Separation

Maya · #1 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 12:25 PM

Should the Church give up the "lawful marriages" and allow the justices of peace do the "lawful" part and hold just on to the Templemarriage; the sealing?

In this way we separate the state from the Church and same sex marriages will be states problem. Why yes, why no??

UrbanFool · #2 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 01:22 PM

Maybe it's just me, but polls should be spelled correctly and typos fixed. It's spelled "ceremony".

Maya · #3 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanFool

Maybe it's just me, but polls should be spelled correctly and typos fixed. It's spelled "ceremony".

Happy now??? You know what Dysgrafi is... well I got it. Sorry about the mistakes is all I can say! I am SURE it is not just YOU... but I am sorry I cant help it!!!

S was from my own language.

Besides in Germany they have always married first at the justice of peace then in the Church. Those who want the lawful rights can marry by the justice and those who want the eternal marriage can marry in the Temple.

rameumptom · #4 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 01:28 PM

Reynolds vs USA is the mainstay right now on government being able to affect marriage laws. The Supreme Court decided that one could not have polygamy, just because it was part of a religious belief. LDS have lived with that Supreme Court injunction for over 120 years.

Now we're going to throw that court law away so others can take upon themselves the term "marriage"? If the Supreme Court ends up approving gay marriage throughout the country on Constitutional terms, then probably they'll have to strike down the Reynolds Act.

Maya · #5 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 01:37 PM

America the land of possibilities?

Thanks Rem... interesting. Btw WHY do the gays want to call it marriage? Cant the nonreligious marriage be called union? So all the godies from state would go to people in union.... and all the godies from the Church would go to people who have been married! I can not understand why a union word had not been enough for gays? (and legistlators or something). Why do they absolutely have to use the word marriage?

UrbanFool · #6 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 01:39 PM

Sorry. I just have a thing for titles and polls. I don't go around correcting everyone's spelling. Here in the states we have to get a marriage license and then we can get married in whatever manner we choose. My husband and I were married by the Justice of the Peace. We didn't have a wedding.

I don't understand why polygamy is outlawed. It's not something I would participate in, but if a man financially supports all of his children and everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see the deal.

FairChild · #7 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 01:41 PM

In some countries you are legally married first (civilly) by the state and then you are allowed to have a religious ceremony. It's a thought. FC

Maya · #8 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanFool

Sorry. I just have a thing for titles and polls. I don't go around correcting everyone's spelling. Here in the states we have to get a marriage license and then we can get married in whatever manner we choose. My husband and I were married by the Justice of the Peace. We didn't have a wedding.

I don't understand why polygamy is outlawed. It's not something I would participate in, but if a man financially supports all of his children and everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see the deal.

It is ok... it irks mee too that I cant spell... THANKS for telling... I like to fix them if someone tells me the mistakes... I am just angry at myself...

We have the same practice in Finland... but I think it could be changed to the wordly one as a union and the church one as a marriage and all the benefits from state to the union... so no problem. Benefits are the things gays are after anyway... right. Personally I think that it dont matter what gender the one is, who is sitting beside a dying friend... only family allowed is pretty cruel.

In Norway the gays can even adopt children. As an adoptee myself I would say NO to adoptations.

Maya · #9 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 02:36 PM

There are more saying no than yes... why cant we give up the lawful marriage and just keep our own sealing ceremony, that anyway is more important to us? We dont loose anything by doing that or do we?? Everyone can go to the Justice of peace in the morning and in the Temple in the afternoon... or later if the Temple is far away... I would go to the justice of peace with dirty jeans and to the Church with a wedding dress... If the Temple is far people marry usually civilly first anyway.
Some 25 years ago, before the Sewedish Temple, we had to travel to Swizerland for sealings. It would take us 2 days almost. Now both Stockholm and Helsink Temple are allowed to marry people and soon Kiev too. So I cant see it as a catastrophy if civil unions and Church marriages will be separated and the Civil one will be aquired from everyone who wants to have the benefits of the country....

Wingnut · #10 (**permalink**) 08-09-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanFool

Maybe it's just me, but polls should be spelled correctly and typos fixed. It's spelled "ceremony".

Perhaps you could give a little leeway for those who aren't native English speakers.