Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.
He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.
A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.
“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”
He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.
“As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
Pft! It’s not like Mick Jagger didn’t try to warn you, Barrie…
“It is
a shamethe goal that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”“If you like your religious freedom, you can keep it.”
It’s time to completely sever religious, sacramental marriage from civil “marriage”, civil unions, etc.
End the practice of government entities automatically recognizing religious ceremonies as legally valid, and it’s more clear about what each really means.
A civil marriage, union, whatevs, is a recognition that the State acknowledges that certain rights and privileges pertain between two (or more, let’s not kid ourselves for what’s coming) people (or others, let’s not kid ourselves for what’s coming).
A religious or sacramental marriage is, at least in the Catholic Church, made by “a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; ‘to be free’ means:
—not being under constraint;
—not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that ‘makes the marriage.’ ”
”
Note that the priest doesn’t “marry” the couple, the man and woman marry each other and the priest or deacon witnesses. Therefore, in the Catholic Church, it’s not possible to have a same-sex so-called “marriage” because the elements of one man and one woman aren’t there. Two (or more) men and/or two (or more) woman can’t have a Catholic marriage because it’s not sacramentally licit.
Now the C of E? I haven’t a clue.
OT, but enlightening:
Obamacare supporters sign petition for mandatory euthanasia for seniors.
As Mark Steyn quipped when discussing calls for the Catholic Church to “modernize” its views on abortion, etc.: The church does not exist to validate your lifestyle choices. If you find the church doesn’t meet your needs, go elsewhere.
I think we’ve seen this guy somewhere before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4
happyfeet assured us this would never happen. I feel so betrayed.
Take a hike, Pops.
This is such an obvious result that no one here is surprised. I can think of a few who will briefly act surprised, however.
Shortly before advising rolling over, for the sake of collegiality, pragmatism, or taking the high road. For teh fairnesses.
Yep.
Darth
Even if we banned all religious ceremonies as valid (emulate the old Soviet union where one had two ceremonies … one at the government license office then one at a church … but not the latter if you wanted any success in your life), it won’t stop these lawsuits. Having church weddings for same-sex couples isn’t the goal, it’s just a tactic.
Paraphrased from an old sci-fi novel I read (and I’m not sure which one!) : “Have you thought carefully about where this must eventually lead? At some point, when I say ‘no’ too many times you will be obliged to cut off my head in the public square just to prove that your ‘yes’ is more powerful than my ‘no’. I will not take hemlock or run away. And I must warn you that the church is far older than any state and many nations. If you should return to the bad old ways, might not we, in our horror, do the same?”
As ignorant schoolchildren in grammar school back in the early ’60s of the last century, we Virginians were taught the words disestablishmentarian and antidisestablishmentarian, primarily, as I believed at the time, for the sake of their prodigious length and the spelling exercise (if not the simple torment). But our Virginian teachers, unbeknownst to us, seem to have had ulterior historical motives.
Yes. If the church is established by the government, the argument that it must provide services to all is much stronger.
As I’ve noted before, the “sanctity of marriage” went out the window the instant it became possible to get married in front of a Vegas Elvis impersonator, while drunk, to someone you met fifteen minutes ago. Valid in all fifty states. Just as valid as a marriage performed by the Pope himself.
It won’t stop the lawsuits, Darleen, agreed. The idea is to make clear what each particular arrangement between people really is.
Personally, I’d be inclined to do the church ceremony and not the civil one. After all, I don’t need a piece of paper from “The Man”… ;)
[…] So sad, another quest for “tolerance” “acceptance” “equality” is hijacked by the Left and used as a tool to force their views onto others. Protein Wisdom has the story […]
Darth, I contemplated the same thing. I’m getting married in September, and I seriously considered skipping the license. (My dad even mentioned the same thing, which shocked me to the core.) I’m getting married in California, though, and if they say Spouse A and Spouse B, I am rebeling.
SBP, there was actually a big hue and cry back around the French Revolution when they got rid of the church and began requiring/performing civil marriage ceremonies for couples to be recognized as married. All the elites thought it was progressive, and other countries in Europe began adopting that — but the church and the people had huge problems with it because they argued that the government could then begin defining and controlling marriage and that was something left to the church and to society.
But, you know, that was over 100 years ago and they’re all backwards, slave-holding rubes, so, obviously.
The 98mph fastball little Jimmy Madison threw at the head of Patrick Henry, who jumped back from the box.
the only way *is* essex is my understanding
you can try to maybe come up with another way but you’ll surely be unsuccessful inasmuch as there simply is no other way other than essex
which, it doesn’t mean there’s no other way in America but my understanding is your failshit little country has way bigger problems than these ones described here
There is no God, is my understanding, from the point of view of those who demand that sacramental matters are decided alone by human beings (themselves, the “demanders” in particular) and not by divine law or revelation from heaven above, so to speak. Which is fine as far as it goes. But only notice that it does go quite some way to many things they may not have considered (like, for instance, the annihilation of a people as a religious kind). As problems go, this is a big one (seen in many places and disputes the world over), albeit not the only one.
when them peoples what are threatened with annihilation as a religious kind embrace politics as a means to impose their heavenly revelations on others they probably should do that with the understanding that other people can play the morality-legislating game too
That would be some news to the German Jews of the last couple of centuries.
Leigh, you are to blame for invoking the electric hamster.
Now can someone please look into a mirror and say “Pikachu” three times and summon it out of here?
oh. Sorry I didn’t realize we were talking holocaust stuff.
I meant more how it was only a short time ago that the social con leg of the Stool Of Conservative Ascendance was enthusiastically putting Sacred Definition measures on every ballot they could, and it was glorious and they crowed about every victory and God in His Heaven was well pleased.
Proud lil roosters were they.
But the crowings have ceased now.
You didn’t read what I wrote? That’s ok. I don’t hardly expect it anyhow.
I fail to see your point. At common law a ceremonial marriage was not required – all that was required was an express present intention to be married and no impediment to the marriage (e.g., one party is then married, parties not siblings), and then a subsequent act of consummation. All the rest is a red herring. Which laws did you propose to curtail marriages that did not display the requisite solemnity appropriate to the occasion?
And if you’re drunk when you express your present intention to marry, whether in a common law or ceremonial marriage, it is not valid unless and until one ratifies the marriage by continuing to live as man and wife after the effects of the intoxicant have abated.
If one is to trace the decline in the institution, the fault lies squarely in the laps of those now advocating in bad faith for men to marry men and women to marry women. Most regarded themselves as feminists. There is a record of their aims and statements, it would be helpful to the discussion if you acknowledged them and their import rather than engaging in the pretense that a vanishingly small number of heterosexuals who did not take the whole affair seriously is the cause of the diminishment of the institution.
i read it Mr. sdferr but I didn’t really think that this deal where some billionaire dude in essex is contemplating a lawsuit really warranted the invocation of genocide, so I basically glossed over that part and just made it more clear what it was I was trying to say with respect to America having way bigger problems than gay marriage stuff
I don’t think we’re there yet where we can talk about genocide and such here in America
I guess it’s good to keep it on the whiteboard though.
hey griefer, really terrible all that Ten Commandment stuff at the base of our laws
you know, murder, stealing and stuff
stupid godbotherers,
happyfeet says August 2, 2013 at 11:39 am
Proud lil roosters were they.
But the crowings have ceased now.
Sez the cartoon character who hasn’t had anything to say about the court handing this down from on high. At least if morality is going to be legislated I’d like to see actual legislators doing it.
Do you have anything serious to add? Do you ever?
griefer
when San Antonio proposes to legally ban observant Christians & Jews from city government or contracting with the city, then your little obsession with “ssm = no big deal, bigots” schtick is pretty transparent.
whatever’s at the base of your laws hasn’t seemed to have done very much to prevent your little country’s rapid evolution into a morally debased brokedick laughingstock whorenation
Have you ever given this “let’s all get behind the mule and push” speech to, you know, they gays and “gay marriage” advocates?
It wasn’t about genocide though, but merely question of the determination of the religious law from the point of view of, on the one hand, the religious believer who takes his law (necessarily) from his God, or gods, and on the other, the human being who prescribes to religion the laws it must have at the hands of this self-same human being. The genocide thing only came about after God had died anyhow, and the human beings could, in the name of Science (understand by that the “racial” determination, there being two kinds, the Aryan and the non-Aryan) give full vent to their hatred. But to the religious believers, there was no avenue of escape, since their God commanded otherwise.
Sez the cartoon character who hasn’t had anything to say about the court handing this down from on high.
I liked the DOMA ruling I thought the California ruling was silly inasmuch as California was more than poised to pass a gay marriage referendum.
The pervert Roberts court is not very good at picking its battles I don’t think.
happyfeet says August 2, 2013 at 12:02 pm
I liked the DOMA ruling
I know you did, because you like tyranny disguised as “judicial review”, as long as its the proper flavor.
griefer
whatever’s at the base of your laws hasn’t seemed to have done very much to prevent your little country’s rapid evolution into a morally debased brokedick laughingstock whorenation
Oh, since morals, ethics and principles are HARD, why bother, eh?
as California was more than poised to pass a gay marriage referendum.
You base that on what? Considering that CA citizens passed real marriage legislation TWICE by significant margins.
Well, thanks for doing your part and helping break her in.
the religious believer who takes his law (necessarily) from his God
yes this is how I was learned up
that there is a way that we live that is not defined by politics or by what other people think, and that this is something of which one can be a bit prideful of really
mom used to say that a lot like a mantra
“that is not how we live” she would say about matters large and small
but attendant to that was always an understanding that other people live how they live
an understanding to where we were taught that as long as we know how WE live, how our friends and neighbors lived was not really something we needed to be all too worried about
I’m only now beginning to appreciate that my upbringing was quite a departure from the norm for provincial small town lutheran small business-owning republicans
but maybe at one time it was more common I think
Leamas: “I fail to see your point.”
Of course, given that you failed to see it every other time.
The government has no business regulating the religious aspects of marriage. It wouldn’t even be an issue if married people weren’t granted special privileges, which is a violation of the equal protection clause on its face.
“really terrible all that Ten Commandment stuff at the base of our laws”
So polygamy = okay, then?
You base that on what? Considering that CA citizens passed real marriage legislation TWICE by significant margins.
There’s been some movement in the way society thinks about gay marriage in the last few years. Especially among young people and minorities. Some people say this movement has been kinda significant. Paradigm shift sea change type stuff.
I read it in one of the newspapers.
I’m game for having another referendum if you are.
that there is a way that we live that is not defined by politics or by what other people think, and that this is something of which one can be a bit prideful of really
The Jews knew different early, just as early as when the Roman conquerors said — you will live according to our civic law as well as in accord to our sacred services and observance — and the Jews found themselves forced to reply no, sorry, we can’t do your sacred observance because our God, the only God, says otherwise, oh, and by the way, your puny multitude of gods are an enormous heap of nonsensical shit.
So began the slaughter. And we only notice, it hasn’t quit.
There’s been some movement in the way society thinks about gay marriage in the last few years.
The same is true for freedom, liberty, and justice, and from much the same demographics. Maybe they’ll like you so much, they’ll kill you last.
We did. Twice. “One man, one woman”. Yet some unelected know-better-er in a black robe decided that the People didn’t know what they really wanted, whereupon the minority declared victory, and the issued settled for all time.
“I read it in one of the newspapers.”
Well if bullshit tastes good then eat it I say.
I know you did, because you like tyranny disguised as “judicial review”, as long as its the proper flavor
Mr. mondamay the capricious whims of the pervert Roberts court transpire quite apart from my likes and dislikes, to say nothing of how divorced they are from stodgy ideas about constitutional law
outcomes is all your pervert supreme court produces anymore
“Ten Commandment stuff at the base of our laws”
Let’s unpack this a bit more, shall we?
First: it’s never been against the law to worship other gods in this country. The First Amendment says so.
Second: okay to worship graven images, too.
Third: I think some states might have had blasphemy laws, but even when they were in effect, they were conspicuous by their nonenforcement (and unenforceability).
Fourth: again, some states used to have “Blue Laws”. Those are almost all gone, and they were never as rigid as the Orthodox Jewish version of Sabbath-keeping.
Fifth: as far as I know, honoring your parents has never been required by law in any state.
Sixth: this one applies, but it’s against the law to murder in just about any culture I can think of.
Seventh: this one was fairly widespread, but I don’t think it’s in effect in any state any more (although the UCMJ still has it, the last I heard).
Eight: Stealing. That’s wrong. Again, wrong in just about every civilized culture.
Ninth: Perjury laws are still in effect just about everywhere, but again, Judeo-Christian religions hardly have a monopoly here.
Ten: Not illegal anywhere, not enforceable anywhere.
So by my count we have three that apply, but those also apply in every civilized culture on the planet. One (no adultery) used to be enforced, but hasn’t been for a long time (and again, every civilized culture frowns on adultery).
Tell me again how our laws are “based on the Ten Commandments”?
After that, tell me how our marriage customs come from the Bible, ’cause I sure remember a lot of polygamy in there.
“you will live according to our civic law as well as in accord to our sacred services and observance”
Well, they did adopt the Roman marriage customs. That’s where ours come from. Not the Bible.
Sorry, Darth. I’ll make an act of contrition later. I just figured I’d summon him and get it out of the way for the weekend.
yes Mr. sdferr you are right there is a problem there and I don’t mean to suggest you’re off in the weeds
but I’m saying something way more simple really in the context of this essex business and that is simply that in situations where you find Jews oppressed by Romans, it would be odd to see the Jews engage in petty politics with the aim of forcing the Romans to live in accord with jewish sacred services and observances
me I think everyone’s better served by reducing the scope of politics to where sacred services and observances are not at all encompassed
but it’s hard to find any takers for that idea anymores
I have no idea what the fuck is going on in San Antonio by the way
sounds like they’ve gotten weird on us
Well, it hasn’t been for lack of trying. Perhaps the failure is on your end?
Of which “religious aspects of marriage” do you speak?
The Equal Protection Clause requires that similarly situated persons be treated equally. Specifically, it prohibits the different application of law between white men and black men – for example, Mississippi cannot have two statute books with separate sentencing schemes for blacks and whites convicted of the same crime. Married persons and singletons are not “similarly situated.” Jumping up and down and pretending that “equal” means “same in every way” is simply a pretext for your anti-democratic tyranny by judges. One would think that a man with libertarian leanings would be somewhat more upset at the perversion of law even in the service of ends with which he agrees.
“Married persons and singletons are not “similarly situated.”
Begging the question.
You can’t gran’t a special legal status to certain people, and then argue that this status makes them “differently situated”?
Try harder, dude.
me I think everyone’s better served by reducing the scope of politics to where sacred services and observances are not at all encompassed
The Jews as Jews didn’t engage in politics (petty or otherwise) for a couple thousand years, and only after that long time figured out they had no choice. In the interim they’ve tried a number of alternatives, none of which seemed to work, and only resorted to the political return (after thinking it over for half a century or so) in the late ’40s, and along with it found that they’re on notice that they’ve got to deal with a religious return as such as well. Even today there are problems they have yet to work out, but their path is at least a little clearer than it had been, though still fraught with human puzzles of survival with coherence.
leigh don’t be hard on yourself we started one of those diet contests here at the office and it’s Friday and I done everything on my list this week already and I’m starving cause of I’ve only had 5 almonds today for sustenance so I need to stay busy
the only thing left is I want to redo my google alerts today and in a few minutes I’m a run and get some paper towels cause M pointed out we were out and even though she wasn’t really complaining I want to be responsive to her concerns
also I’m kind of all weinered and trayvoned out so a gay marriage thread looked like a nice change of pace for the week
i’m a huge supporter of Israel Mr. sdferr
though I wonder if maybe they’re better off forging a path what liberates them from reliance on an ally as untrustworthy as america
I’m pretty sure they’re way ahead of me on this though.
that’s all I got
SBP
As you probably know, the Ten Commandments consists of two sets, one set of commandments about an individual’s relationship with God, the other about his/her relationships with other people.
It is the latter that is what I mean when I talk about basis for law.
and laws about murder and stealing are not universal … such things maybe within the family or tribe, but not when dealing with The Other.
No where in Judeo-Christian ethics does it condone or excuse the murder or stealing the property of The Stranger.
Re: honoring one’s parents … (note it doesn’t say one has to “love” them). There ARE Filial responsibility laws.
though I wonder if maybe they’re better off forging a path what liberates them from reliance on an ally as untrustworthy as america
Amein to that. In the meantime (hi John Kerry!), however, they’re screwed.
That diet doesn’t sound very healthy, happy. You probably ought to grab a nice green drink while you’re getting the paper towels so’s you don’t keel over.
In the meantime (hi John Kerry!), however, they’re screwed.
sdferr, I was looking a map of all the embassy closing and thinking “Aren’t we leaving Israel hanging out to dry?” Something is afoot and it isn’t good.
Which is why I proposed that we stop the conflation of sacramental and religious marriage with civic and legal rights granted to consenting groups of two or more people, animals, or things.
Mr. Man and his three boyfriends and their pet German Shepherds want to get their civil union on? Fine. Make it legal, get the reality TV contract signed, and go from there.
But why would that group want to participate in a religious ceremony when they don’t accept what that religion teaches? Should my wife and I sue Beth Israel because they won’t Jew-marry us, or should we have a hissy that the local LDS church won’t tie us in a Mormon-knot?
Right now, in this society, a religious marriage ceremony also confers the civil union. If we did away with that link and had them handled separately, I think it would make things a lot more clear as to who’s doing what, and for what reasons.
You can’t gran’t a special legal status to certain people, and then argue that this status makes them “differently situated”?
The members of the institution are granted certain benefits, not the individuals.
It’s akin to being in the military — those members, now differently situated from civilians — have privileges and responsibilities tied to the institution, even as many people will NEVER qualify to be a member of that institution.
The Jews as Jews didn’t engage in politics (petty or otherwise) for a couple thousand years, and only after that long time figured out they had no choice.
Especially true in England, as they had been expelled en masse in 1290, and not allowed to return until 1657. Jews were not allowed to run for Parliament until 1858.
i have 4 of the big protein shakes to put away today, and some grapes
for the day I’ll be at around 1600 calories
tomorrow I’m a walk all day long
then come Sunday I’ll eat steak and various chicken parts but no carbs
I want to win this contest cause of there are fancy prizes
It’s time to completely sever religious, sacramental marriage from civil “marriage”, civil unions, etc.
Which would solve exactly what?
As I’ve noted before, the “sanctity of marriage” went out the window the instant it became possible to get married in front of a Vegas Elvis impersonator
Don’t confuse “marriages” with “weddings.” The wedding is the ceremonial, PUBLIC, rite of passage that marks the beginning of a marriage.
when San Antonio proposes to legally ban observant Christians & Jews from city government or contracting with the city, then your little obsession with “ssm = no big deal, bigots” schtick is pretty transparent.
You might want to clarify that the “when” = now, IOW, your phrase isn’t the same as “when the sun ceases shining and the tides cease to move.”
Also, ‘feets, you utterly dismissed my concerns about using SSM as a way to officially marginalize god-botherers, and you said that should such wicked discrimination come to pass, you’d staunchly defend us.
…
Well?
Tell me again how our laws are “based on the Ten Commandments”?
The founders recognized that the Law of Moses was the introduction of Rule of Law in the ancient world, at complete odds with the monarchical rule that existed elsewhere.
It’s not the commandments themselves that are the basis: it’s the idea that everyone should be judged impartially by the same law.
You needn’t look to embassy closings though leigh, since releasing murderers from prison as an a priori demand of Prince Kerry without compensation whatsoever is a sufficient demonstration of the problem (not to say there aren’t also many others, for there are).
I don’t think so.
Now you’re begging the question.
Your Equal Protection challenge as a perturbed singleton is bound to fail based upon several decades of precedent interpreting the clause that prevents hanging black men for jaywalking and fining white men $5.00 for the very same infraction.
The institution is open to any man and woman with the requisite legal capacity and who are not already married or blood relatives within a certain degree of consanguinity. Yes, it is even open just the same to homosexuals in all fifty states and territories when you think about it. They just insist that the world be Burger King. To the extent that any given homosexual or singleton would be similarly situated and bereft of some absolute and necessary right, it is by choice that they are so. I have to tell you it’s not very compelling.
you said that should such wicked discrimination come to pass, you’d staunchly defend us
Us? This is taking place in the faraway kingdom of England. These people still bow their sad pitiful asses down to inbred royal whores like the Kate and the William and that stupid wee devil child that you know damn well is possessed of a maleness what’s a product of every modern sex selection tool they thought they could get away with.
There’s simply no accounting for these ones and I’m not in the business of saving loser-assed British people from themselves.
I never even been there my whole life.
Indeed, sdferr. I was using the embassy closings as a handy referent since a large map of the closings was on the news this morning. Kerry has been meddling away and none of it to the best interest of Israel. He is determined to get his stamp on the “Peace Process” no matter how phony or shortlived.
Kate Middleton hasn’t got a drop of royal blood in her veins.
This is taking place in the faraway kingdom of England
Not just there
So what you’re saying, SW, is that George is… the Half-Blood Prince?
/rimshot!
stupid wee devil child that you know damn well is possessed of a maleness what’s a product of every modern sex selection tool they thought they could get away with.
Wow. Weapon’s grade h8tiness there. KILL THE INFANT!
Bravo, Darth!
I always thought that title belonged to his uncle Harry, Darth.
Prince Harry is a ginger, after all.
IRS still harassing pro-Life groups
just because a person is inspired by their religious belief to endorse a law does not mean that there are not any other justification for the law.
If you wanted a law protecting flying horses because Mohammed rode one to heaven, there could be many other secular reason to protect flying horses from being hunted into extinction.
From the Catechism:
OK, thought experiment – are Penal Codes criminalizing rape Unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause? Discuss.
OT :::snort::: sometimes the rotating quotes in the upper left of the site are priceless … this one just went by:
“…with a cock almost as big as mine…”, Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon
Can’t you see the look on their dumb pasty faces, peaking out from under those stupid Bowler hats? Magna Cartaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!
bgbear
Um, just because you can attempt to come up with secular reasons for a law doesn’t mean it wasn’t first grounded in the religious tenet that all individuals are part of the divine and have equal inherent rights that no man can usurp.
Darleen, I think he was sort of supporting the correct point of view that there can be multiple reasons at once for support of a law, some religious and some secular, and that the fact that some people support a law partially for religious reasons doesn’t make the law automatically violative of the Establishment Clause.
there is no such thing as royal blood
they made it up
There. Now I suppose you see your error.
i’m hungry
thanks, alec, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I was just trying to counter the pikachu’s insistence that “pro-life” or “pro traditional marriage” is only a religious thing
Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you -Karl Popper
Us? This is taking place in the faraway kingdom of England.
My mistake.
You won’t staunchly defend the limey-bastard god-botherers on account of their limey bastardness, but when it crosses the pond, you’ll be RIGHT THERE, front and center, deflecting the blows and taking the hits.
yes indeed when it hasn’t been your day your week your month or even your year
the fact that some people support a law partially for religious reasons doesn’t make the law automatically violative of the Establishment Clause.
The Establishment Clause has exactly zero to do with why citizens or their representatives support one measure or the other. If every person in the United States and both houses of Congress predicated their support for murder laws exclusively on the 6th commandment — and said so in all the debates and rationalizations — there would be no violation of the Establishment Clause.
Congress is prohibited from making any theological system official and of screwing with people on account of their beliefs. If Congress adopts the Nicene Creed into the code of justice, THAT is a violation. If Congress tells the LDS they have to ditch the Book of Mormon, THAT is a violation.
The Bill of Rights constrains government interference. It does NOT constrain citizen motives.
Darleen:
“and laws about murder and stealing are not universal … such things maybe within the family or tribe, but not when dealing with The Other.”
Go read Numbers 31 (among many, many other passages) and then tell me that Moses interpreted those as applying to The Other.
Here, I’ll help:
“Re: honoring one’s parents … (note it doesn’t say one has to “love” them). Filial responsibility laws”
So being ordered to pay alimony is a requirement to “honor your ex-wife”?
Leamas:
“Your Equal Protection challenge as a perturbed singleton is bound to fail”
I’m not a “perturbed singleton”. I’m a widower who was in a monogamous heterosexual relationship for twenty years. I felt the exactly same way before my wife died. As did she.
“The institution is open to any man and woman with the requisite legal capacity and who are not already married or blood relatives within a certain degree of consanguinity.”
It used to be open to everybody with the requisite legal capacity who wanted to marry someone of the same race. Therefore the miscegenation laws were just fine and not discriminatory in any way. Is that what you’re saying?
Balaam is probably one of those dickheads what told everybody to buy a house in 2005
“Penal Codes criminalizing rape Unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause? Discuss.”
You, and Darleen, keep pretending that rape, murder, adultery, etc. are perfectly fine with people who aren’t Christians.
That’s not only incorrect, it is a massively bigoted viewpoint.
“If you’re paying rent you’re just throwing money away every month, and that’s particularly stupid when you can own your own home with little or no down payment and have an asset that will appreciate year after year after year.” – Balaam, September 2005
Japan is only about 1% Christian, but has a murder rate 1/12 of ours, to name just one.
Are you folks SERIOUSLY claiming that (say) mainstream Buddhists are just a bunch of murdering, raping, adultering savages?
The numbers certainly don’t back that up.
You, and Darleen, keep pretending that rape, murder, adultery, etc. are perfectly fine with people who aren’t Christians.
“KILL THE INFANT!” shrieked Darleen, imputing the illest of ill-motives to our friend happyfeet.
“What’s she on about?” thought happy, and decided the best course might be to pretend he hadn’t heard her.
After all, happyfeet already had a lot on his mind this particular Friday. That morning he’d read on the internet that you can get Unsightly Wrinkles from drinking bottled water.
“God help me,” thought the alarmed little pikachu. “I drank some bottled water just last week!”
In the American South for what, a hundred years or so?
You know, it might occur to you that using the Left’s specious, threadbare arguments isn’t the best way to approach the issue with your purported allies.
Um, I didn’t do anything of the kind with the issue of rape. I merely demonstrated that disapproval of rape is an express religious belief which apparently means that it can’t carry the force of law.
Wouldn’t the relevant period be the time before a Western Christian nation rebuilt Japan in its own image? Or do you think that the Japanese also came to adore baseball by sheer accident as well?
“mainstream Buddhists are just a bunch of murdering, raping, adultering savages?”
link
“I merely demonstrated that disapproval of rape is an express religious belief”
You “demonstrated” nothing of the sort.
“In the American South for what, a hundred years or so?”
California and Illinois are part of the “American South”? Since when? Likewise many other states.
“Wouldn’t the relevant period be the time before a Western Christian nation rebuilt Japan in its own image?”
Japan isn’t the only Buddhist country, but do keep attempting to deflect the point.
Can you cite Biblical authority for monogamy? The only restriction I can think of in the New Testament is on bishops or elders (depending on translation) who are supposed to be “husbands of one wife”.
‘A recent New York Times article titled “Extremism Rises Among Myanmar’s Buddhists”’
Missed the word “mainstream”, did you?
Of course you did.
By my count, 41 states had miscegenation laws at one time or another.
“Missed the word “mainstream”, did you?”
did you read the article? what nyt says are “extremist” are really mainstream buddhists.
It used to be open to everybody with the requisite legal capacity who wanted to marry someone of the same race. Therefore the miscegenation laws were just fine and not discriminatory in any way. #1, such laws were NOT universal in the US… in fact, based more on secular eugenic pseudo-science “mixing of the races” racism (akin to how anti-Semitism was “scientifically” based) There is no difference between a man of significant melanin and a man of insignificant melanin.
I would point out the story of Ruth and that Moses married a black woman as demonstrative of Judeo-Christian tradition based on faith-beliefs, not the myth of “race.”
Race is a myth, sex is not.
You, and Darleen, keep pretending that rape, murder, adultery, etc. are perfectly fine with people who aren’t Christians.
:::facepalm:::
Nice to see everything that JeffG has said on intentionalism has gone right by you.
Race is not a myth. Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid. It’s all right there in the classifications that are used as identifiers of hair, skin and bone structure.
royal blood is a myth
That’s true. No one’s blood is blue, either.
lotta misinformation out there
and the Midianite war?
War is pretty nasty, isn’t it? Especially when one is fighting against the extermination of one’s own people.
However, the Israelites spared the prepubescent girls and when they reached menarche, married them into their group.
I’d agree myth isn’t the right word to apply to race, since myth as story usually has a useful point. It’s perhaps better to use the coupled terms cruel-joke, or others, like risibly indefinite horse manure, big steaming pile of pseudo-scientific bull-pucky, the social parallel to phlogiston, and so on.
It’s perhaps better to use the coupled terms cruel-joke, or others, like risibly indefinite horse manure, big steaming pile of pseudo-scientific bull-pucky, the social parallel to phlogiston, and so on.
:-)
“Race” is the basest bit of collectivism … as if sharing a shade of pigmentation makes one a better or worse [talent or virtue] person.
Why yes, yes I did.
Any time you want to make one that’s halfway cogent, I’ll address it. Or do you really think that the appropriate measure of the Buddhist society is after it’s been colonized by a Western Christian power?
You know, being a contrarian prick isn’t the most endearing of qualities.
From Glasgow, not a true Scot as I see it.
“Race” is the basest bit of collectivism … as if sharing a shade of pigmentation makes one a better or worse [talent or virtue] person.
That isn’t the context I was using it in. I’m talking about purely from an anatomical perspective, not a social construct perspective. A sculptor who works with forensic information, like this guy , can build a bust of you from your bare bones and a sketch.
stupid html
leigh
Oh, I agree there are some anatomical group differences, but I look at them the say I look at how one looks run in families … Red hair and freckles in This Family; stick-out ears and chin dimples in That Family
It’s possible that someday we’ll throw out a lot of chemistry as better but still wrong phlogiston 2.0. Truth is kind of annoying the way it tears down models that were useful, widely taught, and well loved.
Darleen, I agree. Most of the racial stuff people talk about these days have to do with the Grievance Industrial Complex and not much else.
I’m suddenly gripped by an irrational urge to murder Chris Tillman (bb, 2runhr, bb, bb — 2 outs), but were I a citizen of Nara period Japan, or for that matter any period thereafter, I’m reasonably certain that all my family, neighbors and acquaintances would condemn, admonish, castigate and reprimand my foolish desire, and punish me should I somehow carry it out, as would the polity at large.
“by an irrational urge to murder Chris Tillman”
blame bush it is easier
Yes.
blame bush
No worries, no need, as Chris Davis has momentarily diverted my urges with a shiny object: hr#40, rbi#101.
It used to be open to everybody with the requisite legal capacity who wanted to marry someone of the same race. Therefore the miscegenation laws were just fine and not discriminatory in any way.
The miscegenation laws were an aberration in the history of humankind. We Americans were the only ones who had a problem with interracial marriage. The Brits took Indian wives; the Spanish took Native wives, and the Bible never so much as gave it the stink-eye.
That said, the miscegenation laws were unjust because they had added “same race” as a requirement for marriage. Race is scientifically known to be COSMETIC, in contrast to the popular notion of Africans being genetically somewhere between humans and apes. It was wicked because it was based on a vile falsehood.
However, “equal protection” cannot be the objection if that particular law was applied the same to all peeps. Likewise, a lesbian and a gay man—in full drag, waving rainbow banners and singing “We’re as gay as an Easter parade”—can marry each other, as can a man and woman who hate each other’s guts. Ergo, “equal protection” is fulfilled.
The SSM advocates ask that the “one of each sex” requirement also be removed from the marriage requirements. Is sex cosmetic or essential? Is there something about biological sex that makes it a load-bearing beam in the marriage arrangement or is it an arbitrary distinction?
If you can show that the “one of each sex” requirement is based on a misconception—not on whether someone is squicked out by gays, but on a scientifically falsifiable premise—then you can call the requirement an instance of unjust discrimination (as opposed to just discrimination).
It’s just that equal protection isn’t the rubric under which the protests can fall, because something can be applied impartially to everyone and still be unjust.
What I mean is, if Africans were inferior in an objective way—such as being a subspecies or a different species—then the miscegenation laws would not have been inherently unjust, nor would the Jim Crow laws, etc.
So, is refusing to recognize SSM based on a similar misconception or does the difference between the sexes matter in ways beyond who sits and who stands to pee?
Race is scientifically known to be COSMETIC, in contrast to the popular notion of Africans being genetically somewhere between humans and apes.
If we substitute the word “species” for “race” it is easier to see the term for the toxin it is.
such as being a subspecies or a different species
whoops, you beat me to it.
Japan is only about 1% Christian, but has a murder rate 1/12 of ours.
Oddly enough, self-identifying as Christian doesn’t make you Christlike.
Not sure why it would, unless you’re following the Left’s self-congratulatory paradigm of assuming that if you self-identify as “progressive” you’re good at making progress, or if you self-identify as a “Democrat” you’re loving and caring.
” the miscegenation laws”
i’d love to know which party was passing such laws?
notice they are: “conservative white Democrats ” not “racist
conservativewhite Democratslink
“Any time you want to make one that’s halfway cogent, I’ll address it”
Sorry, no time to debate with a dishonest opponent.
You define “the right” as “in favor of enforcing my personal religious beliefs by law”. I don’t.
Sorry.
“However, the Israelites spared the prepubescent girls and when they reached menarche, married them into their group.”
Under their own free will, I’m sure.
Of course, you’re failing to address the point, which is that Mosaic law VERY MUCH drew distinctions when it came to The Other.
“Nice to see everything that JeffG has said on intentionalism has gone right by you.”
Look: you claimed that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They aren’t.
That’s just wrong. Now you’re trying to spin and deflect to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
In case it’s not clear here, I don’t think that churches in the U.S. should have to perform gay weddings. If we had an established church, like the U.K., that would be different.
I’m still waiting for a Biblical mandate for monogamy, by the way. The Jews certainly didn’t see it that way. The Ashkenazi didn’t give up the custom until 1000 AD. Some Jewish groups still practice it today.
“We Americans were the only ones who had a problem with interracial marriage.”
Sorry, that’s not correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
“i’d love to know which party was passing such laws?”
Some of them, such as the ones in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, actually predated the formation of the United States, so I’m pretty sure that neither of the current major parties was to blame.
You know, there’s this thing called “Google” you can use to learn stuff like that.
“Some of them, such as the ones in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, actually predated the formation of the United States, so I’m pretty sure that neither of the current major parties was to blame.”
racists white demonrats had nothing to do with this stuff 1880-1960?
swing and miss
sbp
the “demonrats” own “racism”. be nice to use history to show it.
“Some of them, such as the ones in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, actually predated the formation of the United States, so I’m pretty sure that neither of the current major parties was to blame.”
you be goof ball
sbp you be telling there be no “klan bake @ the 1924 demonrat convention?”
That’s not what he’s talking about, nr. The fact that the dems were/are racists isn’t in dispute.
“Some of them, such as the ones in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, actually predated the formation of the United States, so I’m pretty sure that neither of the current major parties was to blame.”
oh good you went back far enough to make a stupid point about america today
” The fact that the dems were/are racists isn’t in dispute.”
ax sharpton, jackson , et al
Part I: Anatomy of a Racist
Part II: Anatomy of a Racist
More weak tea. Would those be my Muslim, Jewish, or Christian “personal religious beliefs?” Perhaps my “personal religious beliefs” arising from Roman civil law? Seems to me that plenty of those non-Christian cultures that you champion above have the same or similar definition of marriage to the Christian one, no? It’s almost as if the institution as understood between man and woman is near universal in the human experience.
Look, I understand that you think you’re clever in pretending that religion, culture, and law aren’t interrelated and that one can’t inform the others. I suppose that is your right. But the United States Constitution absolutely does not provide that anything, anywhere, that may have come into contact with Jesus germs is a thing prohibited by its terms. It doesn’t require that the policy preferences of the irreligious minority prevail over the preferences of a religious majority in all cases. It doesn’t require that people with religious beliefs remove themselves from the public square and exert no influence on policy. To pretend that it does – as you do – is a usurpation of the people’s right to self-govern – to construct a society that conforms and is in concord with established social norms. It is a simple and unvarnished lie that you tell and I will call it such.
“You define “the right” as “in favor of enforcing my personal religious beliefs by law”. I don’t.
Sorry”
that is islam. the “religion of submission”
This place is just another typical right-wing Republican echo chamber. It’s just that it’s hard to actually hear the echoes, what with the loud argumentin’ and all.
The loudest arguments here seem to be about what are essentially “sidebars”. Late arrivals, like myself tonight, find it all very annoying.
I do have one question, though. Is anyone here, besides the Yellow Peril, arguing that random gay couples are justified in actually suing random churches if said churches decline to perform a wedding ceremony for gay or lesbian couples?
where did i ever argue that my whole life?
Sorry, that’s not correct.
Fine, I forgot about those other instances. But they, too, were historical aberrations, and they don’t destroy my argument.
People act as if interracial marriage had been forbidden by Western Society up until the day that “we” abolished it; ergo, we should go ahead and take the next step toward erasing a similar bigotry. After all, someone is saying that two people can’t get married for reasons outside of consanguinity, consent, and prior marriage.
But if the reason for maintaining the opposite-sex requirement for marriage is not a falsehood nor a lack of information, then it’s not valid to hurl the bigotry charge at those who think that having one of each sex is a load-bearing wall in the edifice of marriage.
Mosaic law VERY MUCH drew distinctions when it came to The Other.
Yes, it did. The priesthood was passed down through patriarchal lines, and God went out of his way to prohibit the Hebrews from intermarrying with the neighboring nations.
Though it turns out that God was concerned about mixing faiths rather than races, because he knew that the non-Hebrew wives would bring their idol-worship with them and teach it to their half-Hebrew kids.
And we’re not talking about merely praying to a statue for the rains to come: idolatry in those days involved ritual prostitution and child sacrifice, and God was hoping to keep his Chosen People away from that jazz.
Which, they went ahead and did it anyway—intermarrying with the heathen, then pairing up Ashteroth with YWYH as his consort, and doing stuff that was evil not just in the sight of God but I don’t imagine we’d find it too cool, either.
[…] Nah. That couldn’t have been predicted, right? […]
“Now can someone please look into a mirror and say “Pikachu” three times and summon it out of here? ”
It doesn’t work. You just get an itemized bill for $1.99 from Nintendo and Game Freak five days later. A least a window sticker comes with the bill. And you have to be 18 to make the mirror call…
“where did i ever argue that my whole life?”
11:26:
“when them peoples what are threatened with annihilation as a religious kind embrace politics as a means to impose their heavenly revelations on others they probably should do that with the understanding that other people can play the morality-legislating game too ”
The two wrongs make a right approach. Somehow I’m thinking you didn’t inherent that from either of your parents. Though, Allen Colmes would be quite proud.
Indeed, Danger. We would stop getting our religion into politics, if politics would stay out of our religion.