Marriage

[HardcoreRobot]

If the government is going to define a marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman, but then give tax breaks to couples, isnt this pretty much violating the separation of church and state? Just a thought.

 

[vi edit]

Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

And about as un-romantic as you can get.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

And about as un-romantic as you can get.

Not necessarily. I imagine that you can choose whatever location you want, and have the JOTP perform the ceremony there. Or so I'd think anyway.

 

[mobobuff]

Yeah, because when I think of a church... I think of romance.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Yeah, because when I think of a church... I think of romance.

LOL

 

[mpitts]

We had a JOTP do our ceremonies. It wasn't at the court house. He came out to where we had the wedding.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

And about as un-romantic as you can get.

Huh ? We got a JOTP to do our ceremony at an inn. I don't see where the romance really lies if a priest had done it instead... ? We got married to join our love and life together... I don't know what religion has to do with it really...

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

And about as un-romantic as you can get.

We got married on a beach by a JOTP on the island of Antigua. It was a beautiful speech that she gave. Not a mention of the "G" word in her ceremony.

It wasn't un-romantic by any means. It also was about as un-religious as you can get.

 

[mwtgg]

What separation?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
If the government is going to define a marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman, but then give tax breaks to couples, isnt this pretty much violating the separation of church and state? Just a thought.

First of all, before Bush removed them, there were penalties for being married. And even though they're gone, I don't know of any marriage tax break.

Secondly, I didn't know separation of church and state was a law.

 

[jagec]

hmm, didn't realize the JOTP came where you wanted the ceremony...my parents got married in the courthouse, lol.

 

[FoBoT]

FUD

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
If the government is going to define a marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman, but then give tax breaks to couples, isnt this pretty much violating the separation of church and state? Just a thought.

First of all, before Bush removed them, there were penalties for being married. And even though they're gone, I don't know of any marriage tax break.

Secondly, I didn't know separation of church and state was a law.

Law or not it is a fundamental principle that this country was founded upon. I dont know anything at all about taxes, or being married. I was under the assumption that there were tax benefits, but I could be wrong.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

And about as un-romantic as you can get.

Huh ? We got a JOTP to do our ceremony at an inn. I don't see where the romance really lies if a priest had done it instead... ? We got married to join our love and life together... I don't know what religion has to do with it really...

Easy. Marriage is the union of man and woman, both physical and spiritual.

Of course, that definition varies depending on who you ask, but for example, to Catholics, marriage is a Sacrament. The sacrament reveals the religious dimension of marriage. Besides the human, social and legal dimensions of marriage?the public sign that one gives oneself totally to this other person?sacramental marriage is also a public statement about God. The celebration of each of the sacraments reveals something of this ultimate reality: who God is and who God is for us.

 

[CChaos]

There ain't no common-law love.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Justice of the peace marriages done by public servants pretty much kill this line of reasoning.

JOTP marriages are about as un-religious as you can get.

And about as un-romantic as you can get.

Huh ? We got a JOTP to do our ceremony at an inn. I don't see where the romance really lies if a priest had done it instead... ? We got married to join our love and life together... I don't know what religion has to do with it really...

Easy. Marriage is the union of man and woman, both physical and spiritual.

Of course, that definition varies depending on who you ask, but for example, to Catholics, marriage is a Sacrament. The sacrament reveals the religious dimension of marriage. Besides the human, social and legal dimensions of marriage?the public sign that one gives oneself totally to this other person?sacramental marriage is also a public statement about God. The celebration of each of the sacraments reveals something of this ultimate reality: who God is and who God is for us.

Why would it have to be religious in the first place ? It's 2 people proclaiming they want to be together forever, physically and mentally. They are digging for deep meaning in the mental part when they don't have to. You feel a love for someone, you spend the rest of your life with them. I don't need to involve anyone else like a higher being. It's not anyone else's feelings but ours.

I'm not looking for an argument but an understanding as to why people choose to involve that sort of thing.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Keep it in P&N. Kthxbye.

 

[Cerb]

It is not redefining it as a religious union (despite that being what they mean). So no.
Also note that taxes or breaks for any one group are not unconstitutional. Taxes or breaks on one group that then go and benefit another specific group, are.

Ex: if you save junkies exactly 1 billion in taxes, and in the same years just happen to give exactly 1 billion to rehab clinics, that would be unconstitutional.

 

[Phoenix86]

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

1. Separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution.
2. The idea Jefferson spoke of is a ONE way separation, meaning the state cannot run a church. He mentioned nothing about church in the state.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
If the government is going to define a marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman, but then give tax breaks to couples, isnt this pretty much violating the separation of church and state? Just a thought.

marriages are performed by the state. by the power vested in me by bla bla and the state of nevada, i now pronounce you man and wife!

 

[SagaLore]

I agree, we need to remove ALL tax incentives that are on the books, and seriously reform the tax code.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

1. Separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution.
2. The idea Jefferson spoke of is a ONE way separation, meaning the state cannot run a church. He mentioned nothing about church in the state.

3. Your link is from an obviously biased religious site. Thats not what I am looking for.

The founders of this country came here to escape state sanctioned religion. They wanted people to have the freedom to practice whatever religion they wanted. Anyone passing 6th grade US history knows this. Spin the words however you please, but there really is no debate.

Thus, I have come to the conclusion, I am going to start my own church, the Chuch of Flamboyancy, which only recognizes same sex marriages. Now, if the government is recognizing marriages by your church and not mine, it is clearly showing favoritism, oppressing me, and in direct contradiction of our nations founding principles.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

1. Separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution.
2. The idea Jefferson spoke of is a ONE way separation, meaning the state cannot run a church. He mentioned nothing about church in the state.

3. Your link is from an obviously biased religious site. Thats not what I am looking for.

The founders of this country came here to escape state sanctioned religion. They wanted people to have the freedom to practice whatever religion they wanted. Anyone passing 6th grade US history knows this. Spin the words however you please, but there really is no debate.

Thus, I have come to the conclusion, I am goign to start my own church, the Chuch of Flamboyancy, which only recognizes same sex marriages. Now, if the government is recongizing marriages by your church, and not mine, it is clearly showing favoritism, oppressing me, and in direct contradiction of our nations founding principles.

I was wondering about the site, I know I have heard about it before, but don't know much about it.

However, that doesn't change the facts... These are facts, check them elsewhere like the constitution and the federalist papers.

Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Separation of Church and State
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.)

Nowhere does it mention a two way separation. It does say that the state should not have a national church (underlined) like England did.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It does say that the state should not have a national church (underlined) like England did.

they don't want to know the truth, they want the popular myth of seperation of church/state that the hippies of the 60's (or before that?) started and that liberal judges seem to read into the constitution

the point in 1787 was that they didn't want a state sponsored church like the Anglican Church