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  
•       •       •

3735 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 11:09 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-10-21 11:11:33 AM  
94 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size

It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.
 
2020-10-21 11:08:59 AM  
50 votes:
Conservative Catholics:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:03:37 AM  
46 votes:
It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start
 
2020-10-21 11:13:05 AM  
33 votes:
This is a great step forward, in the "Organized religion gets graded on a curve" sort of way.
 
2020-10-21 11:15:06 AM  
31 votes:
"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

So separate but equal.
 
2020-10-21 11:15:14 AM  
29 votes:
"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.
 
2020-10-21 11:11:20 AM  
29 votes:
The Catholic leadership are so going to have him assassinated. Damn shame
 
2020-10-21 10:59:52 AM  
24 votes:
i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:19:37 AM  
23 votes:

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.


Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.
 
2020-10-21 11:13:48 AM  
15 votes:
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.
 
2020-10-21 11:15:53 AM  
14 votes:
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.
 
2020-10-21 11:19:15 AM  
11 votes:
"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.
 
2020-10-21 11:18:08 AM  
11 votes:

ukexpat: Isn't this just an extension of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks?


No, this is a recognition that their love should be recognized by law. Which is a lot different than loving the sinner hating the sin.
 
2020-10-21 11:13:27 AM  
11 votes:
The other thread should have gotten green, but to repeat.

What do you call a Catholic who disagrees with the Pope?


Protestant
 
2020-10-21 11:18:49 AM  
10 votes:
American Catholics will be particularly angry.
 
2020-10-21 11:56:26 AM  
9 votes:
A few years back when the US supreme court made gay marriage legal, a former friend (the one who has gone completely far right wing) was flipping out and having a total melt down. I told him to relax, it is not going to affect him in the least. To which he replied "well, how would you like having them live next door to you!!!". My reply was "It's like living next door to tall people, it is not going to make me taller."
 
2020-10-21 11:21:06 AM  
9 votes:

eKonk: 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.


I think the reality is that's the closest we'll get.
I think it's a lot smarter for us to just take religion out of marriages wholeheartedly.
Stop associating the bond of two people in matrimony in the modern world with regressive, bronze age philosophies. Especially when the act of marriage, for centuries has been for entirely civil reasons and -not- for religious reasons.
Just another case of the church worming its way into stuff for it's own influence.
 
2020-10-21 12:59:56 PM  
8 votes:

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.


media.makeameme.orgView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:21:43 AM  
8 votes:
the only person who has the power to make homosexuals a problem for you, is you yourself.

otherwise there is no effect on your life at all.
 
2020-10-21 11:19:45 AM  
8 votes:

fiddlehead: "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

So separate but equal.


Yes, but still a step forward from they should all burn in hell! Sinners!
 
2020-10-21 11:17:53 AM  
8 votes:
The article only refers to him endorsing civil unions and not same-sex marriages which is more separate but equal nonsense. I understand he can only try to change the church so much, but there's a difference between civil unions and marriages that's still rooted in bigotry.
 
2020-10-21 11:12:43 AM  
8 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:12:35 AM  
8 votes:

EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.


Quite Interesting - Spanish Inquisition
Youtube o85NK1EEnMY
 
2020-10-21 11:11:53 AM  
7 votes:
Was not expecting that.
 
2020-10-21 12:55:11 PM  
6 votes:

OldJames: 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.


Libertarian idiocy detected!

Governments have always been the enforcers of contracts. Marriage is a civil contract creating legally enforceable reciprocal obligations between the parties.

If you don't personally want to have legally enforceable reciprocal obligations to another person, then...don't get married.
 
2020-10-21 12:10:24 PM  
6 votes:

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


Actually, it does.  A few years back one of the profs at my work had a massive heart attack in class- he was in an induced coma for a month and in the hospital far longer.

His husband walked into the hospital and had immediate visitation rights, because the spouse always does and trying to stop it is an instant losing lawsuit for a hospital.  For a civil union?  Good guess, but we're in Trumplandia here.  The gay woman who works for me ran out and got married hours after it became legal here- you don't do that if a civil union is the same thing.

The word matters
 
2020-10-21 11:30:24 AM  
6 votes:

ukexpat: Isn't this just an extension of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks?


Not really, which is why it's sort of a big deal, even though it's not "standing up for people" the way some are portraying it. "Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God" is a rebuke to those in the church who say that being gay is turning your back on God and subsequently, that you shouldn't be treated as part of the "family" with God's other children. Arguing that they have the right to be part of a legally recognized family is a huge leap forward... it's also important to note that the Catholic church still views religious marriage as a religious institution, and government marriage as an entirely separate thing, of the same name. Lots of Catholics would be fine if you said only churches can do marriage, and governments can only do civil unions. They don't care much for the idea of governments doing "marriage" at all, so them saying that governments should do civil unions for gay people is about as far as that's going to go, in terms of church doctrine... as most of them think the government should also simply do civil unions for straight people too.

TLDR, this is actually a pretty big deal, but people are misreading it in about a thousand directions.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:58 AM  
6 votes:

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
 
2020-10-21 11:19:53 AM  
6 votes:

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.


Yeah that's not the definition of Papal Infallibilty. P.I. involves a true, formal pronouncement Ex Cathedra and is generally limited to dogmatic questions only. It's only happened twice. Nothing he's said is out of line with what Catholics believe- another poster said so, but its a rehash of hate sin/love sinner, but Francis makes the case in a positive way (give them something) vs the negative reaction of ban everything.
 
2020-10-21 12:39:53 PM  
5 votes:

FlashHarry: He's saying that same-sex unions (marriage) should be legal. But same sex marriage (the catholic sacrament) should not be allowed within the Catholic Church.


You have utterly misrepresented his position. Utterly.

Civil unions are not marriages. They are a legal invention to segregate gay people into an institution that has some, but not all, of the attributes of marriage.

This is not a distinction without a difference. It is a distinction for the purpose of creating a difference.

Marriage is a contract and spouse is a legal status. It affects the parties in virtually every area of law. A Catholic or other religious wedding ceremony is but one means by which a couple may choose to solemnize that contract, but a religious ceremony is not an essential element to a valid, legal marriage.

Nobody is insisting that the Catholics should be required to solemnize same-sex marriages. It's irrelevant.

And in conclusion, don't smart your own posts.
 
2020-10-21 11:54:43 AM  
5 votes:

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


That's not true. See Sweatt v. Painter: marriage has "rich traditions and prestige" in society, while civil unions were created specifically as a separate-but-equal compromise and have been disparaged as "not real marriages".  The very fact that people like you argue that civil unions, rather than marriage, should be good enough supports a conclusion that marriage and civil unions are distinct. To quote the Supreme Court, "It is difficult to believe that one who had a free choice between these [institutions] would consider the question close."
 
2020-10-21 11:40:25 AM  
5 votes:

TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start


Isn't it weird how every time money dries up, God changes his mind about a sin?
 
2020-10-21 11:39:54 AM  
5 votes:

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.


Raised catholic, turned away at the confirmation part. Big fan of Fran, although not enough to go back (they do better than lots of organized religion, especially under Fran, but man they still got a way to go, even if you assume there won't be a turn back to the contagious ACB flavor of catholic after Franny).

But for them, mahwidge is exclusively the domain of the church. I am not married in the eyes of the pope, because we just went to the court house. For someone looking at things through that lens, I am reasonably sure he is not really calling for a separate civil institution for same sex couples, it is really just drawing the line against getting mahwied in the church.

Of course, the "charismatic" crowd will definitely take this as a call for second tier status, or outright evidence that this is an imposter pope that trumpolini is secretly battling to the death, and Joey Ratz is still the real pope he is just drugged so the (((imposter))) can use the homogay agenda to destroy America and the church.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:52 AM  
5 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:27 AM  
5 votes:
We should stop recognizing religious weddings because it's all bullshiat.
 
2020-10-21 11:20:59 AM  
5 votes:

Two16: [Fark user image 600x380]


she and catholics like her already think the pope is a fake pope or doesn't count or something
 
2020-10-21 11:20:04 AM  
5 votes:
Still doesn't make up for aiding and abetting hundreds (thousands?) of child rapists.
 
2020-10-21 11:33:11 AM  
4 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size

dedicated to the bible thumpers and theologians of each and every religion that condemn homosexuality / same sex marriage.

Why do you care so much about what consenting adults do, who they love? it's godamned (pardon the pun) 2020, and the ass end of it at that. Let it go. Let it go already.
 
2020-10-21 11:26:43 AM  
4 votes:
Well I guess Kim Davis, Liberty Counsel, Huckabee, Mat Staver, and Papal Nuncio Archbishop Vigano are all so happy that their concocted hijacking of  the Finale of  Francis' visit to America with a "private audience" worked out so well -- but not to their aggressive manipulative tastes.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:21:26 AM  
4 votes:

Begoggle: American Catholics will be particularly angry.


If you want to make heads spin, remind them that a previous Pope declared "Americanism" to be heresy.
 
2020-10-21 11:12:36 AM  
4 votes:
Isn't this just an extension of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks?
 
2020-10-22 4:20:26 AM  
3 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-21 12:53:29 PM  
3 votes:
Couple of things many people are missing, first as the leader of an organization with over a billion members he's definitely slowly shifting things to the progressive side & hopefully will change things for years to come. As many have said, he's actually following the teachings of Christ much more than most Christians.

Second in many countries outside of the US or those in Europe, if you're a Catholic, anything the Pope says is a huge deal.  I have friends who are the first generation born in the US that are so devoted to the church that they have actually changed their views for the better, because of this Pope.

Third, Canon law is kinda like the pirates code, it's more guidelines to set order or structure because it's such a huge organization. Dispensation can be granted by bishops or the Pope when they feel its warranted & they've been doing it with Covid lately.   I actually know a gay priest who was only able to become one because of Francis' views, so while the church definitely has its faults, the effort is at least being made to try & change with the times & actually follow the teachings like they should.
 
2020-10-21 12:46:53 PM  
3 votes:

Dewey Fidalgo: I think all marriages should be "civil" unions,


Surprise! They are. In every state in the US, marriage is defined as a civil contract.

If you just have a religious solemnization ceremony without bothering to fulfill the other statutory requirements, you almost certainly don't have a valid, legal marriage.
 
2020-10-21 12:36:17 PM  
3 votes:
Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!
 
2020-10-21 12:26:34 PM  
3 votes:
The American Catholics faction are going to shiat all over themselves.  This is bigger than abortion.
 
2020-10-21 11:57:06 AM  
3 votes:

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


From what I remember, the religious right pushed back when civil unions were offered as a compromise.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:02 AM  
3 votes:

GrizzlyPouch: I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.


Are you ever right about anything?

Can't throw the criminal President under the bus,   can't admit gays are people like straights are.

What good are you?  You don't promote any healthy discussion about any issue.
 
2020-10-21 11:22:06 AM  
3 votes:
Catholics have generally been for civil unions instead of marriage for a while. It is cone down to a basically really stupid argument of the semantics of calling it marriage. The difference between civil union and marriage varies by country due to different local legal definitions. But when you support it in the abstract, across many nations, like the pope is doing here, you are basically accepting definitions of civil unions that may be indistinguishable from
marriage in anything but name. The Church knows that they've pretty much lost the debate on this issue, so now they are basically trying to settle for a dumb victory on the terminology.
 
2020-10-21 11:21:54 AM  
3 votes:

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.


I don't think the Church would make a distinction between a legal marriage and a legal civil union.  Legally, they're pretty much the same thing.  I think the distinction is that he doesn't want people thinking he's okaying Holy Matrimony, the religious sacrament, for LGBT people.

I mean it's at least a step in the right direction so I'll cheer it on with half-hearted enthusiasm.  One thing it might open the door for is the Church being fully accepting of Catholic gays adopting, and that is a pretty significant step.
 
2020-10-21 11:21:51 AM  
3 votes:

Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.


Dental damns!
 
2020-10-21 11:17:02 AM  
3 votes:

minnesotaboy: The Catholic leadership are so going to have him assassinated. Damn shame


Yeah, the last thing a lot of senior clergy want is their tops suing them for alimony.
 
2020-10-21 11:16:41 AM  
3 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-21 6:49:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 4:59:48 PM  
2 votes:

12349876: Dean's decision was only a few years after many Democrats supported Defense of Marriage Act and many Democrats back then agreed with Dean's decision.


Honey, it wasn't the progressive wing of the Democratic party that supported DOMA.
 
2020-10-21 4:46:11 PM  
2 votes:

OldJames: There's nothing wrong with it being a contract...But it shouldn't provide extra benefits to citizens that do that....You want to share assets, go to a lawyer. You want bonus social security, no.


Societies have always preferred to encourage couples and families to take care of each other rather than to render every individual society's burden.

Fortunately for your grandma, our government and people much smarter and kinder than you ensured that marriage provided your grandma access to her husband's retirement benefits after he died.

Do you imagine it somehow makes more sense to leave grandma destitute in her widowhood? You'd prefer she become your or your family's personal burden, rather than to simply allow her access to the retirement benefits she helped her husband earn?

That's cold, James. Even for a libertarian.
 
2020-10-21 4:10:08 PM  
2 votes:

BoothbyTCD: Roman notions of sexuality revolved very much around 'penetrator' vs. 'penetratee'....But slaves and male youth were by definition subordinate, so it was therefore ok.


Well, that's not entirely accurate.

It was absolutely a violation of Roman law and social norms for any man to use a citizen's child for sex. That sort of pedophilia was viewed about as dimly by them as it is currently viewed by us. For most of the history of Republican and Imperial Rome, nobody really cared about same-sex relationships between grownups, beyond it providing a basis for giving someone a bit of shiat, which was a popular Roman pastime.

For example, one feature of a Late Republic triumph was the victorious soldiers singing raunchy ditties as they paraded through the city. During one of Caesar's triumphs, his legions sang a song about him being a giant man-whore. The lyrics called him "every woman's husband, and every man's wife."

This was Caesar these soldiers were singing about! Basically to his face! Romans found the implication far more hilarious than scandalous. Sure, there was always some old conservative moral scold like Cato to tut-tut! this sort of thing, but it would be wrong to believe that Cato represented the general morals of his time. He certainly did not, and he'd be the first to say so.

There was one famous case during the Late Republic where a general was actually prosecuted for engaging in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, but the complaint was founded on the fact the general was coercing the sex from a younger aristocrat. So essentially, it really should be understood as a rape case, rather than evidence there was some consistently fierce and broad Roman social opprobrium toward homosexuality.

Which is not to say there were never pulses of anti-gay "family values" moralism in ancient Rome. There certainly were. But they were the exception rather than the norm.
 
2020-10-21 2:58:41 PM  
2 votes:

Dewey Fidalgo: No.   I want the religious service to be a separate thing.


Pay attention: IT IS ALREADY A SEPARATE THING. The state genuinely doesn't give a shiat what sort of solemnization ceremony you indulge in. Religious, non-religious, anti-religious. It. Doesn't. Matter.

If you want a secular solemnization ceremony with a judge as the officiant and the paperwork filed on the spot, you can reserve a spot at the courthouse. If you want a religious solemnization ceremony with your family's Catholic priest as the officiant, you can ask your church for that. If you want an Elvis impersonator to officiate at a theme park, you can have that too if the park agrees.

What is important is that the couple meets the legal criteria to qualify for the license, that the license is filled out correctly, and that the rest of the contractual paperwork is correctly filled out by the officiant and timely filed with the state.

Suppose I sell you my farm and insist that, as part of the deal, we sign the sales contract at the farm during a family bonfire and cookout. Is the deal any less legally valid because someone says grace over dinner? No. Is the sales contract any less valid if it's witnessed by my personal witch doctor? No (unless the witch doctor lacks "contractual capacity.")

>The marriage or civil union or whatever is the legally recognized one.

In the US, all valid, legal marriages are civil marriages. 100%. Most but not all civil marriages are solemnized with a religious ceremony. This is a popular, but not mandatory choice.

>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.

Again, this is already the case.

See e.g. the FLDS' polygamous marriages. Warren Jeffs can claim he has 20 wives, but legally he can only have one spouse, assuming the proper paperwork was filed with the state.
 
2020-10-21 2:40:27 PM  
2 votes:
Whether or not this makes sense give the history of the Catholic Church is one thing.

The fact that this is going to throw off the uber Conservative Catholics, though, is extremely important.  Its a chink in the connection between Catholics and Evangelicals, along with his recent statement on capital punishment, which he said is never really acceptable.

Conservative Catholics have a choice...they accuse liberals of being cafeteria catholics...well, how about it now?  Be careful what you wish for.
 
2020-10-21 1:53:37 PM  
2 votes:

Doc Daneeka: HailRobonia: Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!

Civil unions were the consensus progressive position a mere 15 years ago.

The Catholic Church is a millennia-old institution that does not respond rapidly to social change.  They were still reciting masses in Latin until the mid-20th Century.

By their standards, an embrace of civil unions would be turning on a dime.


Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.


The Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected an amendment Tuesday that would have endorsed civil unions for gay couples.

"Our party has always been the party of defending traditional marriage," said Sharee Langenstein from Illinois. "We need to continue being the party that defends traditional marriage."

Indiana representative Jim Bopp called civil unions "counterfeit marriage."

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach opposed the amendment on the ground that government routinely regulates behaviors like drugs and polygamy.
"We condemn those activities even though they're not hurting other people, at least directly," he said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/0​8​/gop-platform-committee-rejects-civil-​unions-079936
 
2020-10-21 1:29:10 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-21 1:27:30 PM  
2 votes:

dletter: 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".


The "church" never "had" the term "marriage" - they have the terms "wedlock" and "matrimony". Why can't they keep using those? Why do they need to steal "marriage", too? Where will it stop? Will they also want to steal "civil union" at some point, and we have to rename everything again?

/also, if the big "sticking point" is around the term "marriage", then why did so many states pass laws or constitutional amendments that barred providing any legal rights to gay couples? Is it because those religious bigots are actually huge liars?
 
2020-10-21 1:05:34 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Except we have a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, and protecting human rights is very much government's job.
 
2020-10-21 1:04:08 PM  
2 votes:

Doc Daneeka: HailRobonia: Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!

Civil unions were the consensus progressive position a mere 15 years ago.


Not sure where you're getting this.
 
2020-10-21 1:00:54 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-10-21 12:51:49 PM  
2 votes:

tekmo: Dewey Fidalgo: I think all marriages should be "civil" unions,

Surprise! They are. In every state in the US, marriage is defined as a civil contract.

If you just have a religious solemnization ceremony without bothering to fulfill the other statutory requirements, you almost certainly don't have a valid, legal marriage.


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.   In France and other places, you do have the two separate actions.  Religion is separated from civil, very clearly.   You go to whatever the legal entity is (not sure) in a secular setting and get the paperwork done.   If you want a church function, it is separate.
 
2020-10-21 12:47:04 PM  
2 votes:
People opposing same sex marriage still touch themselves, the hypocrites.
 
2020-10-21 12:41:50 PM  
2 votes:

HailRobonia: Ooooh, civil unions! Now tell us how separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks means shorter lines for everyone!


Civil unions were the consensus progressive position a mere 15 years ago.

The Catholic Church is a millennia-old institution that does not respond rapidly to social change.  They were still reciting masses in Latin until the mid-20th Century.

By their standards, an embrace of civil unions would be turning on a dime.
 
2020-10-21 12:35:43 PM  
2 votes:

Drank_the_40_water: 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.

Meh, don't tell me, tell them. Read up where I say I specifically, consciously declined to be confirmed... I am just translating catholic to lay person as a public service, I don't agree with huge swaths of their shiat.


Just as I'm pointing out that the term "civil union" is an insult to people who want to get married.
 
2020-10-21 12:25:47 PM  
2 votes:

madgonad: Dude, this is the Pope.


I noticed.

That's why it's entirely reasonable to expect him to do better than espousing continued bigotry as a matter of law against the neighbors his own farking messiah commanded him to love without qualification.
 
2020-10-21 12:01:40 PM  
2 votes:

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...


My uncle got one, but they had to buy the Monsignor a station wagon first.
 
2020-10-21 11:52:00 AM  
2 votes:

nemisonic: Gaddiel: EL EM: Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/o85NK1EE​nMY]

Holy shiat! Francis was in charge of the Spanish Inquisition?!? Who expected that???


Actually the clip is a bit dated. It was Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI, which we all kind of expected.
 
2020-10-21 11:41:19 AM  
2 votes:

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/pri​n​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
 
2020-10-21 11:41:10 AM  
2 votes:

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.


I wonder if Catholic small business owners who refuse to serve gay couples also refuse to serve people getting remarried.
 
2020-10-21 11:35:19 AM  
2 votes:

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.


There are fairly strict limits on when papal infallibility is applicable, and it must be tied to existing doctrine (IE the Bible).  The Pope saying "I think X is a good idea" is definitely not one of those times.
 
2020-10-21 11:35:12 AM  
2 votes:
So, speaking from a place of having Catholic priest relatives:

Dogma is slow to change. But it changes.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:29 AM  
2 votes:

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.


Catholics don't hold that the Pope is infallible, just that he can speak infallibly on specific matters of faith that cannot be determined by Cannon lawyers and may otherwise split the Church.  Matters with no practical importance like the immaculate conception of Mary.

This is not what Francis has done.
 
2020-10-21 11:33:53 AM  
2 votes:

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.


Pretty much any Christians can be married in the Catholic Church, as long as one is Catholic.  They may need to get the okay from the local Bishop's office, but that's it really.  Now, there is some distinction between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christianity - For Orthodox (Eastern, Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc.) you can have a Mass service for Holy Matrimony just like any two Catholics, whereas non-Orthodox Christians (Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc.) you probably won't have a Mass, just a Holy Matrimony service.
 
2020-10-21 11:33:52 AM  
2 votes:
"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God," Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film.

Now what the f*cking F*CK is so hard about this to understand?
 
2020-10-21 11:32:34 AM  
2 votes:

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.


There are no other accepted religions, from what I learned when I was a Catholic if you aren't Catholic, you're wrong and going to hell!
 
2020-10-21 11:32:11 AM  
2 votes:
If you wanted to support civil unions, the time was 1995 +/- 5 years.

Instead, the churches, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, spent much of that era lobbying for DOMA and state constitutional amendments that specifically barred "anything like marriage".

You don't get to come back from that and say, "hey, wouldn't civil unions be good enough?"
 
2020-10-21 11:30:25 AM  
2 votes:
I've never understood the problem with civil unions anyway.  Calling something a marriage doesn't provide any added benefit.

And it's not like the definition of the word was ambiguous.  Man, woman, ceremony whole nine yards.

This is like the ONE aspect of society where the gay community wants to be just like breeders.
 
2020-10-21 11:23:41 AM  
2 votes:

madgonad: 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.

Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.


I thought he was the minister of funny hats?
 
2020-10-21 11:22:36 AM  
2 votes:
Except the Pope couldn't actually call it "marriage."

Someone that goddamned farking powerful, still using euphemisms for "same sex marriage."
 
2020-10-21 11:22:08 AM  
2 votes:

PanicAttack: The article only refers to him endorsing civil unions and not same-sex marriages which is more separate but equal nonsense. I understand he can only try to change the church so much, but there's a difference between civil unions and marriages that's still rooted in bigotry.


I see it as the next step in making "marriage" meaningless as a legal term, which I'm all for.
 
2020-10-21 11:10:59 AM  
2 votes:
Just like the Spanish Inquisition. No one expected it.
 
2020-10-22 6:21:34 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-22 3:08:37 AM  
1 vote:

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 1:31:47 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 7:39:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 6:39:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 6:36:43 PM  
1 vote:

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 6:28:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 6:26:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:58:25 PM  
1 vote:

12349876: Dean was very liberal for the time overall and attempted to compromise with civil unions


You plainly did not bother to read the source I provided you as you persist in being wrong.

SCOVT gave Vermont's government two choices: equal marriage OR civil unions. Progressives in the legislature wanted equal marriage, conservatives were angry and wanted gays to get nothing. But since "nothing" wasn't an available option available, they grudgingly chose civil unions.

Howard Dean -- notwithstanding his position on any other goddam issue under the sun -- took the same position as the legislature's conservatives, which is not a thing that progressives typically do, especially regarding the civil rights of harmless minorities. Right?

Howard Dean did not "offer civil unions" as if he was making some sort of "progressive compromise." Indeed, Dean didn't offer a compromise at all. To the contrary, he promised he'd veto marriage even if that was the will of the Legislature.

This is how things actually happened. You're misremembering or something. You don't have to read my source. Go read an article from any reputable source.
 
2020-10-21 4:44:31 PM  
1 vote:

tekmo: 12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?

In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.


Dean's decision was only a few years after many Democrats supported Defense of Marriage Act and many Democrats back then agreed with Dean's decision.

Positions can change in their level of conservative/progressive over time.
 
2020-10-21 4:30:14 PM  
1 vote:

12349876: So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?


In the sense that Howard Dean chose to align with the conservatives in this matter due to what he later admitted was guided by his own bigotry, he was very much not being a progressive.
 
2020-10-21 4:27:17 PM  
1 vote:

zepillin: civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine


So you're arguing on behalf of couples creating binding, enforceable civil contracts that invest each other with reciprocal obligations?

This already exists and it's called "marriage."

/facepalm
 
2020-10-21 4:26:34 PM  
1 vote:

tekmo: 12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.

You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/1746512​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement


So you're saying Howard Dean wasn't a progressive?  He was too liberal in the 2004 primary.

And the Civil Union decision was the moment that the right wing went all in for the state constitutional amendment bans many of which included civil unions.
 
2020-10-21 4:13:20 PM  
1 vote:

zepillin: 12349876: zepillin: 12349876: 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.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?

You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?

civil agreements and power of attorney could cover that just fine


And thats the exactly the farking point.  If my wife is hospital I can go be by her side without question.  But in a civil union a person would have to go gather paperwork, present paperwork, have paperwork scrutinized, etc.

Yes because those things are handy at all times and have never been fought in court.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of people they are different.  If civil unions had exact same rights as marriage, sure, we're good.  But they don't, instead your arguing that people should accept lesser rights because that's what people are offering.

Let's change this up a bit, would you feel the same way about this if let's say instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple instead?  Not even gay, but a black female and a white male or white male and black female.

Would you be saying they should accept a civil union because some people don't think their relationship is right?

Because that is exactly the case that got the religious right riled up (and eventually got them turned on roe v wade but thats another story).

If you think it's wrong that an interracial but straight couple would be denied the same rights as married couples but think a civil union is ok for gay people you need to do some soul searching and realize you're a hypocrite.
 
2020-10-21 4:04:27 PM  
1 vote:

tekmo: 12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.

You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/1746512​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement


I chuckled when they called Dean a progressive.

But I didn't bother responding because even the staunchest Corporate Democrat is a progressive radical liberal to the right.  Even good ole neo liberal democrats are radical leftists in their eyes.

When actual progressive leftists dislike neo liberals.
 
2020-10-21 3:33:29 PM  
1 vote:

Magorn: nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.

Ironically opposition to homosexuality came with the "corporate merger" of the Church and the Roman State.   Homosexuality was STIRCTLY forbidden by Roman law much like it was in Sparta.   Of Course, they didn't exactly define it the way we did.   Having sex with another man was not a homosexual act to them, hell in Sparta it was EXPECTED that you sleep with your trainees.  What was not allowed was EXCLUSIVELY homosexual relationships among men of equal status (aka free men)   They didn't give a fark about how and where you got your rocks off, but you were also expected to take a wife and make some kids to keep the Empire strong. So "marriage" was reserved for procreative purposes.  What you did with your willy in your spare time was your business


Also, Roman notions of sexuality revolved very much around 'penetrator' vs. 'penetratee'. It was ok for men to be the penetrator, but unmanly to be the penetratee, and visa versa for women. It was a dominant/submissive dichotomy. But slaves and male youth were by definition subordinate, so it was therefore ok. In short, we can't map Roman sexuality directly onto ours one-to-one.
 
2020-10-21 3:18:59 PM  
1 vote:

12349876: Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.


You have badly misunderstood the subject matter and its history.

SCOVT held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have equal access to the constellation of rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. They instructed the legislature that this could be accomplished by either (a) providing same-sex couples with access to existing marriage laws, or (b) by carving out some novel separate-but-equal "civil unions" scheme.

Howard Dean, far from being "progressive," insisted on the latter. He'd already promised the Vermont legislature he'd veto any bill that used the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex couples.

Dean, many years later, admitted that his "casual homophobia" was informing his decision-making on this matter.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651​2​33/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-g​ay-marriage-movement
 
2020-10-21 3:18:08 PM  
1 vote:

zepillin: 12349876: 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.

When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.

who cares what someone says?


You don't care if a hospital says you can't enter to see your spouse?  You don't care if your employer denies you a chance to put your spouse on insurance?
 
2020-10-21 3:00:41 PM  
1 vote:

whidbey: HighOnCraic: Oddly enough, civil unions were offered by progressives as a compromise position (similar to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), which was firmly rejected by conservatives who thought that even the compromise was going too far.

Where are you getting this?

Which "progressives" offered this compromise?


Howard Dean response to Vermont Supreme Court in 2000.
 
2020-10-21 2:57:55 PM  
1 vote:

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.


When someone says "no you're not really married" who is going to enforce it?  Marriage is useless without the government to protect it.
 
2020-10-21 2:31:30 PM  
1 vote:

Marshmallow Jones: I don't understand why any institution anywhere would prevent people from entering into a joyful union that turns into misery and resentment after a few years when you're sick of each other.

Gotta say though, funny how many of you want it both ways.   Fark religion and religious institutions, they're irrelevant, who cares.   Then it's farking religious institutions won't recognize gay marriage, I'm OUTRAGED.
Go get a civil union and who cares about it being recognized by a religious institution?  How many gay people are hardcore religious anyway?


Civil unions are recognized differently by law.

Thats the problem.

Marriage = becoming family and having the same rights as family.

Civil union does not have same protections or rights.
 
2020-10-21 2:29:53 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


Ironically opposition to homosexuality came with the "corporate merger" of the Church and the Roman State.   Homosexuality was STIRCTLY forbidden by Roman law much like it was in Sparta.   Of Course, they didn't exactly define it the way we did.   Having sex with another man was not a homosexual act to them, hell in Sparta it was EXPECTED that you sleep with your trainees.  What was not allowed was EXCLUSIVELY homosexual relationships among men of equal status (aka free men)   They didn't give a fark about how and where you got your rocks off, but you were also expected to take a wife and make some kids to keep the Empire strong. So "marriage" was reserved for procreative purposes.  What you did with your willy in your spare time was your business
 
2020-10-21 2:17:33 PM  
1 vote:

madgonad: 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.

Dude, this is the Pope.

Baby steps.


Yeah, the Pope-head of one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world. The same pope who sanctioned moving pedophile priests and their enablers to new parishes to cover up their horrors. the same pope who heads an organization that collaborates with the Nazis. the same pope who is against birth control. the same pope who pushes his religion on fols in developing countries to shore up the loss of gullible parishoners inthe West.
Fark the pope. Fark religion.

God is just pretend. Cannot get over how grown-ass adults believe in a magical, invisible wizard that allows childhood cancers, watches rapes and tortures without lifting a finger to help, allows genocide (in fact, participated in it-see Noah) yet will let you burn in hell for masturbating.
 
2020-10-21 2:06:00 PM  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size

"I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Pope."
 
2020-10-21 1:51:49 PM  
1 vote:
Well played, subby.
 
2020-10-21 1:31:10 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 1:23:34 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 1:19:06 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: [Fark user image image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


That's the thing I'll never understand about old testament Christians. The whole point of Jesus was to form a new covenant with God, a sort of contract renegotiation that rendered the previous covenant null and void. You either accept that the old testament is no longer an authority in Christian religion, or you accept that you're not really a Christian.
 
2020-10-21 1:15:33 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 1:06:37 PM  
1 vote:

SVC_conservative: The other thread should have gotten green, but to repeat.

What do you call a Catholic who disagrees with the Pope?


Protestant


Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of Protestantism.
 
2020-10-21 1:03:53 PM  
1 vote:

Cardinal Ximenez: Couple of things many people are missing, first as the leader of an organization with over a billion members he's definitely slowly shifting things to the progressive side & hopefully will change things for years to come. As many have said, he's actually following the teachings of Christ much more than most Christians.

Second in many countries outside of the US or those in Europe, if you're a Catholic, anything the Pope says is a huge deal.  I have friends who are the first generation born in the US that are so devoted to the church that they have actually changed their views for the better, because of this Pope.

Third, Canon law is kinda like the pirates code, it's more guidelines to set order or structure because it's such a huge organization. Dispensation can be granted by bishops or the Pope when they feel its warranted & they've been doing it with Covid lately.   I actually know a gay priest who was only able to become one because of Francis' views, so while the church definitely has its faults, the effort is at least being made to try & change with the times & actually follow the teachings like they should.


And I bet nobody expected it!
 
2020-10-21 12:59:10 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 12:47:46 PM  
1 vote:
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.
 
2020-10-21 12:41:55 PM  
1 vote:

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
 
2020-10-21 12:34:49 PM  
1 vote:

MIRV888: The American Catholics faction are going to shiat all over themselves.  This is bigger than abortion.


Perhaps they should work with Big Pharma to take care of their incontinence or admit that they have a fetish.

They say confession is good for the so--oh wait, they probably don't have one between the whole lot.
 
2020-10-21 12:24:43 PM  
1 vote:
Welcome to Obama's America.
 
2020-10-21 12:21:33 PM  
1 vote:

Mikey1969: TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start

Yeah, but this being Fark, the all-or-nothing brigade will chime in soon and tell you how EVERYTHING has to be done NOW, or it just doesn't count.

I agree, it's a step in the right direction, and it's going to be a long journey. But good on Francis.


It's not that hard.  We shouldn't be needing to take steps at all.  It's 2020, people are having to take steps because they are following text (despite gay people not really being in said text) from a time when their knowledge of science was about kindergarten level now and thought illnesses were ghosts/the devil being in you and praying it out was the only cure.

How hard is that to understand?  We shouldn't need "steps" we shouldn't expect this to take a long time.

This is like the farking dred Scott argument.

"Can't they just be happy that we had to go to war to free them?  Now they want to be treated like.... humans?  Com'on now, thats a lot to ask.  Baby steps here."
 
2020-10-21 12:16:19 PM  
1 vote:

Dewey Fidalgo: 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".


I think this is a fine idea, but let's call the civil institution "marriage" and the religious institution "wedlock". Like it is now and has been for over a thousand years.

Interestingly, if you look into the etymology of the language, the church institution of matrimony is different from the institution of marriage: they descend from different Latin words, specifically mater and -monium (mother and condition), and maritare (to have a husband). Matrimony actually seems, from its derivation, to be the state of motherhood, wed or unwed.
 
2020-10-21 12:03:41 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 11:59:55 AM  
1 vote:

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...
 
2020-10-21 11:57:07 AM  
1 vote:

eKonk: Damn it. So close. What we have to have is equality.


Equality is incompatible with the basic premise of religion. If superior beings exist, then inferior beings must exist. By definition, a religious person actively denies the concept of equality, and not just once on the day they get baptized, but in every waking moment.
 
2020-10-21 11:54:00 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-10-21 11:46:47 AM  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 11:44:23 AM  
1 vote:

Advernaut: We should stop recognizing religious weddings because it's all bullshiat.


That would be the rational way forward. Imaging basing a person's age of majority on a church sacrament.
 
2020-10-21 11:41:07 AM  
1 vote:

KB202: TuckFrump: It's a start in the right direction. Still a lot of work to do, but it's a start

Isn't it weird how every time money dries up, God changes his mind about a sin?


Yes, that's a "Thing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulge​n​ce
 
2020-10-21 11:34:30 AM  
1 vote:

tekmo: Not marriages. Of course not.


You... are aware he's the Pope, right?

He's saying that same-sex unions (marriage) should be legal. But same sex marriage (the catholic sacrament) should not be allowed within the Catholic Church.
 
2020-10-21 11:33:22 AM  
1 vote:
He's not for same-sex marriage, he's for same-sex civil unions. So f*ck you Francis and fix your headline subby.
 
2020-10-21 11:31:51 AM  
1 vote:

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."
 
2020-10-21 11:29:18 AM  
1 vote:

nekom: [Fark user image 257x196]
It's not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, that's for sure.  Now the old testament, well that's another story.


Yes, it is another story.

Like David and Jonathan.  Purely platonic.
 
2020-10-21 11:29:14 AM  
1 vote:
I wish to nominate this headline as a candidate for Fark's Headline of the YearTM
 
2020-10-21 11:27:53 AM  
1 vote:

Minus1Kelvin: Still doesn't make up for aiding and abetting hundreds (thousands?) of child rapists.


Just a friendly reminder.  I still farking hate your Fark profile picture on mobile. I still stupidly try to wipe away the hair off my phone
 
2020-10-21 11:26:52 AM  
1 vote:

Knight without armor: FTFA: Cruz, who is gay, said that during his first meetings with the pope in May 2018, Francis assured him that God made Cruz gay.

I knew Cruz was gay.


Is that why he became the zodiac Killer or was he just following the path after his father killed JFK?
 
2020-10-21 11:24:49 AM  
1 vote:

Farker Soze: He's still against birth control I think. I wonder if it is ok for lesbians to use condoms.


I wonder how they would use them.
 
Displayed 139 of 139 comments

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.