homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Time to re-write the Marriage service? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Time to re-write the Marriage service?
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Methodist marriage service says by way of introduction

"It is the will of God that, in marriage, husband and wife ......."

and

"marraige involves the giving of a man and woman wholeheartedly to one another......"

The Law, as decreed by Parliament, has changed this 'definition'.

The Anglican and RCC marriage services have much the same introduction based on the principle that marraige is between a man and a woman.

So what now for the Church? Do we redefine the definition of marriage?

And what role does 'conscience' have in this scenario?

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The simple answer is no, that is unless as Christians we're going to allow the state to start defining our faith. And yes, conscience does have a role. The Apostle St. Peter tells us that where the laws of men oppose the laws of God we should follow the laws of God, in other words, Christians can and should in good conscience disobey the state under such circumstances.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Catholic Church, to pick the obvious example you cited, has gotten by just fine for centuries in the U.K. with a different definition of marriage than Parliament. You may have heard something about that. It was kind of a big deal at the time. At any rate, there's no reason that the Methodists have to do anything.

The Anglicans are in a somewhat different theological boat, since they're an officially established state religion in the English parts of the U.K. It seems only fair that if you're going to benefit from the state's endorsement you should follow state's laws.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The change in the law refers to the legalities of marriage. What couples or institutions make of that is up to them, surely?

In recent threads elsewhere it has been clear that there is considerable resistance by some outside the church to the re-introduction of church views (concerning what marriage should be concerning) into civil practice. That's a two-way street though - there is no reason why the church needs to change its views likewise, unless it so decides of its own collective will. And to the best of my knowledge nobody is seeking to do so except by persuasion.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Methodist marriage service says by way of introduction

"It is the will of God that, in marriage, husband and wife ......."

and

"marraige involves the giving of a man and woman wholeheartedly to one another......"

The Law, as decreed by Parliament, has changed this 'definition'.

Really? It's news to me that The Law, until recently, defined marriage either by reference to 'the will of God' or by partners 'giving wholeheartedly' to one another. Certainly in my lifetime, both atheists and selfish people have been allowed to get civilly married. If the Methodists require faith and generosity from the people to whom they administer marriage, they are adding conditions to those imposed by the secular law.

Is that a problem?

If not, then the pending legal change isn't going to be one. If the Methodists could cope, last year, with people getting married (by non-Methodist celebrants, obviously), and, in clear violation of the Methodist definition of marriage, having separate bank accounts, they're going to be able to cope with non-Methodist married people having matching genitals. As far as I can tell from my acquaintances, generosity of heart is a much more significant indicator of the strength of a relationship than gender, making this a difference of much lesser importance than the one they've been dealing with up to now.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The simple answer is no, that is unless as Christians we're going to allow the state to start defining our faith. And yes, conscience does have a role. The Apostle St. Peter tells us that where the laws of men oppose the laws of God we should follow the laws of God, in other words, Christians can and should in good conscience disobey the state under such circumstances.

Theoretically speaking in cases where I agree with the laws of men and feel that they increase my and my family's safety and freedoms this would make us enemy's.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A great deal of effort went into making sure that churches did not have to be involved in SSMs. Said churches have no reason to make any changes.

If a church decides to accept the performance of SSM vows, then they may choose to write their services and vows accordingly..

Why are you suggesting that churches be forced to do things which they are not required to do?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A great deal of effort went into making sure that churches did not have to be involved in SSMs. Said churches have no reason to make any changes.

If a church decides to accept the performance of SSM vows, then they may choose to write their services and vows accordingly..

Why are you suggesting that churches be forced to do things which they are not required to do?

I think we all know the answer to that one, HB.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324

 - Posted      Profile for Ondergard   Email Ondergard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A great deal of effort went into making sure that churches did not have to be involved in SSMs. Said churches have no reason to make any changes.

If a church decides to accept the performance of SSM vows, then they may choose to write their services and vows accordingly..

Why are you suggesting that churches be forced to do things which they are not required to do?

I think we all know the answer to that one, HB.
Well I don't. Know the answer to that one, I mean.
Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A great deal of effort went into making sure that churches did not have to be involved in SSMs. Said churches have no reason to make any changes.

If a church decides to accept the performance of SSM vows, then they may choose to write their services and vows accordingly..

Why are you suggesting that churches be forced to do things which they are not required to do?

I think we all know the answer to that one, HB.
Well I don't. Know the answer to that one, I mean.
Some people like to make out that the evil liberal do-gooding politically correct health and safety gay mafia feminazi thought police are persecuting them for their faith.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's a suggestion. Civil marriages in registrars officers and hotels will cease. From that point on there will no longer be any such thing as a civil wedding/marriage but anyone: heterosexual, homosexual, 2 sisters, whomever, can have a civil partnership which, like the present civil wedding, will have no religious meaning or content.

These extended civil partnership will do nothing more than register legal commitments, rights and responsibilities, protecting assets, next of kin status, inheritance, etc, etc. That will be true equality and will give everything that a civil 'wedding' ceremony gives now but will be available to all people of legal age, even if related (ie 2 single sisters who have no other family but who want to be registered or grandmother and grandson, or 2 close friends with no sexual/romantic involvement who merely want to be legally partnered.)

Marriage, however, will be redefined as the sacramental union it is intended to be and only those who marry in church will be defined as 'married' (as opposed to 'partnered') and this will be for heterosexual couples only as defined by Jesus and the rest of Scripture.

To be honest, I have never understood how a civil wedding can be a marriage as defined by the church anyway. So why not call it what it is - a civil partnership?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942

 - Posted      Profile for the giant cheeseburger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To be honest, I have never understood how a civil wedding can be a marriage as defined by the church anyway. So why not call it what it is - a civil partnership?

A civil marriage is defined as a marriage by the state, not a church. Unless you want a church or some group of churches to try and claim a trademark on marriage, wedding and all related words (which would fail) then that ship has already sailed.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Here's a suggestion. Civil marriages in registrars officers and hotels will cease. From that point on there will no longer be any such thing as a civil wedding/marriage but anyone: heterosexual, homosexual, 2 sisters, whomever, can have a civil partnership which, like the present civil wedding, will have no religious meaning or content.

These extended civil partnership will do nothing more than register legal commitments, rights and responsibilities, protecting assets, next of kin status, inheritance, etc, etc. That will be true equality and will give everything that a civil 'wedding' ceremony gives now but will be available to all people of legal age, even if related (ie 2 single sisters who have no other family but who want to be registered or grandmother and grandson, or 2 close friends with no sexual/romantic involvement who merely want to be legally partnered.)

Marriage, however, will be redefined as the sacramental union it is intended to be and only those who marry in church will be defined as 'married' (as opposed to 'partnered') and this will be for heterosexual couples only as defined by Jesus and the rest of Scripture.

Again, that ship has already sailed. Your 'marriage for none' model is already confined to the dustbin of history, and 'marriage for all' will be the result which pans out.

Try moving onto a more important fight like feeding the hungry or looking after the sick.

--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?

Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

Try moving onto a more important fight like feeding the hungry or looking after the sick. [/QB]

Which rather makes this thread - or any other discussion on any other subject - redundant and trivial in your view.

Which begs the question why you even bothered to reply to my post. Should you not be out feeding the hungry and looking after the sick?

...I'll look forward to reading your reply when I return from helping a newly-resettled homeless man sort out his bills for his new flat [Smile]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some people like to make out that the evil liberal do-gooding politically correct health and safety gay mafia feminazi thought police are persecuting them for their faith.

Quotes file.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012

 - Posted      Profile for Sarkycow   Email Sarkycow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To be honest, I have never understood how a civil wedding can be a marriage as defined by the church anyway. So why not call it what it is - a civil partnership?

I would have a lot more respect for members of my church opposed to the new changes if they had protested at civil marriages or even at civil partnerships for gay people. To say you can use the marriage word if God isn't involved but you have two different sets of genitals , but you can't if you have two matching sets of genitals suggests that the most important thing in the christian view of marriage is the gender of people concerned rather than whether God is in it.

??? [Confused]

--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have long suggested that the two sorts of marriages, civil and ecclesiastical, be entirely separate, as one finds in most of Europe. This cuts out on confusion and strengthens the marriage ministry of those churches which are concerned with it. Churches which don't believe in SSM don't have to do it or be associated with it; the state gets to set rules more appropriate to a post-Xn society. Everybody wins aside from clergy in jurisdictions where they pocket the fees and brides' families furious that they do not have nice churches for backdrops to their photos.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have long suggested that the two sorts of marriages, civil and ecclesiastical, be entirely separate, as one finds in most of Europe. This cuts out on confusion and strengthens the marriage ministry of those churches which are concerned with it. Churches which don't believe in SSM don't have to do it or be associated with it; the state gets to set rules more appropriate to a post-Xn society. Everybody wins aside from clergy in jurisdictions where they pocket the fees and brides' families furious that they do not have nice churches for backdrops to their photos.

I'm pretty sure that even your beloved Canada already makes that distinction. For instance, the arranged marriages to child brides organized by convicted sex trafficker and cult leader Warren Jeffs aren't recognized as valid by the Canadian government, even if performed in the Bountiful, BC compound. Whatever the FLDS church says about those pairings has no weight with the government.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
So what now for the Church? Do we redefine the definition of marriage?
Of course not! Since when does the State tell the church what to do theologically? Speaking as your cousin across the Pond (the northern bit), the UCCan had its Great Debate on "The Issue" in 1988. That particular debate was over ordination, but it may as well have applied to marriage, which is NOT a sacrament in our reckoning. A few United Church congregations began to do SSB's in the 1990's and after 1988 the Church's opinion was settled on the matter, and we weren't getting worked up again.

We have the safety-valve of Presbyterian polity which means that Sessions have the final word about who gets married in the building, as it has ever been and always shalt be.

Though the United Church's liturgical rules are actually guidelines, there are only three enforceable rules governing what must be used in services. We are liturgical pirates.

People can and do write their own marriage services, congregations can do the same, and do. As Worship Elder at my church, I find that most people like "traditional" (hey, marriage is a play to tropes and tradition, always had been) and like seeing the traditional service in the Service Book.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
suggests that the most important thing in the christian view of marriage is the gender of people concerned rather than whether God is in it.


I would say, rather, that the sex of the people concerned and the involvement of God are connected phenomena. I suspect that most who oppose SSM would agree.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have long suggested that the two sorts of marriages, civil and ecclesiastical, be entirely separate, as one finds in most of Europe.

I have absolutely no interest in a civil "service" with some government official acting as officiant.

I see the benefit in having the civil registration of a marriage separated from the wedding, but it should be exactly that - two people show up and declare that they are married.

The US marriage license is close to a sensible model, except that it requires people to ask permission from the state to marry, which is completely wrong.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Note to all that multiple posts in this thread are skirting or crossing the line of DH. I think there may well be value in discussing the marriage service without discussing who should be allowed to get married, but I have some doubts about whether this thread can discuss the one without discussing the other.

Gwai,
Purg Host

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have long suggested that the two sorts of marriages, civil and ecclesiastical, be entirely separate, as one finds in most of Europe.

I have absolutely no interest in a civil "service" with some government official acting as officiant.

I see the benefit in having the civil registration of a marriage separated from the wedding, but it should be exactly that - two people show up and declare that they are married.

The US marriage license is close to a sensible model, except that it requires people to ask permission from the state to marry, which is completely wrong.

The usual reason for asking permission of the state is to guard against negative issues of consanguineity (also bigamy/polygamy where inappropriate), though of course that would have minimal relevance unless the couple were proposing and/or able to have children. The future lies elsewhere I'm sure, but that is presumably where it comes from.

(ETA - sorry Gwai, crossposted with your guidance)

[ 21. May 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The usual reason for asking permission of the state is to guard against negative issues of consanguineity (also bigamy/polygamy where inappropriate)

Sure, and one would have to affirm, with appropriate documentation where necessary, that there was no prohibited degree of kinship, and that both parties were eligible to marry and so on. There's just something about "asking permission" that rubs me the wrong way - it seems to me to entirely mischaracterize the proper relationship between the state and the individual.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The usual reason for asking permission of the state is to guard against negative issues of consanguineity (also bigamy/polygamy where inappropriate)

Sure, and one would have to affirm, with appropriate documentation where necessary, that there was no prohibited degree of kinship, and that both parties were eligible to marry and so on.
AFAIK, the prohibitions related to kinship are directly related to procreation. Why would marital prohibition based on kinship be an issue for homosexual people?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The simple answer is no, that is unless as Christians we're going to allow the state to start defining our faith. And yes, conscience does have a role. The Apostle St. Peter tells us that where the laws of men oppose the laws of God we should follow the laws of God, in other words, Christians can and should in good conscience disobey the state under such circumstances.

Theoretically speaking in cases where I agree with the laws of men and feel that they increase my and my family's safety and freedoms this would make us enemy's.
And?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The simple answer is no, that is unless as Christians we're going to allow the state to start defining our faith. And yes, conscience does have a role. The Apostle St. Peter tells us that where the laws of men oppose the laws of God we should follow the laws of God, in other words, Christians can and should in good conscience disobey the state under such circumstances.

Theoretically speaking in cases where I agree with the laws of men and feel that they increase my and my family's safety and freedoms this would make us enemies.
And?
This, in my view, is where civility comes in. It should be possible for people to be political enemies in a civilised manner.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think there may well be value in discussing the marriage service without discussing who should be allowed to get married...

Well, how about churches that want to leave their marriage services exactly the same as they are now just carry on using the liturgy they already have? And couples that want those marriage services can go to those churches and couples that want something else can go to other churches or else have a civil wedding?

End of subject. What more is there to say? That solution inconveniences nobody and is almost certainly what will happen anyway.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The simple answer is no, that is unless as Christians we're going to allow the state to start defining our faith. And yes, conscience does have a role. The Apostle St. Peter tells us that where the laws of men oppose the laws of God we should follow the laws of God, in other words, Christians can and should in good conscience disobey the state under such circumstances.

Theoretically speaking in cases where I agree with the laws of men and feel that they increase my and my family's safety and freedoms this would make us enemies.
And?
This, in my view, is where civility comes in. It should be possible for people to be political enemies in a civilised manner.
Certainly, that is where the law is still undecided and we're talking about the right to air ones views. That's not quite what I was getting at though. What I was saying is that under some circumstances the only option for a Christian to take in good conscience might be to actually disobey civil law, in which case "civility" lies entirely in the state's court. What does the state then do?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think there may well be value in discussing the marriage service without discussing who should be allowed to get married...

Well, how about churches that want to leave their marriage services exactly the same as they are now just carry on using the liturgy they already have? And couples that want those marriage services can go to those churches and couples that want something else can go to other churches or else have a civil wedding?

End of subject. What more is there to say? That solution inconveniences nobody and is almost certainly what will happen anyway.

I tried to point that out earlier in the thread, but nobody took the slightest notice. I confidently predict the same outcome this time.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think there may well be value in discussing the marriage service without discussing who should be allowed to get married...

Well, how about churches that want to leave their marriage services exactly the same as they are now just carry on using the liturgy they already have? And couples that want those marriage services can go to those churches and couples that want something else can go to other churches or else have a civil wedding?

End of subject. What more is there to say? That solution inconveniences nobody and is almost certainly what will happen anyway.

I tried to point that out earlier in the thread, but nobody took the slightest notice. I confidently predict the same outcome this time.
In theory that could work, yes, but only if the law respects how Churches are governed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
In theory that could work, yes, but only if the law respects how Churches are governed.
Of course, but the data out there suggests that is exactly what is proposed and what is likely to take place.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
AFAIK, the prohibitions related to kinship are directly related to procreation. Why would marital prohibition based on kinship be an issue for homosexual people?

Perhaps it wouldn't - but discussion of separating "civil" marriage from religious marriage applies to everyone.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The usual reason for asking permission of the state is to guard against negative issues of consanguineity (also bigamy/polygamy where inappropriate)

Sure, and one would have to affirm, with appropriate documentation where necessary, that there was no prohibited degree of kinship, and that both parties were eligible to marry and so on. There's just something about "asking permission" that rubs me the wrong way - it seems to me to entirely mischaracterize the proper relationship between the state and the individual.
But doesn't "asking permission" in most jurisdictions consist of demonstrating eligibility to marry? I'm not sure you can be in favor of the latter and opposed to the former in any meaningful sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In theory that could work, yes, but only if the law respects how Churches are governed.

Since the number of Catholic priests who have been struck with fines or imprisonment for refusing to marry the previously divorced is approximately "zero" (at least in Western nations), this seems lie a fairly safe assumption to make.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have long suggested that the two sorts of marriages, civil and ecclesiastical, be entirely separate, as one finds in most of Europe.

I have absolutely no interest in a civil "service" with some government official acting as officiant.

I see the benefit in having the civil registration of a marriage separated from the wedding, but it should be exactly that - two people show up and declare that they are married.

The US marriage license is close to a sensible model, except that it requires people to ask permission from the state to marry, which is completely wrong.

I have been to a number of civil weddings, and some of them involve a ceremony and an officiant, and others are just the signing of registers. If one or the other is of no interest, then simply do not have one. In North America and the UK & Ireland, I think that the only place where common law marriages do not exist in one form or the other is Québec, and there one can register a civil partnership if one chooses.

I believe that, in the US, states issue marriage licences and preconditions and procedures can vary considerably.

@Croesus: a lawyer from BC, with whom I once shared a bottle of good red (actually, a lovely tempranillo with a velvet touch) in a plaza in Estella, told me that a divorced-and-former-spouse-living client wanted him to get an injunction to require the local RC curate to officiate--- he recounted that, after he finished laughing and told him that he hadn't a chance in hell, he sent the client a bill for $450. The client apparently found a rent-a-priest to do the deed.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The simple answer is no, that is unless as Christians we're going to allow the state to start defining our faith. And yes, conscience does have a role. The Apostle St. Peter tells us that where the laws of men oppose the laws of God we should follow the laws of God, in other words, Christians can and should in good conscience disobey the state under such circumstances.

Theoretically speaking in cases where I agree with the laws of men and feel that they increase my and my family's safety and freedoms this would make us enemies.
And?
This, in my view, is where civility comes in. It should be possible for people to be political enemies in a civilised manner.
Certainly, that is where the law is still undecided and we're talking about the right to air ones views. That's not quite what I was getting at though. What I was saying is that under some circumstances the only option for a Christian to take in good conscience might be to actually disobey civil law, in which case "civility" lies entirely in the state's court. What does the state then do?
I guess if the state passes laws which are in direct contradiction to orthodox Christian conviction, thereby forcing those Christians into civil disobedience, then the state will have to work out how to handle those Christians with civility within the bounds of with the law it has created.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess if the state passes laws which are in direct contradiction to orthodox Christian conviction, thereby forcing those Christians into civil disobedience, then the state will have to work out how to handle those Christians with civility within the bounds of with the law it has created.

Except that most marital law created by the state isn't really the kind of thing that's amenable to civil disobedience. Modern western nations aren't in the habit of forcing people into involuntary marriages, same-sex or opposite-sex, nor are they in the habit of forcing religious institutions to perform religious rites they don't want to.

How, exactly, would you go about using civil disobedience against a law that doesn't require your personal obedience?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess if the state passes laws which are in direct contradiction to orthodox Christian conviction, thereby forcing those Christians into civil disobedience, then the state will have to work out how to handle those Christians with civility within the bounds of with the law it has created.

Except that most marital law created by the state isn't really the kind of thing that's amenable to civil disobedience. Modern western nations aren't in the habit of forcing people into involuntary marriages, same-sex or opposite-sex, nor are they in the habit of forcing religious institutions to perform religious rites they don't want to.

How, exactly, would you go about using civil disobedience against a law that doesn't require your personal obedience?

As was said above, if those Churches that do not wish to aren't forced to and the way Churches are governed is respected, then there should be no clash. Yet there is no guarantee that that will always be the case, naturally, as civil powers and laws change. The OP speaks of the role of conscience and so such a hypothetical is relevant to the discussion.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To be honest, I have never understood how a civil wedding can be a marriage as defined by the church anyway. So why not call it what it is - a civil partnership?

A civil marriage is defined as a marriage by the state, not a church. Unless you want a church or some group of churches to try and claim a trademark on marriage, wedding and all related words (which would fail) then that ship has already sailed.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Here's a suggestion. Civil marriages in registrars officers and hotels will cease. From that point on there will no longer be any such thing as a civil wedding/marriage but anyone: heterosexual, homosexual, 2 sisters, whomever, can have a civil partnership which, like the present civil wedding, will have no religious meaning or content.

These extended civil partnership will do nothing more than register legal commitments, rights and responsibilities, protecting assets, next of kin status, inheritance, etc, etc. That will be true equality and will give everything that a civil 'wedding' ceremony gives now but will be available to all people of legal age, even if related (ie 2 single sisters who have no other family but who want to be registered or grandmother and grandson, or 2 close friends with no sexual/romantic involvement who merely want to be legally partnered.)

Marriage, however, will be redefined as the sacramental union it is intended to be and only those who marry in church will be defined as 'married' (as opposed to 'partnered') and this will be for heterosexual couples only as defined by Jesus and the rest of Scripture.

Again, that ship has already sailed. Your 'marriage for none' model is already confined to the dustbin of history, and 'marriage for all' will be the result which pans out.

It may be, of course, that the end result would be the same in any case; declining numbers of people who choose to 'marry'. In a totally secular culture very few would 'marry' in church, and if secular 'marriage' becomes simply a contract by which any two (or more) people can pledge legal support for one another it's hard to see how it could maintain any kind of distinctive place in the culture.

The churches could decide to take a position on marriage that completely disregards what the state and its mostly secular citizens do. For the CofE, this would surely require disestablishment. Alternatively, they might decide that the only future available to them is to yield to secular realities and transformations. To my mind, this means they should shed the pretence that marriage is a lifelong union. Marriage services should be developed to take this into account.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Croesos,

The simple answer to your question is that I wouldn't, but it's also worth noting the presence of a conditional "if" in the first sentence of my previous post.

On the other hand, I do think that there are reasons - other than mere personal interest - to engage in civil disobedience.

[ 21. May 2013, 22:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But civil disobedience implies disobeying a civil legal rule. If you just say "well, I'm not going to get married, then" (for whatever reason) who will notice (well, maybe your mother would)?

How can you disobey an absence of a rule?

This is all beginning to sound rather like "Alice Through the Looking Glass"

And, in any case, all of this has been settled in, say, Canada, for a significant number of years without all the nightmare scenarios arising. Cripes, there are even gay married couples getting divorces, just like the straights, but I don't hear religionists demanding that those couples stay married to make a "civil disobedience" point.

Let's see if we can find a more ridiculous thing to worry about.

Oh, yeah, the idea that the adherents of one sect of a religion get to dictate how everyone, even those not following that or any religion, should abide by the internal rules of that club.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As was said above, if those Churches that do not wish to aren't forced to and the way Churches are governed is respected, then there should be no clash. Yet there is no guarantee that that will always be the case, naturally, as civil powers and laws change. The OP speaks of the role of conscience and so such a hypothetical is relevant to the discussion.

Such hypotheticals are just a form of mental masturbation; casting yourself as an oppressed martyr without the need to actually be oppressed or martyred. It all boils down to "if the state stops discriminating against them, maybe they'll start discriminating against us!!! [Eek!] " As reasons to oppose equal treatment under the law goes, it's a pretty thin one and has a very nasty history.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It may be, of course, that the end result would be the same in any case; declining numbers of people who choose to 'marry'. In a totally secular culture very few would 'marry' in church, and if secular 'marriage' becomes simply a contract by which any two (or more) people can pledge legal support for one another it's hard to see how it could maintain any kind of distinctive place in the culture.

It has pretty much happened already in my corner of the North West UK. All the young couples I know (including my sons and all their friends) have lived together first and got married just before trying for a baby.

In fact, the wedding almost always signals oncoming children. Those who don't want kids don't get married.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very easy solution for non c of e churches in the UK who disagree with SMM and SSB's

1. Deregister as a wedding venue; give your records to the Local Registrar

2 If approached to do a wedding indicate that you don't do them (true)

3. Offer a service of thanksgiving to those couples who you feel comfortable offering to. Hold the service using whatever words you want to use - there is no copyright on the marriage service.

4. Suggest that if the couple want to be married in the eyes of the state, they sort out a 10 minute quickie in the registry office. If they make the vows in church, the act itself and the words they use recognise that they are married in the eyes of God anyway.

I think this would narrow down the number of "ceremonies" in churches but it would preserve the beliefs of those for whom SSB's and SSM are a no go zone. Most of the people adopting to have such a ceremony would be those of a like mind.

It's a bit like the French system with bells on. In France, as I understand, every wedding must be contracted in a civil ceremony (usually at the Town hall) and it's up to you if you want a church event before or after.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
AIUI they don't even have to do that. They just have to say "we don't do same sex weddings".

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
AIUI they don't even have to do that. They just have to say "we don't do same sex weddings".

Agreed but by following the course of action outlined above they make their postion clear about same sex marriages
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:


It has pretty much happened already in my corner of the North West UK. All the young couples I know (including my sons and all their friends) have lived together first and got married just before trying for a baby.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

How quaint! [Smile] In the south of England it was normal to wait for pregnancy before getting wed for most of recorded history. There was perhaps a brief period of outward respectability from maybe the 1840s to the 1950s when marriage really did precede sex for most couples, but it was pretty much a novelty, and had disappeared by my childhood and teenage. Maybe the World Wars killed it off like so many other things. But nowadays - in the last 20 or 30 years or so - it seems that weddings normally follow well after the birth of children. No-one now thinks they need to get married first. Which is a genuine change I think.

Also engagement has recently started meaning something different. Not very long ago - in the 1970s and 80s, maybe even into the 90s for the traditionally-minded - getting engaged meant that a couple had decided to get married. It was the decision that constituted the engagement. That was usually followed by some stage business with rings, and very often by a party or two, but those things didn't constitute the engagement, they followed from it. Nowadays an engagement is a big ceremonial thing and has to be planned for well in advance. People say things like "We will get engaged in March next year and married in June the year after that". Two weeks ago I was at the engagement party of a couple who intend to get married next year. They decided to get married some years ago, but to them that isn't an engagement. Getting engaged is an occasion for exchanging rings, and telling people about your wedding plans, which have probably been in train for a year or two. Hotels already booked. (Maybe they're waiting till their kids are old enough to be bridesmaids - their third child is already walking)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sort of getting back to the OP, the only way the state could affect the wording/actions of a religious marriage service would be requiring words/actions acknowledging that this was also a civil marriage service (e.g., by the power vested in me by the state of California/handling the license) or forbidding such words/actions if it were not a civil marriage service. I could conceivably see it requiring a disavowal that it was a civil marriage ceremony if there was a chance of fraud (either by one partner to another or by both on a third party).

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What generally strikes me about the introduction to the Methodist marriage service is how little of it would require alteration for a same sex couple. I think two alterations would do the trick!

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
What generally strikes me about the introduction to the Methodist marriage service is how little of it would require alteration for a same sex couple. I think two alterations would do the trick!

Yes, I thought the same. But who decides the wording?

I have been doing some Google-fu and found this, which boils down to 'not yet or for quite some time but maybe one day after lots of fannying around'

Here is the link.

quote:
Will Methodist churches or ministers be allowed to conduct same sex marriages?

Methodist ministers and churches will only be allowed to authorise same sex marriages if the Methodist Conference decides that as a denomination we should opt in.

Will the Methodist Church “opt in” to offering same sex marriages?

Givenour position on the definition of marriage, andthe Methodist position that blessings of civil partnerships should not take place on Methodist premises nor be carried out in the name of the Methodist Church, the Methodist Church would not be in a position to “opt in” without a lengthy period of consultation and theological reflection.


Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
4. Suggest that if the couple want to be married in the eyes of the state, they sort out a 10 minute quickie in the registry office. If they make the vows in church, the act itself and the words they use recognise that they are married in the eyes of God anyway.

So, the ceremony functions as God's specs? He cannot see what is happening else? The ceremony is for the community.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools