What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

[Tony]

somewhat off topic (again, couldn't send a PM) but.. Fran,  I know we don't nearly talk as much as we did in the old days (the whole landscape of phatmass has changed since then, obviously), but I want you to know I still care about you and you are in my prayers. That's all :) God bless you and your Guardian Angel :)

[Tony]

People tell me I look like a pedophile all the time. But I digress.

 

 

Odd, you look a Pope Francis cartoon to me.

[CatherineM]

My main concern for forcing people against their morals to do something or lose their business or job, is what it will lead to. Here where gay marriage has been legal for a bit, marriage commissioners are losing their jobs for refusing to do gay weddings. There are some very vocal advocates here who are trying to get it passed that ministers who won't preform ceremonies for gays lose the right to do weddings for straights too.

I personally think the church should be out of the civil marriage business, so don't go off about that on me.

[Winchester]

Must not hijack thread to promote anarchist agenda.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I personally think the church should be out of the civil marriage business, so don't go off about that on me.

 

I've thought that is the Church separated itself from the civil side of marriage and concerned itself with the sacramental side. The wedding itself is a Church affair, but the couple needed to go down to the court house or whatever to fill out their civil paperwork, then if divorces did happen it makes it clearer that the sacrament is not tied to the civil function and an annulment would still be needed.
 

[Winchester]

I've thought that is the Church separated itself from the civil side of marriage and concerned itself with the sacramental side. The wedding itself is a Church affair, but the couple needed to go down to the court house or whatever to fill out their civil paperwork, then if divorces did happen it makes it clearer that the sacrament is not tied to the civil function and an annulment would still be needed.
 

 

Priests in our diocese won't witness the sacrament until the government gives them permission.

 

 

[franciscanheart]

Priests in our diocese won't witness the sacrament until the government gives them permission.

Same here.

[Aloysius]

canon law actually requires them to conduct it in conjunction with civil marriage ceremonies except if there's a reason not to in which case they need the permission of the local ordinary.  of course in some countries the civil law marriage is done at the courthouse apart from the Church, but as canon law envisions it this is not an ideal situation, and even in such situations they are only supposed to sacramentally marry you if you also get the civil marriage.  the Church's current stance strongly prefers that civil and sacramental marriage be intertwined and only allows for them to be disentangled if civil marriage laws are unjust.

 

Can.  1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

 

2 a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law

 

(it is clearly envisioned and encouraged in many places that this means the minister of the sacrament should also simultaneously administer the civil vows as the ideal as far as the Church currently recommends)... 

 

that's just the current state of canon law though, one could certainly make an argument that we ought to split off the civil from the sacramental/canonical marriage and ignore the civil... but the Church does not currently wish to do that and I doubt they will make that leap anytime soon... unless they are forced to do so by laws that require religious ministers to officiate at same sex marriages which I would contend is unlikely to happen in the USA in our lifetime, despite the precedents set in other countries, because our supreme court rigorously applies the 1st amendment in a far more absolute way than most countries apply their freedom of religion clauses.

[franciscanheart]

somewhat off topic (again, couldn't send a PM) but.. Fran,  I know we don't nearly talk as much as we did in the old days (the whole landscape of phatmass has changed since then, obviously), but I want you to know I still care about you and you are in my prayers. That's all :) God bless you and your Guardian Angel :)

 

Thanks, Tony. :) Back at ya, friend. (And I've cleared my inbox of like five extra messages in case anyone else tries to PM me. I had a couple conversations start since clearing and it took up all my extra space.)

[Winchester]

canon law actually requires them to conduct it in conjunction with civil marriage ceremonies except if there's a reason not to in which case they need the permission of the local ordinary.  of course in some countries the civil law marriage is done at the courthouse apart from the Church, but as canon law envisions it this is not an ideal situation, and even in such situations they are only supposed to sacramentally marry you if you also get the civil marriage.  the Church's current stance strongly prefers that civil and sacramental marriage be intertwined and only allows for them to be disentangled if civil marriage laws are unjust.

 

Can.  1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

 

2 a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law

 

(it is clearly envisioned and encouraged in many places that this means the minister of the sacrament should also simultaneously administer the civil vows as the ideal as far as the Church currently recommends)... 

 

that's just the current state of canon law though, one could certainly make an argument that we ought to split off the civil from the sacramental/canonical marriage and ignore the civil... but the Church does not currently wish to do that and I doubt they will make that leap anytime soon... unless they are forced to do so by laws that require religious ministers to officiate at same sex marriages which I would contend is unlikely to happen in the USA in our lifetime, despite the precedents set in other countries, because our supreme court rigorously applies the 1st amendment in a far more absolute way than most countries apply their freedom of religion clauses.

I don't think government granting permission to get married is very civil. It seems extremely uncivil to involve a criminal syndicate in the proceedings.

 

Marriage licensing is an innovation.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Winchester

[Aloysius]

oh man is the anarchy finally gonna come through on page 14?  I can just see it boiling through your posts lol.  as it stands canon law recognizes civil law and intersects at various points... if you're ever pope you can overhaul the whole code of canon law to presume an anarchist system and watch the chaos that unfolds from the throne of St. Peter... because there'd be a good deal of confusion in our society if the Catholic Church just up and decided to have its canon law suddenly refusing to recognize government civil law haha, I can only imagine... it would certainly shake things up lol.

[Maggyie]

I think the "we can't play white but you can play straight" thing references the reality that African Americans are discriminated against instantly based on their skin color, whereas homosexual individuals blend in quite well with the majority. Unless you wear a sign saying "I am gay" or list an advocacy organization on your resume, your sexuality should not come up in a job interview, for instance. Having gay inclinations is not voluntary but in most cases disclosing that you have them, is. Hence the whole coming out thing.

 

Black people don't get to decide how and when and to whom they disclose that they are black.

[PhuturePriest]

I think the "we can't play white but you can play straight" thing references the reality that African Americans are discriminated against instantly based on their skin color, whereas homosexual individuals blend in quite well with the majority. Unless you wear a sign saying "I am gay" or list an advocacy organization on your resume, your sexuality should not come up in a job interview, for instance. Having gay inclinations is not voluntary but in most cases disclosing that you have them, is. Hence the whole coming out thing.

 

Black people don't get to decide how and when and to whom they disclose that they are black.

 

If people don't think gay people are easy to spot, why are there stereotypes specifically for what gay people look and act like?

[franciscanheart]

I think the "we can't play white but you can play straight" thing references the reality that African Americans are discriminated against instantly based on their skin color, whereas homosexual individuals blend in quite well with the majority. Unless you wear a sign saying "I am gay" or list an advocacy organization on your resume, your sexuality should not come up in a job interview, for instance. Having gay inclinations is not voluntary but in most cases disclosing that you have them, is. Hence the whole coming out thing.

 

Black people don't get to decide how and when and to whom they disclose that they are black.

 

Funny, people decide based on dress, hairstyle, and mannerisms that a lot of my gay friends are gay. Even if that never happened, though, a black person's struggle with skin color would not negate the homosexual's struggle with being gay.

[PhuturePriest]

Funny, people decide based on dress, hairstyle, and mannerisms that a lot of my gay friends are gay. Even if that never happened, though, a black person's struggle with skin color would not negate the homosexual's struggle with being gay.

 

I kept thinking of Bruno when I read her post.