blessed by the church, can choose to perform religous marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. Similarly, they can perform marriages for people who don't want to take the step into covenant marriage if they wish.
This would mean that homosexuals can get every advantage offered to heterosexual couples now. They can get married with all the legal rights that entails. Those that want to get married and aren't religious and don't want to be holden to religious marriage ideals can do so. Their marriages will be no less valid, legally, than covenant marriages. They get the inheritance rights of spouses, hospital visitation, married tax status, all those things that people want.
And yet, those that feel marriage should be more than just a legal status or a name change, can make a commitment that carries with it greater responsibility, and one that fits the traditional marriage role that so many of us treasure, and honors God.
Thoughts? I know there are a lot of holes and a lot of things I haven't considered, it's just my idea of something that could make everyone if not happy, at least content.
Edit: Added link
[ March 24, 2004, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting proposition. However, don't devout religious heterosexual couples already have the option of being committed to one another under God through their churches? Is it the place of the government to cement religious commitments?
It seems strange that you would propose new secular involvement in what is basically a religious freedom. Is there some benefit you see to a "legal" (i.e. secular) Covenant Marriage other than having the secular law as a backup to keep religious backsliders in line?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I disagree that this county is burying its head in the sand. Not any more than I think Thomas More was sticking his head in the sand when he refused to endorse the King's divorce/remarriage/status as head of the church. The actions are essentially the same.
And that's the kind of thing you're left to doing when you're not the queen of the world.
That aside, I think your solution is a decent and sensible one. I have my doubts that Traditionalists would be so gung-ho about 'putting their money where their mouths are' while also recognizing that people outside of their faiths deserve equal opportunity and recognition from society, but if it was on a ballot I'd vote for it.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I read the link. Now I have to ask why, if there are benefits to this new secular type of marriage, those benefits should be denied to homosexuals who also wish to have the added legal strength to their marriage commitment?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I think her main purpose in added secular involvement to various religious constructs of marriage is to further establish a difference between civil marriage and traditional marriage covenants.
While that deosn't really matter to me, I respect the fact that this is the first time I've ever seen anyone trying to "defend marriage" with real ideas about how it needs to be protected. Not from homosexuals, but from the pervasive sense of meaninglessness that the institution gains with each passing year of 50% divorce rates and vanity marriages.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because a covenant marriage is by definition (in my world where I'm queen) a religious designation, and not a civil one. Under that, it can be defined differently than civil marriages. This gives churches an option to say "We will only perform covenant ceremonies." That way they can uphold the requirements for marriage that they believe have been ordained by God.
Most of the objections to homosexual marriages are based on religious beliefs that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. To satisfy that objection, we must have a definition that distinguishes that type of marriage from the others.
I'm not saying this is ideal or that it's going to be a perfect solution - that does not exist. I think it's a possible compromise.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That a perfect solution does not exist presupposes that the objection you mention has need of being satsified in the first place. I do not agree that that is the case, since churches already have all the power they need to restrict marriage only to couples of their choosing (and they are further able to place restrictions on what the couples need to commit to to enter into the contract, though those restrictions are nonbinding in a court of law) while the state can only discriminate against homosexuals and people who are underage.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keats has hit on something important - I despise the no-fault divorce. I think too many people (regardless of gender) enter into marriage with the attitude that they can always leave and try again if it doesn't work.
That damages the institution of marrage that I hold sacred just as much as opening up marriage to homosexuals. Because my ideal of marriage is something that cannot be tossed aside when people get tired of one another.
This compromise, by the way, doesn't deny homosexuals the right to be married in churches and have their union blessed in the house of God if they want it. Churches that support homosexual marriages can still perform the ceremonies. You can stand up at an altar and declare your love for whomever.
You just won't be able to take the additional step, because your union is not a traditional Biblical-based union. This is an attempt to define traditional marriage, as Keats said, not just as opposed to homosexual unions but from the "gee let's go to Las Vegas and get married we can always get divorced next week" mindset as well.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I understand that and I agree completely. I do see merit in the Louisiana law. However, I do not see this as an answer to the SSM debate. Principally because allowing the normal civil marriage and denying a Covenant Marriage (secular) to gays continues a discriminatory practice and fails to recognize gay couples can be just as committed as straight couples. In fact, offering this as a solution seems to be saying "go ahead and let them have the easy-in/easy-out weakened marriage as long as we can have this stronger, more committed marrieage from which they will be excluded."
I think the answer to the "threats to marriage" might just be laws like the "Covenant Marriage", but if it is a secular law, there is no reason to exclude homosexuals. Churches already have the right to perform only heterosexual marriages if they wish. Churches would also have the right to recognize only hetersexual Covenant Marriages, if they wish. Why the need to have the secular law be exclusionary??
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because my ideal of marriage is something that cannot be tossed aside when people get tired of one another.
How ironic that this is my ideal of marriage, too. Too bad you still feel that allowing my kind to share your ideals cheapens them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, why should secular constraints be placed on religious commitments? (honest question )
quote:What it does do is give those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament ordained by God and is meant to be something sacred, intended between man and woman only, a way to exercise that belief by making an additional commitment under the blessing of our churches.
It seems like breaking the covenant marriage would be an issue for that person and his or her church. If the "additional commitment" portion is a church matter, then shouldn't the enforcement of that additional commitment portion be a church matter, as well? (e.g., excommunication, etc)
posted
Belle, I don't understand why you would need the STATE to recognize some sort of "super-special blessed-by-my-God-of-choice better-than-your-REGULAR-marriage marriage."
If, indeed, you think civil marriage should be open to everyone, then open civil marriage to everyone. If you then want to have a religious marriage that, to your mind, is more "special" than a civil one, go right ahead -- but why create a special category for "special" civil marriages that merely reflect religious observance, particularly if these "special" marriages don't get any further civil benefits? It seems like just another excuse to continue to ostracize people who're looking to legitimize their relationship: "Well, see, we let them get MARRIED, but since they couldn't get MARRIED-MARRIED, I don't have to really think Bill and Roger love each other as much as I love my husband."
Let's face it: a marriage that can't be tossed away when two people get tired of each other ALREADY exists, even in states with no-fault divorce. The trick? People don't have to get divorced. If you want YOUR marriage to last forever, don't file; it's really that easy, and it's already an option open to every married couple.
posted
I think everyone who gets married should have to get a "covenant marriage". I understand what your're going for, Belle, because my beliefs probably match your own in this area, but I think the idea of throw-away marriages has done far more damage to the institution than SSM could ever do.
posted
Because marriage is not just a religious conviction, but a civil action as well. Because already, I have to file papers with the county when I get married, even if I believe that should be just between me and my husband and God. And, for all the reasons listed before, society has a stake in the health of the family. We've gone over this in all the other threads. No one can deny that already marriage is both religious and secular. The two are already intertwined.
KarlEd, I don't deny that you hate my stance and I can see why you would. Saying it's not personal is probably trite and useless, although I do hold it to be true. You're welcome in my home anytime, you would be given sweet tea and invited to church and fed cookies, just like anybody else.
I can't help, though, that my ideal of marriage is different from yours and that my ideal is offensive to you.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Belle, the investment that society has in the stability of marriage (raising of children, etc) has nothing to do with the positing of any particular god or religion. I'm not sure why religion must be brought into play here, or even why it is relevant.
If society has a vested interest in making divorce more difficult to obtain, then why not, well, just make divorce more difficult to obtain?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And, for all the reasons listed before, society has a stake in the health of the family. We've gone over this in all the other threads. No one can deny that already marriage is both religious and secular."
Then what's the point of giving gays legal marriage, if you're going to just redefine "real" legal marriage to keep them out again?
It's like being forced to open up a country club to black folks, but then starting a new club down the street for people whose families came in on the Mayflower; you're STILL keeping out the black folks, and the whole intent of the new club is to continue to discriminate against blacks, but now you can pass it off as discriminating against a number of OTHER people -- which is fine, because you didn't really particularly like those other people much, anyway -- and think it can pass court muster that way.
The whole POINT of gay marriage, Belle, is to grant legal and social equality to gay unions. If you create a second type of union specifically designed to keep gays from being able to enter it, you're DELIBERATELY circumventing that goal.
"Okay, fine. We HAVE to let homosexuals use the sidewalk. But we're going to put in a second sidewalk, which we'll call the "Better Sidewalk," right next to the other sidewalk. And even though it'll look just like the other sidewalk, it'll cost five cents per mile so you know it's better and you won't be able to use it unless you've got a letter from a priest saying you're a godly person. That's because it's good for society to have a BETTER sidewalk."
posted
The county is probably vulnerable to a court order compelling them to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, since I would expect the issuance of marriage certificates to be a ministerial, non-discretionary function. It's an interesting take on the problem, but probably not a legally tenable position for the county to be taking.
posted
I am very, very uneasy at enforcing secular constraints on religious commitments. That strikes me as a scary step to make, from either perspective.
"Because you didn't live up to your religious commitments, the State will punish you."
*shudder
I'd rather have the State enforce State commitments and leave the Church to enforce Church commitments.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are no advantages to covenant marriages - the only differences would be seen by a lot of people to be disadvantages.
And you're wrong by the way, I know plenty of people who've gotten divorced through no-fault divorce filings, and gone separate ways by paying a $200 attorney and court cost fee and never looked back. If there are no custody disputes or any issues with property division, a divorce is very easy to obtain.
I, personally, believe society would be better off if we could staunch the bleeding the no-fault divorce epidemic has caused. It's damaging to our children long term, we've just recently begun to discover the full effect it has on them, even as adults.
Covenant marriages will make divorce so much harder to get, and force couples to really look at what is wrong in their marriages, and that will, I hope, prevent many of those divorces from happening. Divorce is still an option for people abused or abandoned or who have unfaithful spouses. But "I've decided that having kids and being married isn't as much fun as I thought it would be so I'm out of here" is not an option - the person must stay and work out the problems.
Now, I've chosen in my world where I'm queen to use religious ideals to define these marriages because I'm a religious person. Homosexual marriages do not fit in my personal theology. That is why I've made it like this.
To my knowledge, Louisiana's covenant marriage act doesn't even mention gender, does it?
In case you're wondering if I'm really just looking for a way to deny homosexuals "real" marriages and just diguising it under a veil by decrying the divorce rate, I would support a covenant marriage act even if it made no prohibition against homosexual unions, because it would still require that anyone who gets married must make a true commitment and be forced to stay in the marriage and make it work as opposed to running at the first sign of trouble.
However, I'd prefer it to be the way I originally outlined it, because I think that fits with what many of the religious objectors to SSM really want. A way to distinguish a Godly commitment to matrimony from others. There's no way around the fact that many congregations consider homosexual marriages to be invalid. This would give them a way to not have to recognize those unions as covenant unions, but still give homosexual partners the full benefits of marriage under the law.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify: I see nothing wrong with a church handing out stickers saying "I got a REAL marriage at St. Mary's" or something. But I don't think the government should be doing the equivalent.
There SHOULD be no way for the state to distinguish between "holy" matrimony and civil matrimony. The state, quite frankly, should be completely blind to the whole issue.
Now, if you think there's some legitimate reason to keep no-fault divorce available to those who want the option when they get married, but a second kind of marriage WITHOUT no-fault divorce for those people who get married and DON'T think they'll want to get divorced (unlike, say, that first group of people who DO, who I'm sure must number in at least the tens), that's fine -- but God has absolutely no business in a civil marriage.
posted
You see, the State has a vested interest in maintaining the stability of a legal contract. The State does not have a vested interest in enforcing your individual commitment to your religion and its laws. (At least, it shouldn't -- this seems very basic to the separation of Church and State.)
The fact that a religious commitment may overlap with a civil commitment is irrelevant. This happens all the time; e.g., it is illegal to give perjurous testimony under oath. It also happens to be immoral to bear false witness in the the Christian tradition, but that does not justify (much less mandate) penalizing Christian perjurors over and above atheist perjurors.
The issue of wronging the State and of wronging God are two different matters.
quote: A way to distinguish a Godly commitment to matrimony from others.
Which can (and should, if desired) be done by the church-of-your-choice. What is insufficient about that? Why isn't the Church itself sufficient to make this distinction?
(Why on earth would you need the State to do so as well?)
posted
(On the topic of no-fault divorce: frankly, I don't see how "covenant marriages" really address this issue, as most people I know don't go into a marriage expecting to benefit from no-fault divorce law. Consequently, I imagine the majority of people would get covenant marriages, only to discover -- as currently happens -- that they'd want to get divorced, and it would suddenly be harder for them. I see no actual functional difference between this and simply eliminating no-fault divorce.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, don't we already? Does not the state already punish people by breaking what are religious laws?
I mean, the constraints on divorce in a covenant marriage are no more than what have been on marriages in many states already, but are unenforced. Adultery is still illegal in a lot of places but isn't enforced.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In those cases, Belle, where the only motivation behind a law is found to be a religious proscription, the law has often been found to be unconstitutional (see, for example, laws against sodomy.) In general, in a modern court, the behavior proscribed usually needs to cause demonstrable harm to an individual or society before it can be banned. (Your specific mention of adultery is interesting, as I believe it remains illegal -- and grounds for divorce even in states without no-fault rules -- precisely because it represents the breaking of a legal contract, NOT a sin.)
posted
Belle, this intervention is easily justified on grounds of breaking the terms of a contract.
Another serious question (I promise, not a trap or a bait): Do you really not see a huge problem with having the State become involved in enforcing an individual's adherence to a particular religious commitment?
posted
You guys keep posting before I even finish a response!
Stop it already.
Tom, I don' tthink that is the case. I'll look for stats but I don't believe that's what has happened in Louisiana, I don't think everyone is getting covenant marriages at all.
posted
Tom, I've met several people who didn't see marriage as a lifetime commitment. They went into it with the belief that they would be married several times in their life. I think it's very sad, but I believe more people would opt for the easy divorce marriage than you think.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'd specifically like to know, Belle, is why you think you'd want the government of your state or country to recognize that you worship God in the right way.
Is it more important to you that your CHURCH approve of your relationship with your deity, or that your governor think it's a-ok?
------
zgator, those same people are not people that, frankly, would benefit from the covenant marriage law. Wouldn't eliminating no-fault divorce altogether reduce the marriage rate among such people, thus improving the sanctity of marriage overall? Why allow them to retain the option of an easy divorce?
posted
Here's a quote from the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479:
quote:We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Two interesting notes: the court was upholding the right of married couples to use contraceptives (i.e., to not have children), so the idea of the special status of marriage based on the procreation needs of society is already not conidered essential.
Second, it was assumed that the state had the power to ban sexual acts outside of marriage. Homosexual sex was casually identified as something bannable.
But the entire opinion, not just this quote, talks about certain aspect of marriage being beyond the scope of the state. It is not a social project but a fundamental relationship that is more basic than society. The law accomodates marriage - it does not define it.
Under this principle and that of equal protection, the same accomodations ought to be provided to any married couple. This dovetails nicely with my idea that from a legal perspective, marriage is simply a collection of civil benefits and duties created by the recognition of a default relationship.
I just thought that was an interesting quote from an unusual context that applied to this debate.
Dagonee P.S., and, if someone insists, I can spend a lot of time showing how almost all the accomodations of marriage provided by the law work only for two-person marriages, and almost none of them (if any) rely on the fact that the two people are of different sex. But I'd rather not spend the time right now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it more important to you that your CHURCH approve of your relationship with your deity, or that your governor think it's a-ok?
Tom, I would think that the deity's approval of the religious commitment would be the trump card, not the reverse. The civil commitment seems like an issue of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; i.e., it is a part of engaging in civil affairs as a citizen, but one's religion has no need of State sanction or approval. At all. The State's wishes are irrelevant to the sanctity of one's religious commitments.
quote:Wouldn't eliminating no-fault divorce altogether reduce the marriage rate among such people, thus improving the sanctity of marriage overall? Why allow them to retain the option of an easy divorce?
Exactly. If the concern is that it is too easy to obtain a divorce (i.e., nullify the civil contract), then make it less easy to do so.
quote:where the only motivation behind a law is found to be a religious proscription, the law has often been found to be unconstitutional (see, for example, laws against sodomy.)
No, sorry. This is not the basis for the decision striking down sodomoy laws. The fundamental substantive due-process right to liberty is the basis for that decision. Religion is not mentioned at all.
quote: KarlEd, I don't deny that you hate my stance and I can see why you would. Saying it's not personal is probably trite and useless, although I do hold it to be true. You're welcome in my home anytime, you would be given sweet tea and invited to church and fed cookies, just like anybody else.
I can't help, though, that my ideal of marriage is different from yours and that my ideal is offensive to you.
Belle, I don't take it personally. If I did I'd have stopped posting on these threads years ago. I believe you to be a kind and generous person. I believe you to be as Christian a person as you know how to be, in all the good connotations of that word. We could probably be friends to some extent, or at the very least friendly, if we lived in the same circles. (Point in fact, we do live together in this circle and I think we have managed to get along.) But you are right that on this particular point we will probably never see eye to eye.
I do see some value in having the additional commitment in marriage. What I think would be a better solution is to make a clause in the marriage contract that eliminates "no fault" divorce completely once the couple has children. And I would make this binding for both gay and straight couples.
I do see why you think that SSM is not ideal. I understand that you believe in a God that hates the "sin" of homosexuality. I do not hate you for that, though I cannot, myself believe in such a god.
I don't think that our ideals of secular marriage are so very different. I don't hate you, or even hate your ideal where it differs from mine. What I hate is the idea that your ideal is threatened by mine in some way and that your ideal cannot exist for you if mine is allowed to exist for me. If I am mistaken and you do not feel this way, then perhaps we are even closer to agreement than I think.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my attempt to interject some light humor, I was going to post in this thread and point out that "we think we have it bad" and link to a story about how in El Salvador this week they married two TREES in an effort to appease the Gods for good weather.
However, I can't find the story ANYWHERE on the web... and I'm sure Paul Harvey mentioned it on his noon news.
..now I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined the whole thing..
posted
I'm actually surprised at the 3% adoption rate of covenant marriage, and am somewhat curious why it's so incredibly low. To put that in perspective, it's probably no larger as a percentage of all marriages in Louisiana than gay marriage would be, were the latter legalized.
Given its failure among the general populace, then, I can't help wondering WHY it's failed so badly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this: We institute a Federal Constitutional ammendment that requires that marriages only be dissovled by the State that performed the marriage.
Marriages would, of course, be recognized across States, but a state that eliminated no-fault divorce could not be overturned by the couple running to Las Vegas for the divorce unless they also ran to Las Vegas for the wedding. Then, if someone really wants to get married with the intention of starting on a career of serial polygamy, they have that option. If people want the option of the extra commitment, they can get that, too.
Then, all those sinful Nevadans can live as they see fit and the more righteous Louisianans can live with the assurance that any of its weak willed citizens will have to get married out of state or be conveniently trapped.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for that, KarlEd, you are the definition of class act. I know we don't see eye to eye and I know our vision of what God approves of and disapproves of is different. I think we both do set that aside and look for common ground over which we can still respect and appreciate each other and I'm very glad for that.
The main reason it's so low in Louisiana Tom, is that the Catholic church came out against the act, because it mandated that grounds for divorce were mandatory in the premarital counseling. The Catholic church wouldn't support it because they didn't want ANY discussion of potential divorce included in the counselling sessions.
I disagree, I think you should talk about the problems, and I think that in cases of abandonment and abuse, women (and men) should know where to go for help, and the church should cover that.
But, if the Catholic church supported it, I suspect the numbers would be much, much higher.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My theory as to why so few take advantage of Louisiana's covenant marriage law is because those who are religious enough to want it probably do not consider the State of Louisiana to have sufficient moral authority to administer it.
<Edited a typo that changed the whole meaning of the post>
posted
Gee, I wonder if there is any sarcasm in KarlEd's post?
You know, I respect that my stance is offensive to some and I'm try my best not to intentionally try to demean anyone.
Unfortunately I don't think my side gets the same respect. This goes back to the fact that I can't state my religious convictions without being called a bigot. It's frustrating, I want to discuss these things, and I want to try out my ideas and get feedback from people who I know hold strong opinions on the other side.
But I'm not going to subject myself to attack, it's not worth it. Comments like
quote:righteous Louisianans can live with the assurance that any of its weak willed citizens will have to get married out of state or be conveniently trapped
don't belong in the same thread with the other comments you made above, KarlEd.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My theory as to why so few take advantage of Louisiana's covenant marriage law is because those who are religious enough to want it probably do not consider the State of Louisiana to have sufficient legal authority to administer it.
Or perhaps more importantly, not sufficient moral authority to do so? Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Tom said it better.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
