Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   "When it comes to same-sex marriages, it's time for all of us to lighten up." --Francis   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

3725 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 11:09 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



222 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-10-21 6:10:41 PM  

zepillin: I'm saying if you want to have a visitor and you're allowed to have a visitor You should be you should be able to have anyone come visit that you want to come visit

I'm saying if you're allowed to add household members to your insurance you should be able to add any household member to your insurance

That's what I'm saying

 
2020-10-21 6:13:37 PM  
Okay I scrolled up I understand the confusion

I should have been more clear
 
2020-10-21 6:26:12 PM  

dletter: Theaetetus: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

This post is such a huge rewriting of history, and also ignores present day reality.

Hey, as a non-churchgoing Unitarian, I'm fine with going "Fark you" to the evangelicals and religious right on that.

I'm just recognizing how that's gone the last 30-40 years.


It hasn't, though. Government legalization of marriage long predates religious institutions, and the church didn't even get involved until the Council of Trent, when they realized that people were going through their lives without ever setting foot inside a church. And marriage licenses have no bearing on romantic relationships - believe it or not, they don't send a clerk to make sure you get your fark on every night. Consider the number of troops who get married to friends for post benefits before getting deployed.
And currently, you get wed in "your church", and if you never sign the paperwork with the county or town, you're not married. My MIL knows this well, because she didn't find out that her wedding in the 1970s didn't actually qualify as a marriage until the 2000s when she had to rush to file paperwork as her, well, fiance technically was dying of cancer and her children were in their 20s and 30s (Massachusetts having no common law marriage).

In other words, your suggestion is the way the law works, and the way the law has worked for over 1000 years. The only distinction is that you want to replace the perfectly good terms "marriage" and "wedding" with "civil union" and, uh, apparently "marriage". As a conservative, I object to this.
 
2020-10-21 6:28:50 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Theaetetus: tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: Meh...I mean actually having to get legally "married", that is, the economic and other stuff sense, done at the courthouse or someplace like that.

And I am telling you -- this is already the case. That's why people have to obtain a marriage license from the state based on residency, age, consanguinity, and other requirements. The requirements must be met, the form has to be properly attested like any other contract, then properly filed with the state.

Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.

It makes you wonder if Dewey has ever been married.

LOL, you need to read all the comments...

Oh here, replying to you, by he way.

Yes.   I think all marriages should be "civil" unions, then if you want to get married in a church, you can have a "Blessing of Civil Marriage".   Which we did.   Went to the county clerk, got civil marriaged, then later had an Episcopalian "Blessing", which for all intents and purposes was just like a wedding (which made my grandmother very, very happy...she got to see her oldest grandchild finally walk down the aisle, in a "wedding" dress, though not white.)


See above. This is the law and has been since long before any ancestor you've ever met was alive. All marriages are civil contracts with the state. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other places of worship have religious ceremonies that they call "weddings", "sealings", "celestial marriage", "bindings", and other such terms, that may have all sorts of religious meaning, but have no legalmeaning.
As with dletter, you're suggesting the situation we have now, but changing the names because... stigginit? The only two reasons to change the names are "fark the gays" and "compromise with the bigots", which work out to the same thing.
 
2020-10-21 6:36:43 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: tekmo: Marriage statutes allow the parties to choose the form of solemnization ceremony they prefer. Many people choose a religious ceremony, but a religious ceremony is not required.

No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.   The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.   If you get married in a church without going through the separate civil, secular marriage, it doesn't count as a marriage, for tax purposes, medical, etc.


That is literally the law now.
 
2020-10-21 6:39:26 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Fine...are the other contracts required to be filed at the county clerk's office to be valid, because the marriage "contract" is.


See, e.g., the registry of deeds.
 
2020-10-21 6:48:33 PM  
This is along the lines of the Catholic Church accepting that divorce is necessary as a civil institution (and not excommunicating you if you get one), but not letting divorcees get married unless their previous marriage is nullified.

In practice it's a useful, positive step, but it's not a change in how it thinks marriage within the Church should work.

Also keep in mind that in some countries where marriage was very much defined by the Catholic Church (like in Spain, where I used to live), there 25+ years ago there were movements by heterosexual couples to get civil unions written into law because they wanted to get married without the church's involvement.  I don't know if there was any of that in Argentina, but it means that someone like the Pope might think civil unions are still a popular idea, not realizing that those of us married outside of the Church are just calling it and thinking of it as marriage nowadays.
 
2020-10-21 6:49:29 PM  

Trayal: "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

This old argument again? "You can have the benefits of marriage but don't you dare call it 'marriage!'" The hubris endemic to any organization which claims a monopoly over the definition of marriage is staggering. I guess we should also revoke the marriages and issue 'civil union certificates' for all straight atheist couples? Or all non-catholic couples?

They need to get over themselves. Any such 'separate but equal' type arguments reveal them for what they truly are.


Alot of drama could have been avoided if the government got out of the marriage business all together.  Everybody, gay or straight, gets a civil marriage (aka civil union) for the legal recognition required.  Marriage stays in the realm of religion, whether that's Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Pastafarian.

It's how many countries around the world already operate.  You can get a civil "marriage" aka civil union (but still known colloquially as a marriage), which some churches, especially catholics won't recognize.  Or you can get a church marriage, that the state doesn't recognize.  Or you can do both.

If you really want separation of church and state, why do you want churches involved in the legal aspects of marriage - including who is entitled to it?  And why do you want the state involved in the spiritual aspects of marriage, if you believe in that sort of thing?
 
2020-10-21 7:39:34 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: Trayal: "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

This old argument again? "You can have the benefits of marriage but don't you dare call it 'marriage!'" The hubris endemic to any organization which claims a monopoly over the definition of marriage is staggering. I guess we should also revoke the marriages and issue 'civil union certificates' for all straight atheist couples? Or all non-catholic couples?

They need to get over themselves. Any such 'separate but equal' type arguments reveal them for what they truly are.

Alot of drama could have been avoided if the government got out of the marriage business all together.  Everybody, gay or straight, gets a civil marriage (aka civil union) for the legal recognition required.  Marriage stays in the realm of religion, whether that's Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Pastafarian.

It's how many countries around the world already operate.  You can get a civil "marriage" aka civil union (but still known colloquially as a marriage), which some churches, especially catholics won't recognize.  Or you can get a church marriage, that the state doesn't recognize.  Or you can do both.

If you really want separation of church and state, why do you want churches involved in the legal aspects of marriage - including who is entitled to it?  And why do you want the state involved in the spiritual aspects of marriage, if you believe in that sort of thing?


Letting religions have a monopoly on the definition of marriage isn't getting state separated from religion, it's giving religion veto power on how the state operates.

It literally already is a secular institution. That religions decide to have a ceremony also doesn't change anything.
 
2020-10-21 8:06:27 PM  

dkulprit: 1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.

Also her second marriage is not recognized by diocese either and the newer husband is also catholic and it is his first marriage.

He can take communion even though their marriage is not recognized.

Its farking stupid.


Hey, yeah, but how often do you get to beat god on a technicality..?

/ AMMIRITE!?
 
2020-10-21 8:09:14 PM  

dkulprit: 1funguy: dkulprit: Drank_the_40_water: Tomahawk513: severedtoe: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

don't forget that you cannot get divorced in Catholicism.  only a dead spouse lets you out of the sacrement.

ask Anne Boleyn about it.

That's not exactly true either.  Annulments aren't common but they aren't exactly rare either.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/prin​t-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulme​nt *

*Turns out I was wrong about the Orthodox comment above, still need a dispensation from the Bishop

CSB, my grandma got an annulment (effectively a pronouncement that it never happened) after 17 years and 8 kids! And that was 50ish years ago. Not as hard to get as they say it is...

Depends on your area, how large the local parish is, your social standing, and how well you know your bishop.

I know a lady whose husband was literally stealing from the church which got him kicked out and the bishop wouldn't allow annul her marriage...  so she got a divorce.... and he died right after the proceedings.

She is still diehard and still goes to mass, but isn't allowed to take communion.

shiat's wild.

If anyone did something like that to me it would make me question my willingness to be a part of what they believe in.

But there's a reason I'm agnostic.

She should be allowed communion. Catholics say a civil divorce does not end a marriage from the Catholic Church.
But he's dead. Which does end a catholic marriage.

So...
Saturday confession, Sunday communion.

Don't ask me.  She got remarried though, so that might be it.  He was definitely dead before she remarried.

She belongs to the Cincinnati diocese, she's not allowed to take communion.

Thats all I know, don't pretend to understand their whole wishy washy belief system.


Well for me personally, I just think we got in the habit of allowing too many rules get between us and god.
To paraphrase senator sasse, we are already asked to believe an awful lot about religion, what's one more thing?
 
2020-10-21 8:17:41 PM  

Dr Dreidel: PvtStash: jfivealive: Well since the office of the papacy is protected by infallibility, meaning it's not possible for the Pope to authoritatively pronounce a teaching that is untrue, does this mean if Catholics disagree, they will be forced to believe they will burn in hell?  Please tell me it does.

More or less.
but like all large enough religions, Catholics are no more in one unified lockstep religious practices belief than Jews are.

Catholics have a defined leadership structure, at least - The Pope is Boss of All Catholics (so you'll need to get the silver arrow to beat him), and there is no analog in Judaism (not in any major strain I'm aware of*).

There is a single Catholic doctrine that flows from the Vatican (although I suppose this dictum, like the results of Vatican II, will be ignored by the fundies**) - Jews can't even agree on whether or not the Talmud is controlling, and that was edited specifically to be a single-source 1500 years ago!

So I think I agree with your point, but I see it more like convergent evolution - we did not arrive at this place through the same processes or motivations.

// the Talmud, even if you smash together the two different versions (and can reconcile the contradictions, as many have), doesn't cover the entirety of law
* there are local "Chief Rabbis", but those are political/ceremonial titles (as in the UK and Israel), not religious
** in terms of adherence to doctrine, I'd agree that most lay Jews and Catholics share the cafeteria mindset


Only Roman Catholics. There are actually several recognized Catholic groups, some more defunct than others. Eastern Orthodox are Catholic, as are a couple other churches. There were actually five sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. Rome and the Western Roman Catholics never really bought into the Pentarchy but on paper it existed until the Muslims conquered Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. During that time, for example, Chaldeans and Coptics and Assyrian and Syriac and some other groups were considered Catholic, though the ones living outside the Empire were considered heretical even though they followed basically the same things, to the point that you have to talk about the Chaldeans (those in the Empire) versus the non-Chaldeans (those following the same rules as Chaldeans but outside the Empire) because there was no distinction made except by the Council that established the Pentarchy.

To this day each of the big three Catholic groups (Roman, Eastern, Oriental meaning Middle East) recognize claimants to the sees, and there are even some instances where there is agreement. I find it amusing that officially neither the Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Oriental Orthodoxy recognize a claimant to Rome. Rome apparently doesn't recognize a claimant to Constantinople, all three recognize claimants to every other see, however.
 
2020-10-21 8:34:26 PM  

whidbey: Drank_the_40_water: whidbey: fiddlehead: whidbey: Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."

I'm sure the pope would want to call my secular marriage a "civil union" as well. "Marriage" is reserved for Catholics, and perhaps other accepted religions.

Gay atheists get married too, though.  "Civil Union" is akin to "separate but equal."

Not in the eyes of the church (unless those rules changed since I was a kid)... It doesn't count unless a priest signed off on it.

The point is marriage is not "reserved" for Catholics.   That's a flat out bigoted statement right there.


Marriage is rooted in religion.

The problem is that we don't have a nuanced vocabulary. Our words around it are the language of religion. Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. When a Catholic leader speaks of marriage it is going to be in that sense. Weddings are the secular part, the celebration and community recognition. But those terms get swapped around all the time. Everyone says "we just got married!" not "We just got wedlocked!" or "we just were wedded."
 
2020-10-21 9:06:01 PM  
I heard some Catholic radio today.  The priests couldn't stress enough the separate but (not) equal sentiment of this thread.  Don't worry layman caller, Francis isn't going to let them really get For Real married, no.  We still can't stand homosex (unless it's priest on altarboy, of course).
 
2020-10-21 10:38:47 PM  

zepillin: Well pretty straightforward for a twisted mind just make sure it up what the f*** I'm done


What?
 
2020-10-21 10:39:36 PM  

zepillin: Okay I scrolled up I understand the confusion

I should have been more clear


If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize.
 
2020-10-21 10:45:17 PM  

dkulprit: zepillin: Okay I scrolled up I understand the confusion

I should have been more clear

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize.


And I, I didn't really analyze what you were saying and just made a Flipent statement About other peoples opinions that really wasn't Relevant it is I That apologize to you The mistake was mine
 
2020-10-22 1:31:47 AM  

dletter: punkwrestler: dletter: OldJames: I don't care who gets married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Last time I checked, the government isn't running a dating service, and they shouldn't care if you're married or single.

There is certainly a case for this.  Government legalization of "marriage" is an archaic thing almost completely tied to religious institutions.  "Marriage licenses" should just be 100% replaced with "Civil union licenses" that have no bearing on being in a "romantic" or any other kind of personal relationship.  As long as both people are of legal age and not being forced into the union, the "why" shouldn't matter to get all of the legal benefits.  You can still get "married" in "your church", this doesn't replace that... you just would be getting a CU license from the govt. not a "marriage license"... but of course some people hate actually having a separation of church & state.

Not really all the laws in the country protect a married couple. Even gay people who were together before it was legal had their lives ripped apart, because even if they had powers of attorney and all the other legal paperwork, they often were barred from the hospital by the family and their possessions were stolen by the spouse that died family.

So yes marriage recognized by the state is necessary, unless of course you want to change all 11,000 federal laws that deal with marriage.

I don't know that "rip apart" as much as "rename" (all 'Marriages' are called 'Civil Unions' henseforth and forward), since the big "sticking point" seems to be around the term "marriage"... give that back to the "church".

Of course, doing that would then uncover that some just want to browbeat LGBTQ people, with "legal marriage" just being one way they have to do it.   Which is why they care to keep that specific wording legally.

But, it may be that you can't just "wave a magic wand" about changing one word to two in the laws.


Why should the Christians get to appropriate a term that was in use before Christ? It's been an understood term now for ages and that is what everything is based around federal laws, state laws, benefits, society....


Why should we be forced into a separate but equal term.
 
2020-10-22 3:08:37 AM  

dkulprit: MIRV888: dkulprit: Ah trying to keep the church relevant.  He's seen the assignment shift in younger demographics either not caring if people who love eachother getting married or outright support it.

How are you going to keep people in the church, and by extension keep them paying into the church if they refuse to join or stay due to their outright refusal to get with the times?

This isn't some grand gesture because he cares.  This is an attempt to keep the spice (cash) flowing by making them seem inclusive while not actually doing any of it.

It's purely a PR move.   Younger generations are all in, but even amongst older populations it is still at 60+% approval rating.

So as the older generations die off we're looking at a huge amount of support amongst younger generations and they're not going to stay in or join a church that is outright hostile to it.  This is them attempting to stay relevant/functioning and not actually caring.  If the shift hadn't happened he'd still be against it.

I'm pretty sure the 1600ish year old institution, which is accepted globally as a nation state, has loot. 
Keeping the church relevant?  Yes
Fund raising? No

You think relevant and dwindling numbers wouldn't effect their bottom line?

Parishes are already going bankrupt.

Membership and continued tithing is what keeps them running.  Its what keeps the Vatican's coffers full.

That's like saying a business who has billions in assets is immune from going bankruot if they lose members because they have billions in assets.  Sure they can stay afloat for a while if they sell off assets, but that wouldn't keep them afloat forever.

The catholic church is a money hungry orginization.  If you think they only care about their membership because of souls you are sadly mistaken.


You do understand there are other countries besides 'Murca right?  1600+ years.  Nation state.  One Billion members.  Say it over and over a few times.  Just because Catholicism is failing in 'Murca, doesn't mean they are broke.  It's not a business.  It's a religion.
 
2020-10-22 4:20:26 AM  

eKonk: "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said

Holy fark! An acknowledgement that homosexual people are....people?


"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality. If you are supporting a division between "marriage" and "civil union", you are saying the two are not equal. Now in your religious fantasy world, I'm fine with that. In our legal reality, it simply doesn't work. Still, I'll take this as a step in the right direction.


The government has no business being involved with "marriage" in the first place.  Legally all unions should be civil unions.  If you want a guy in a funny hat to recite Iron Age myths, wave his hands, and provide a religious endorsement making it a marriage then good for you.  That should have no legal weight.
 
2020-10-22 6:21:34 PM  

tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.

The PR Pope here is advocating on behalf of OTHER governments to create laws that relegate gay people to separate-but-equal "civil unions."

He won't make these laws in the Vatican, of course. Even though it's entirely in his power. Nope.

And he also now claims he "stood up for" civil unions when he lived in Argentina.

Which is a lie.

He was a vocal opponent of marriage equality in Argentina, in pretty offensive terms. There are some who claim that he privately said he was okay with separate-but-equal.

That is not "standing up for X."

Francis is a fraud. Don't be suckered.


You should know what the hell you're talking about before you spout off.

First, he's not advocating for any separate but equal BS.  He used the term civil union to distinguish between what the church does (sacraments) and what the state does (protects rights).  If he used the word marriage then it would at the very best be confusing about whether he was referring to the sacrament or the legal protections.  The two things aren't even 'separate but equal'.  They are in no way, shape or form equivalent.  In north america we use the same word for both and since words are hard, people like you get your panties in a twist over something like this.  Lots of other places in the world actually do distinguish and separate what the church and the state do in regards to unions.  Pope Francis is specifically calling for states to put laws in place that protect the rights of gay couples, full stop.  He's not commenting on the sacrament whatsoever.

Second, he did stand up for it in Argentina.  He also made comments that were disparaging.  It's almost as if people's point of view can change over time... who knew.  Apparently not you.  This all BTW was pretty widely reported on back in 2013... you've had 7 years to catch up on that news.
 
2020-10-23 12:40:26 AM  
Headline made me laugh.
 
Displayed 22 of 222 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.