Marriage-The topic

[lacsap1]

[quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=0#19 date=02/25/04 at 12:28:10]

Here's an incomplete[sup]1[/sup] list of some of the rights that are conferred to married couples in the US (stolen from www.nolo.com).  Mental, spiritual, and psychic bonding don't confer these rights.  Powers of attorney and other legal contracts confer only some of them.  "Transcending" marriage for something unique definitely doesn't confer these.  

Hospital visitation, privileged marital communications -- even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like you couldn't conscientiously deny some of these rights to a committed, bonded couple.  

As being Dutch, so from the Netherlands, where gaymarriage is a normal and legal thing, all the above "reasons" made that the Dutch parliament couldn't refuse this whole process.

In the Netherlands, parliament rulings are based on disestablishment between state and church.
So when we speak about gaymarriage this has nothing to do with (any) sentimentality concerning religions.

All rulings MUST be based under the first amendment of the Dutch constitution; Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution forbids discrimination—by anyone—on “religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex, or on any other grounds whatsoever.” So in Holland you have to carry on all relations with everyone in compliance with strict liberal theory.

So all (technical) points given by (www.nolo.com) means that "heterosexual" couples/partners have major advantages above the "homosexuals" couples.
In other words, this is called discrimination!!!!!!!!

Also good to know is that in the Netherlands you have 2
kinds of marriages.
1. The civil marriage, this is the one and only lawfull settlement with certificate what happens at cityhall.
2. Blessing of the Church, this marriage in not lawful and only done by people with a religion for the nuptial benediction.

So gaymarriage is only an technical contract and mostly done for lawfull advantages,money issues and other legal reasons what are normally not possible the get if you just gay and living together with you BF/GF without ancommunity agreement.

Ties times even liberal churches and chapels are offering marriage services after the cityhall one as this is generating extra income to the church/chapel.

What does you're US first amendment of the constitution tells ? Is it not possible to go a high(er) court or something ? What is happening with the Stonewall movement. Where are the united civil action groups ... ? Poeple, it's time to wake up and fight for your rights.


Artikel 1 Grondwet der Nedenlanden;
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.

 

[13788]

tomarctus: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=0#15 date=02/25/04 at 00:40:31]Do gay men REALLY care about being married in the conventional sense of the word "marriage"?  Or are they just complaining to fight the system and gain more rights... just to gain rights?  Just to prove something?  What's really going on here?
If two people love each other enough, I guess I just don't understand why it matters so much to be recognized as a civil union.  In fact, I would think gay men would shun a ritual that is part of a religion that has shunned them for so long.[/quote]

1) It is not just gay men, but gay men and women.
2) We are not trying to gain "more" rights, only the same and equal rights. Currently we have fewer rights than heterosexuals.
3) There are many gays and lesbians that are very conservative and very religious.
4) Love is wonderful but does not magically confer these equal rights.

mindseye and lascap1 both answered the subject quite well.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

I can't look at marriage as a 'religious act'. Sure, matrimony is a sacrament in many religions, especially Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Church of England, but the union represented by marriage exists outside of a religious context. We can't ignore that even those who have no religious views get married. But many people will continue to view things as they choose and will continue to see gay marriage as sacrilege. Actually, I'm rather surprised that we haven't heard from gay religious organiztions like Dignity, Integrity, Axios, Affirmation, the MCC, Interweave, etc. I would think they'd be all over the news as the question of gay marriage heats up. Or have they, and I just missed them while I'm stuck here in Louisiana.

Personal note: Yeah, I'm in favour of gay marriages. Love doesn't discriminate, and I think it's immoral for the governent to intrude in affairs of the heart. They have no moral right to dictate what justifies the union of two people in love.

 

[jonb]

Thanks for the list, mindseye. Gigz is on my *plonk* list anyway; I personally think Bush is doing it as another distraction technique.

And while we're here, why the hell aren't conservatives speaking up for states' rights? Hypocrisy?

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Do I really deserve to be on your "plonk" list because I speak my mind? I was simply asking a question and my question was answered. There is a lot I didn't know about the rights people are given by being married, and now that I know, I support gay marriages. Don't be an asshole, jonB.

Can someone explain to me what a *plonk* list is?

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: It means your somewhat on ignore.

Back on topic:

I would like to make a clear distinction between marriage in church, and marriage before the city council as a civil union. To me those are very different things.

I agree that by by the first act of our constitution (I think its the same in the US) we cannot discriminate on any ground, which Im for. It should give everyone tha same legal rights.

But now my jit. Not all churches will allow gay marriages to be performed in church. Some do, but some might never. By this same first act in the constitution, do you think churches should be forced to close gay marriages?

Cause if I take this law literally, no church should/could deny a gay couple to marry. Hell, if I take on that law, no church can deny a Muslim extremist to marry his satan worshiping wife, to take an example.

Im not much of a lawmaker, so correct me if im wrong, but if I hop onto the next constitutional right many Americans are proud to have (free speech), then that same Muslim, nor Hindu or whatever belief can be denied to chant their own religious slogans (if of course in a not to loud and orderly fashion).

What Im basically asking, to what extent does the church (very scary wordm but I mean any religious group of people) have to the right to do what their faith asks them to, without demands made by civil law?

Thnx

 

[jonb]

So in other words, the law should allow it, but each church should be able to decide their policy. Seems like a fair compromise.

In general, freedom of religion as an ethic varies: Islamic fundamentalists aren't allowed to go out and destroy the WTC under our law. Similarly, Identists aren't allowed to go out and lynch blacks. However, I see no reason a minister cannot withhold a ceremony; after all, you should know enough about the ceremonies before actually being involved in one.

 

[lacsap1]

Javier, sorry but your are seeing lions in the way and they are not there at all.

Church is (just) a church but the law is THE LAW !
So nobody, even some kind of churches nor religons can discriminate based on the law.

Please read http://www.cesnur.org/testi/irf/irf_netherla99.html

U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999.

Section I. Freedom of Religion:
The (Dutch) Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government respects this right in practice. The Constitution permits the Government to place restrictions on the exercise of religion only on limited grounds, such as health hazards, traffic safety, and risk of public disorder.

Disputes have arisen when the exercise of the rights to freedom of religion and speech clashed with the strictly enforced ban on discrimination. Such disputes are addressed either in the courts or by antidiscrimination boards. Two recent cases involved the leader of an orthodox Protestant party in the Parliament and a police inspector in Rotterdam (who also happened to be a council member for another orthodox Protestant party in a small town). Both officials made public statements disapproving of homosexuality on religious grounds. Complaints by private individuals and organizations induced the Public Prosecutor to start criminal proceedings. Although the officials' statements were considered offensive to homosexuals by the Hague District Courts (in the case of the member of Parliament) and the Police Judge in Rotterdam (in the case of the police inspector), both were acquitted by the Hague Appellate Court on June 9, 1999 because the intention to offend or discriminate against homosexuals was deemed absent. The officials apologized for any harm they might have caused to homosexuals.

Other controversies focused on the authority of religious school boards (all schools are publicly funded) to deny employment to homosexual teachers or Muslim women wearing headscarves. The Equal Opportunities Committee ruled in February 1999 that a public school is not permitted to deny employment to an applicant solely because she refused to take off her headscarf. This action was considered a violation of freedom of religion.

In April 1999, the Equal Opportunities Committee ruled that a Christian school was not permitted to deny employment to an applicant solely because of the person's sexual preference. Such an action was considered to be a violation of the anti-discrimination ban. The Board of a Calvinist school had rejected an applicant because it assumed that the parents of their pupils would not find him acceptable. A supervisory body subsequently fired the Board for its decision. The school Board appealed this decision to the Equal Opportunities Committee. The Committee ruled that a school board is permitted to make certain demands of applicants, such as endorsement of the school's principles, but that being a homosexual without openly advocating the lifestyle would not be grounds to deny employment.

Section III. U.S. Government Policy
The U.S. Embassy discusses religious freedom issues with the Dutch Government in the overall context of the promotion of human rights. Promoting religious freedom around the world is a high priority goal of Dutch foreign policy. The U.S. Embassy works very closely with the Government to promote religious freedom.
-end-

First of all I hope that US Government (and everybody els ) will learn quicky that religious "laws" are not higher or more important then the first act of our constitution.

Concerning your question about church who will not have a "gay blessing";

Ties churches are conservative, extremist and probably most hypocriste. Do you want as a modern liberal gaycouple celebrate your marriage, your most beautifull day of your life in a conservative church next door or do you look around and choose a nice liberal church with a understanding priest without any problems what so ever. This is called self-regulating, works the same as looking for your favourite bar, restaurant and shop and as we see in the Netherlands as more churches and other commercial businesses find they way to the fully accepted gay lifestyle the will open there doors as the money is ofcourse very welcome.

My advice, go every time to the cours, make them crazy, again and again !!

 

[jonb]

Actually, I don't want to see churches forced to perform the ceremony, personally. I just want the option to be available. (There's a similar problem out in Indian country: Lots of hucksters out there selling ceremonies to whites. Oftentimes, they'll sell initiation ceremonies to adults, or they'll sell male ceremonies to women, female ceremonies to men, etc.) I'm sure that's what Javier's worried about.

My opinion is, religions can say 'this ceremony requires that you be this sex' simply because that's how societies are set up. (The ultimate reductio ad absurdum is a Jewish couple trying to get someone to circumcise their daughter.) However, the state cannot say that.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Lacsap

To you the church maybe just a church, but my opinion (and with me 2 billion Christians) on it not being JUST a church, should be respected as much.

Jon was right. I meant that any religion should have the right to make their rules on the processes they follow, and should be able to deny people (on disclosed grounds) to close marriage in church. I see your Dutch. In Holland already, Ministers can deny a couple marriage in church, even if they think they are not involved in church/faith enough.

This is no other than you being denied membership to a lawyer society, simply cause your not a lawyer.

As such, as church marriage states it should be between man and woman, I think they have every right to deny a gay couple to close the deal in church.

Jav

 

[lacsap1]

Javier,

I don't want to hurt your feelings (and maybe also the other 2 billion Christians) but please try to understand
and a gaymarriage, where this whole discussion is about
,must be reasoned on the basis that a marriage is only lawfull when it's preformed in front of a lawfull settlement with certificate like at cityhall or other offical office. An offical marriage based of the law rulings, registered at parliament are based on disestablishment between state and church. When we speak about gaymarriage this has nothing to do with sentimentality concerning religions and churches. Just see it as a contract between 2 persons and the state and equals by this contact the same rights as given to heterosexual couples. If a homosexual couple wants to go after the
official and lawfull marriage at cityhall to the church
for a blessing, then this will be just a individual controbution to the whole marriage ceremony of the concerning couple and between the church.

So the church and it's gay opinion in this matter is not important as this is only for ceremony reasons and not needed to be official "married".

The whole point is that the state or country, read the law itself, can't discriminate by giving only marriage certificates and all concerning benefites explicit to heterosexuals and not to homosexuals.

I think that even "liberal Christians" must say that the state/country itself cann't discriminate people in this matter regardless if there will be a blessing in church or not.

Greetz
lacsap=pascal.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Pascal, dont worry, Im never offended, I was merely making a point.

I guess we misunderstood eachother. I totally agree that gay couples should be able to -marry- in front of the city council.

The distinction I was trying to make, was that I DONT agree that gay couples should be able to marry in church. Your wrong on one point, the church is a legal entity to bind people, you dont have to marry before city council if you were already married in Church. But, just as much as before city council, you have to file your marriage.

And this is my question I guess. Should the church by law be forced to bind gay couples as well? Cause in Holland, many gay people actually want to marry in church, so the question might come up sometime, and precedent will have to be set. Thats my question I guess...does the first act in the constitution count then, or should the church (or any legal group of people for that matter) be able to make its own rules?

 

[jay_too]

I found this in today's Stanford newspaper; it is a slightly different angle to the discussion:

I don't support same-sex marriage out of concern for the rights of homosexuals, necessarily. I don't even really think that marriage is what they're after. But I do think government endorsed same-sex marriage could have a tremendously positive impact on our society's future.

If same-sex marriages are made legal once and for all, it will only be a matter of time before the stigmas really begin to wash away. We'll stop seeing high-schoolers beaten, killed, suicidal or afraid to talk to anyone. Relatives won't have to move from intolerant regions to Provincetown or San Francisco. Sons or daughters won't be ashamed to introduce someone to mommy and mommy. And straight people won't feel pressed to make their straightness explicit, as I have done compulsively throughout this column.

 

[lacsap1]

Jay_too: Looks like some extra reason to go ahead with the whole process, don't you think ?

Jav; Concerning the churches,
Like the saying; Ever people gets it's church they deserve ......

Back in the Netherlands, we have a long tradition of liberation. The Netherlands is a very liberal country. We are famous (or notorious) for our liberal policies not only with regard to same-sex marriage, but also with regard to such issues as drugs, prostitution and euthanasia. Not only our society, but also most of our churches are very liberal. In various church families, the Dutch church is very liberal in comparison with its sister churches. This holds for churches as diverse as the Calvinist Reformed Churches, the Mennonites, the Lutherans, the Old Catholics and the Roman Catholics (the latter with the exception of the Vatican-appointed bishops). In the Reformed and Mennonite traditions, where the Dutch churches have co-founded or given the name to their church family, the Dutch church may be considered extremely liberal. In both cases, their tolerant views on homosexuality are a controversial theme in international contacts. Similar examples are easily found in other countries. In many churches, homosexuality is still rejected. However, in an increasing number of churches, in the Netherlands and elsewhere, there is tolerance or even official acceptance of homosexuality and of same-sex relationships. Two Dutch churches have officially accepted the blessing of same-sex relationships, whereas a number of others de facto endorse or allow it. In other churches, more tolerant views of homosexuality seem to gain terrain. The image that the Christian religion condemns homosexuality thus becomes increasingly incorrect.

I think that once the US people (and the rest of the world) are fully acceptable and comfortable with the feeling that gaymarriage must be protected by courts and placed in laws as at this moment the discrimination can't continue. After sort period of time the chruches will follow. Therefore, it is time that other Christian images of sexuality and commitments emerge in the public debate. I believe in a church that is fully part of modern society, that supports equal rights for men and women and lives up to this ideal in its own practice. And I believe that sexuality is a gift that we should fully embrace as a valuable aspect of Creation, in all the richness of its diversity.



"Jesus preached and talked against a whole gamut of sins. He never mentioned homosexuality at all." -former president Jimmy Carter.

 

[13788]

amiles: Javierdude24 wrote:

"I guess I do oppose adoption by gay people. Why? Cause I think both parents are necessary. I know we have thousands of one-mom or one-dad families which work out fine, but creating a process where one type of parent by definition is denied to the child, seems unjust. One-dad or one-mom families usually got there by circumstances, not because of a conscious decision."

===============================

The reality is that there are more kids who need adoptive parents than than there are homes for them.

In Florida, where gay couples are now barred from adoption, there are 4000 kids sitting in foster homes waiting for adoption. Is it better for these kids to be in foster homes than with adoptive gay parents?

 

[jay_too]

pascal..

Yea, there are many reasons to accept the reality and even the desireability of gay unions.

I appreciate the Carter quote.

amiles..

Under ideal circumstances, generally a family with one mom and one dad might be best for child rearing. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. There are too many children in foster homes or "on the streets" because no one wants them. One of the major reasons I support gay marriage/union is that they may provide to some of the "lost" children the financial and emotional stability of a home.

jay

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=lacsap1 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=20#33 date=02/29/04 at 04:57:57]
I think that once the US people (and the rest of the world) are fully acceptable and comfortable with the feeling that gaymarriage must be protected by courts and placed in laws as at this moment the discrimination can't continue. After sort period of time the chruches will follow. [/quote]

I wouldnt hold my breath on the churches following, I think the Catholic Church accepted in the 1990ies that the earth was round.

[quote author=lacsap1 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=20#33 date=02/29/04 at 04:57:57]
Therefore, it is time that other Christian images of sexuality and commitments emerge in the public debate. I believe in a church that is fully part of modern society, that supports equal rights for men and women and lives up to this ideal in its own practice. And I believe that sexuality is a gift that we should fully embrace as a valuable aspect of Creation, in all the richness of its diversity.

"Jesus preached and talked against a whole gamut of sins. He never mentioned homosexuality at all." -former president Jimmy Carter.
[/quote]

I guess I am not making myself clear I think. I am not saying homosexuality is a bad thing. If you browse through my posts (dont, it takes too long) youll see ill be the last one to start off on homosexuality and the church, I am Bi as well.

I know some churches have accepted homosexuality, I kow Jesus never mentioned it, I know it is only mentioned three or so times in the bible. But it wasnt my point. My point was that IF and WHEN a church, a conservative church, does not want to bind a gay couple in marriage, when they were asked, should they be obliged under the first law in our constitution. Or should they be able to make their own rules on who they bind.

I compared it already with the statutes of any group of people, if your not a lawyer, you cant join the lawyer society (or something).

That was the distinction I was making.

 

[lacsap1]

Javier,

Okay, I see your piont.

At this very moment a church can refused gay marriage in there house but they have to be very carefull in the way of informing the concerning couple. This has to be done in an open, respectfull and neatly contrived way.
If this is done in the above matter and the church can recalled this on the freedom of religion, no procedure can be filled or will be refused by the court. (something like, unfortunately we can't marrie you in this house of god due to our sincerly believings, but we can redirect you to a more liberal church next door) If the refusement will be done in an unrespectfull and nasty way with no legitimate reason the "discrimination" procedure can be filled.

FYI, since the first law in our constitution was in place
several "famous religious" guys has been taken the stand at court. So, churches are very carefull to admittance.

Here a little story in the press;

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (Reuters) - The Bible-brandishing leader of a Dutch Calvinist political party was fined 300 guilders (US$160) Tuesday for discrimination against gays after he compared practicing homosexuals with thieves. Leen van Dijke, leader of the minority Reformatorische Politieke Federatie made the remarks in a 1996 interview with the magazine Nieuwe Revu and later defended them, saying they were based on the bible. In the Netherlands discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation is illegal, but Van Dijke had argued a conviction would signal an end to free speech.



========================================
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of." -Sigmund Freud, in a letter to an American mother

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=20#36 date=02/29/04 at 13:51:02]I wouldnt hold my breath on the churches following, I think the Catholic Church accepted in the 1990ies that the earth was round.[/quote]
1970s, actually. Some Protestants still haven't caught on, though, at least judging by the number of creationists who believe in fifty-story giants.

I guess I am not making myself clear I think. I am not saying homosexuality is a bad thing. If you browse through my posts (dont, it takes too long) youll see ill be the last one to start off on homosexuality and the church, I am Bi as well.

I know some churches have accepted homosexuality, I kow Jesus never mentioned it, I know it is only mentioned three or so times in the bible. But it wasnt my point. My point was that IF and WHEN a church, a conservative church, does not want to bind a gay couple in marriage, when they were asked, should they be obliged under the first law in our constitution. Or should they be able to make their own rules on who they bind.

I compared it already with the statutes of any group of people, if your not a lawyer, you cant join the lawyer society (or something).

That was the distinction I was making.

And it's a good distinction. But the stance of the Bush administration is to have the government make that decision, and always against it. Of course, no one practices any of the other rules of the Bible, including:

• Polygamy
• Levirate marriage (forcing a man to marry his brother's widow if they didn't have children)
• Uncle/niece and cousin marriage, especially patrilineal parallel cousins
• Forcing rape victims to marry the rapist

From that list, it looks like not allowing gay marriages is more likely to cause Santorum's dire predictions. At least the polygamy and incest.

 

[13788]

tomarctus: Every day, lately, when I read the news, I become even happier that I am an best an agnostic and at most an atheist.