Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 47368

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the only place where discrimination cannot be practiced is in the legal system. That separation of church and state can sometimes be a good thing! Churches do not HAVE to marry just anyone who walks in their doors and wants to be married.

But when the government got involved in marriage, legalistically, they had to offer the service to everyone, because it's everyone's government. I am all in favor of returning the right to issue marriage licences to the CHURCH, where it belongs. That may sound radical, but how else can we protect the sanctity of marriage as God designed it?

ZeldaCA, Rapture Ready 42 Comments [9/17/2008 11:09:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: sooze
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
starbrewer

that's called aiding and abetting discrimination

9/17/2008 11:15:48 AM

aaa

Not a chance.

9/17/2008 11:16:55 AM

Paschal Wagner

...so close, and yet so far.

9/17/2008 11:24:20 AM

afacelessatheist

The first half sounded promising... then crashed and burned into a huge heap of flames.

Churches were not involved in the whole marriage process for many, many years. It's also NOT something your religion came up with so therefore it has no business being turned over to your particular belief system like some sort of hostage because you don't like where it's headed. Marriage is dying out anyway. It's an outdated system.

9/17/2008 11:31:50 AM

redfergus

GOD designed the 'sanctity' of marriage? I don't think so. God hasn't revealed himself, ever. The Church (whoever's) is a man-made construct, and deserves no more sanctity than any other, such as a pub or a motel, or a Wal-Mart.

Yes!! Let Best Western do the marriages!!

How can this idiot admit that it's everyone's government, and then say that only the church has the right to legitimise marriage? I am all in favor of saying that that is a crock.

fergus


9/17/2008 11:44:23 AM

Beeblebrox

That's much like preserving marriage the same way a jam-maker preserves raspberries.

9/17/2008 11:48:26 AM

Mister Spak

"I am all in favor of returning the right to issue marriage licences to the CHURCH, where it belongs. That may sound radical, but how else can we protect the sanctity of marriage as God designed it? "

The MCC church does same sex marriages. You might want to rethink your great plan. And you were doing so well in that 1st paragraph. Until I got to the second one I was considering rating this a -1.

9/17/2008 11:50:50 AM

Furlong

@Mister Spak

So does the Unitarian Universalist church, and the United Church of Christ.

9/17/2008 12:08:48 PM

Mortok

A church marriage still requires the proper documentation, so married couples can get all those sweet bonuses like life cover. You wanna give those up? Fine.

9/17/2008 12:19:57 PM

BufferickVonHellbags

i stopped reading at, "legalistically."

9/17/2008 12:26:30 PM

Aethernaut

If you want to be a member of a church that's anti-human rights bully for you, but don't go dragging the rest of us into it because of your barbaric moral code.

9/17/2008 12:44:46 PM

Necronomikron

But, then the government will not recognize it.

You can get married in a church all you want... just won't be recognized by the government till you get their sheet of paper, meaning no join taxes, etc. etc.

And, even then, some churches will perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

9/17/2008 12:48:31 PM

Sarah

Then, as pointed out above, the UU do gay marriages. More harmfully, old Mormon men get to marry multiple underaged girls. Same goes for some Muslim sects.

9/17/2008 12:48:39 PM

Nutz

God doesn't exist and marriage isn't his design. Marriage has legal ramifications and is a legal status. As such it's a government issue. The whole church thing is just unimportant extra crap. It's perfectly feasible to be married without ever stepping foot inside a church.

9/17/2008 1:05:15 PM

MK

Almost there. Now just take the step Bill O'Reilley has endorsed - churches perform marriages, the government treats all unions as civil unions.

9/17/2008 1:14:15 PM

anonymous_troy

Yeah, but the government would still have to offer legal marriages since marriage concerns, like property, and like adopting stuff.

And tax breaks.

So then you'd have two marriages and it would be all kinds of confusing.

9/17/2008 1:23:50 PM

John

how else can we protect the sanctity of marriage as God designed it?

Simple. Get married in a church. Then you can pat yourself on the back and say "I'm married in the sight of God". Let other people do what they want and MYOB.

9/17/2008 1:46:44 PM

stogoe

Now just take the step Bill O'Reilley has endorsed - churches perform marriages, the government treats all unions as civil unions.

No. No fucking way. Fuck that shit. Why the hell would you ever give up the name marriage to those hateful turds? Marriage is a civil and legal contract, and has nothing to do with religion. Don't give away your greatest asset.

9/17/2008 1:47:26 PM

GreenEyedLilo

Oh, she went right up to the edge of understanding that government is for everybody, then ran back to find a way to oppress LGBTs anyway!

9/17/2008 2:10:02 PM

Brain_In_A_Jar

If you ever need to invoke the rights or protection that marriage offers, who do you talk to? God? The church? Fuck no, you apply to the state. Church marriages are a meaningless ceremony left over from the days when the church effectively was the entirety of local government and thus would enforce your marriage rights. Today, the church has no such authority, so it has absolutely no business issuing legal contracts like marriage licenses except as a franchisee of the state. A "church marriage" today is nothing more than a rebranded state marriage.

9/17/2008 3:48:14 PM

GigaGuess

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the only place where discrimination cannot be practiced is in the legal system. That separation of church and state can sometimes be a good thing! Churches do not HAVE to marry just anyone who walks in their doors and wants to be married.
Precisely. To be honest, I'm fully on board with this.

But when the government got involved in marriage, legalistically, they had to offer the service to everyone, because it's everyone's government.
Yes, because marriage has become a legal status. Keep the religious part if you so choose...we want the legal part.

I am all in favor of returning the right to issue marriage licences to the CHURCH, where it belongs.
Fine. So long as we get to strip it of legal weight and status.

That may sound radical, but how else can we protect the sanctity of marriage as God designed it?
Oh? How many wives does you husband have? And how does two loving men bear less weight than Britney Spears' 42 hour "Cuz-I-wanted-to-see-what-it's-like" marriage?

9/17/2008 5:56:42 PM

nfp

Marriage is first and most importantly a LEGAL status, therefore it stays where it is, thank you. Churches, temples...wedding ceremonies conducted there are for show.

9/17/2008 7:12:37 PM

JohnTheAtheist

Or you could just mind your own fucking business and get on with your stupid little bigoted life.

That work for you?

9/17/2008 8:07:37 PM

JewBoy

This person seems to not realize there is both a legal and religious definition of marriage. The religious definition is just symbolic, the legal one, however affects people's lives in significant ways. The religious definition can remain the same for whatever your religion is or not matter at all if you are not religious. The legal definition should not discriminate based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, weight, height, eye color, shoe size, musical taste or sexual preference.

9/17/2008 8:19:59 PM

tracer

"I am all in favor of returning the right to issue marriage licences to the CHURCH, where it belongs."


Which church?

9/17/2008 9:05:15 PM
1 2