Gay marriage legal in MD

[Esprix]

In every state, you go to the State to get a marriage license and then (usually, but not always) you go to some form of minister/pastor to perform the ceremony. the state then Recognizes that religious ceremony as a legally binding contract. The state is "recognizing" a Religous ceremony.

Hmmm, I'd say that isn't technically true. They're honoring the marriage license, and they allow a minister (or a county clerk) to certify that license as valid. Whether the minister has a ceremony or just signs the document, I don't think the state really cares as long as the two being married sign it as well.

Regardless of what the anyone might or might not do in regard to marriage, I think that religious institutions will still continue to perform marriage ceremonies as they see fit, as is their tradition and right. No one should infringe upon that, IMHO.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

You and many take scripture out of context or spew it forth without any understanding.

But it's interesting how you seem to be the only one who reads everything correctly. If you have a direct line to God's ear, I'm sure more than a few people would like to know about that!

Here's a few bits and pieces that are also in the Bible, but are not necessarily Jewish law. What are your thoughts on them?

1. No sex during menstruation
2. Adulterers should be stoned
3. Nudity is sin
4. Polygamy is allowed
5. A childless widow must have sex with her husband's brothers until a son is born
6. Menstrual blood makes you unclean
7. Men have property rights over women
8. Interracial marriages are forbidden
9. Jesus himself forbids divorce
10. Celibacy is abnormal
11. If a woman grabs a man's testicles her hand should be cut off
12. Slavery is never condemned

So, if "homosexual conduct" is a sin no different from any other, can I expect that you are against divorce laws, too? Do you think adulterers or divorcees should be ordained as ministers? What are you going to do about people who use the lord's name in vein (that one's even in the 10 commandments!)?

Esprix

 

[vraiblonde]

May I say I find it tedious when a discussion about the legal rights of gays devolves into a discussion of personal religious beliefs?

I think I've been pretty tolerant of those who believe differently than I do, but religion is religion and the law is the law - two very separate things. This is not a theocracy and religion has nothing to do with our laws and government. So can we stick with the laws and our rights under the Constitution, and quit harping about God and sin and whatever else?

 

[vraiblonde]

One more thought:

If you are required to be a practicing, perfect Christian in order to be married, then that's a religious distinction and shouldn't need a license from the state.

If marriage is a legal distinction, then you cannot disallow gays from being married because that is blatant discrimination.

So which is it? Because you can't have it both ways.

 

[Spoiled]

i really wish i could give this woman more karma, not that it matters because shes maxed out or something

 

[ajhkmr97]

I think that removing religion from law would be an easy task had this country not been founded on religious principals in the first place. It seems to me that the American culture has evolved to the point now to where many are no longer identifying themselves with a higher power. Today's understanding of life and history is being described scientifically and not through faith.

As a Christian, I would like to see more people believe in Christ but I know that will not happen. Our country is becoming secular in nature and leaving its foundations of Christianity behind. It will not be long before "In God We Trust" is removed from the currency.

As for as determining if other peoples of other faiths will or will not go to hell - I don’t know - and God has not put that understanding into my heart. As with many of the answers that have been asked in this thread – I just don’t have an answer for them. I trust God to guide me through this world so that I may be worthy to serve him when I leave this world. God will reach out to his children – and the way he reaches out may not be understood by all. One person may see the sun as God and another - a cross as a symbol of crucified male deity. Everyone’s perception of who or what God is – is different. When God destroyed the tower of Babel and gave different tongues to the tribes – life would never be the same. The way one tribe worshiped would be seen as being “wrong?” to another tribe because neither of the two were ever meant to relate to faith the same. Christianity vs Islam – which is the “right” faith? No one knows but everyone can give a biased opinion – even an atheist.

The bible is a great guide for someone who wishes to live as good of a life as one can. It is not for everyone and the understanding of versus will not make sense to everyone all the time. God puts the understanding that we need into our hearts. If anyone disagrees with another person's view of scripture - they should take it with a grain of salt and just be open to the possibility of alternate understandings.

As for as a sin being a sin - everyone who said that - I agree as well. One sin is not any better or worse than another. I will never understand homosexuality and I don’t have a desire to. It is not for me and not for my family - that is my position. I can tell "homos" that they are going to hell all I want but that would not help the fact that by me calling them "homos" - I am not treating my neighbor as myself. Perhaps this is a reality check for me as well.

Regardless of what we all believe - if we all treat one another as we want others to treat us - perhaps we will all be open minded enough to consider a difference of opinion as to biblical interpretation or the possibility of the existence of a God.

***No one can hate God and not believe in him at the same time.

 

[vraiblonde]

I can tell "homos" that they are going to hell all I want but that would not help the fact that by me calling them "homos" - I am not treating my neighbor as myself. Perhaps this is a reality check for me as well.

 

[Esprix]

I think that removing religion from law would be an easy task had this country not been founded on religious principals in the first place. It seems to me that the American culture has evolved to the point now to where many are no longer identifying themselves with a higher power. Today's understanding of life and history is being described scientifically and not through faith.

As a Christian, I would like to see more people believe in Christ but I know that will not happen. Our country is becoming secular in nature and leaving its foundations of Christianity behind. It will not be long before "In God We Trust" is removed from the currency.

As for as determining if other peoples of other faiths will or will not go to hell - I don’t know - and God has not put that understanding into my heart. As with many of the answers that have been asked in this thread – I just don’t have an answer for them. I trust God to guide me through this world so that I may be worthy to serve him when I leave this world. God will reach out to his children – and the way he reaches out may not be understood by all. One person may see the sun as God and another - a cross as a symbol of crucified male deity. Everyone’s perception of who or what God is – is different. When God destroyed the tower of Babel and gave different tongues to the tribes – life would never be the same. The way one tribe worshiped would be seen as being “wrong?” to another tribe because neither of the two were ever meant to relate to faith the same. Christianity vs Islam – which is the “right” faith? No one knows but everyone can give a biased opinion – even an atheist.

The bible is a great guide for someone who wishes to live as good of a life as one can. It is not for everyone and the understanding of versus will not make sense to everyone all the time. God puts the understanding that we need into our hearts. If anyone disagrees with another person's view of scripture - they should take it with a grain of salt and just be open to the possibility of alternate understandings.

As for as a sin being a sin - everyone who said that - I agree as well. One sin is not any better or worse than another. I will never understand homosexuality and I don’t have a desire to. It is not for me and not for my family - that is my position. I can tell "homos" that they are going to hell all I want but that would not help the fact that by me calling them "homos" - I am not treating my neighbor as myself. Perhaps this is a reality check for me as well.

Regardless of what we all believe - if we all treat one another as we want others to treat us - perhaps we will all be open minded enough to consider a difference of opinion as to biblical interpretation or the possibility of the existence of a God.

***No one can hate God and not believe in him at the same time.

Extremely well said.

Esprix

 

[Geek]

May I say I find it tedious when a discussion about the legal rights of gays devolves into a discussion of personal religious beliefs?

I think I've been pretty tolerant of those who believe differently than I do, but religion is religion and the law is the law - two very separate things. This is not a theocracy and religion has nothing to do with our laws and government. So can we stick with the laws and our rights under the Constitution, and quit harping about God and sin and whatever else?

All right, I will face 2A's Creepy disembodied hand playing with a door knocker in the religon forum. I am for gay marraige. It can't come soon enough.

 

[onebdzee]

Gays need a new word ,Marraige is the bond between man and woman.It makes the word not so meaningful if used for something so much more about rights then actual reality.

Get out of the 19th century!....Marriage is not the bond between a MAN and a WOMEN....it is a legal bond between two people that want to share the rest of their lives together

 

[Tonio]

I think that removing religion from law would be an easy task had this country not been founded on religious principals in the first place. It seems to me that the American culture has evolved to the point now to where many are no longer identifying themselves with a higher power. Today's understanding of life and history is being described scientifically and not through faith.

As a Christian, I would like to see more people believe in Christ but I know that will not happen. Our country is becoming secular in nature and leaving its foundations of Christianity behind. It will not be long before "In God We Trust" is removed from the currency.

Overall, you have excellent sentiments in your post. I disagree about "In God We Trust" on our money--I think it doesn't belong there, because it implies that our government endorses monothestic belief. I've been writing here for four years about my belief that government should be secular, meaning that government should be neutral on religious questions. Which leads into Vrai's point below...

May I say I find it tedious when a discussion about the legal rights of gays devolves into a discussion of personal religious beliefs?

I think I've been pretty tolerant of those who believe differently than I do, but religion is religion and the law is the law - two very separate things. This is not a theocracy and religion has nothing to do with our laws and government. So can we stick with the laws and our rights under the Constitution, and quit harping about God and sin and whatever else?

I agree. I think the two issues are intertwined whether we like it or not, because one side wants the law to reflect its religious beliefs. Sometimes I wonder if America is headed for a religious civil war. In the two centuries before the American Revolution, England was torn apart by a series of wars over which religion would be the country's official one. I hope America doesn't repeat the same sad, terrible history.

 

[bcp]

Get out of the 19th century!....Marriage is not the bond between a MAN and a WOMEN....it is a legal bond between to people that want to share the rest of their lives together

From the Law Lexicon:

MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.

They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marries a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person.

When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question.

Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may be enumerated:

The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.

Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees, by clear and established principles. In several of the United States, marriages within the limited degrees are made void by statute.

Impotency, which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable.

Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. And the same provision exists in the French code civil.

The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or ordained minister of the gospel. The statute of Connecticut on this subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the statutes had not been observed. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. The same rule probably obtains in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Kentucky. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. The 89th article of the Code declares, that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are authorized to celebrate marriage.

A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws.

Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It is dissolved by death or divorce.

In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved in order to convict the accused. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife declaring, deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country, describing their children, in parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring or when the parties pass for husband and wife by common reputation. After their death, the presumption is generally conclusive.

The civil effects of marriage are the following:

It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the parties.

It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband's death, an estate in dower in the husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.

It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.

It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.

The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicile and gains that of her husband.

One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.

The children acquire the domicile of their father.

It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage, the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their kin.

It makes all the issue legitimate.

 

[Railroad]

There are many things I could (but won't) say on this topic, and all of them are predictable by those who've seen my posts for the time I've been here. But what I WILL say is, sometimes it's hard to be a conservative Christian and call Maryland my home state.

 

[vraiblonde]

Gays need a new word ,Marraige is the bond between man and woman.It makes the word not so meaningful if used for something so much more about rights then actual reality.

If people can get married, then divorce 18 hours later, then marriage is not a particularly sacred thing. And the fact is that marriage is no more meaningful than a driver's license in the eyes of the law.

I'll tell you what surprises me, though - gays are very vocal about wanting the right to be legally married, but you never hear of any Christians pushing to have covenant marriage offered in their state. And THAT'S what should happen - leave regular marriage with it's no-fault divorce to the heathens, and enter into a covenant marriage where the price of admission is a little steeper (in terms of what you must go through to be married) and divorce is much harder to obtain.

 

[bcp]

If people can get married, then divorce 18 hours later, then marriage is not a particularly sacred thing. And the fact is that marriage is no more meaningful than a driver's license in the eyes of the law.

I'll tell you what surprises me, though - gays are very vocal about wanting the right to be legally married, but you never hear of any Christians pushing to have covenant marriage offered in their state. And THAT'S what should happen - leave regular marriage with it's no-fault divorce to the heathens, and enter into a covenant marriage where the price of admission is a little steeper (in terms of what you must go through to be married) and divorce is much harder to obtain.

In reality, according to the Bible, there are certain situations that are acceptable for a divorce. any other reason is not allowed.
In the majority of the divorce cases the divorce would only be recognized as far as the legal binds that the state puts on the union. In the biblical sense, these cases would not be recognized by God as a legitimate seperation of the two.

Basically, If one truley belives the Bible and its rules and laws regarding marriage and relationships, even though you are legally divorced you are still married to that person under the union made between man, woman and God. If after that divorce one were to remarry, in the eyes of God according to the Bible it would still be adultry.

Marriage is not really what the gays are after.
they are after the same rights that a married couple has in regard to their personal affairs. And there should be a way to do this legally.

They are not after the recognition of God in their union. And since we are looking at bible vs government, they will never have the recognition from God for that union.

I agree with you.
Make the Marriage part the religious bond that it was meant to be. Then allow the government to attach their regulations to that household.

The gays then could go down to the court house and sign some legal papers giving each other those rights and move on as a union recognized by the government for all benifits.

To fight to be married the same as those that are joined in the church in the eyes of God is wrong. God will never recognize it as legitimate, and either will the majority of the population.

The population will however recognize the legal bond and the rights and implications that it brings with it.

I dont see where this should be an issue. after all, it is only the rights that they are after is it not?

 

[vraiblonde]

In reality, according to the Bible,

You're missing the point. The Bible is not pertinent to the legal state-sanctioned entity of marriage. You can trot right down to the JP, sign a few papers, and - voila - you're married in the eyes of the law.

To fight to be married the same as those that are joined in the church in the eyes of God is wrong. God will never recognize it as legitimate, and either will the majority of the population.

Larry and I weren't married in a church - does that mean we aren't legitimate? :shrug:

My other question for the gay folks among us, why not drop the word "marriage" since that word seems to be what raises the hackles, and settle for legal civil unions? They'd have the exact same benefit as "marriage" but it's just a different legal terminology.

 

[bcp]

You're missing the point. The Bible is not pertinent to the legal state-sanctioned entity of marriage. You can trot right down to the JP, sign a few papers, and - voila - you're married in the eyes of the law.

I believe I did say that in my post. Im not missing the point.

Larry and I weren't married in a church - does that mean we aren't legitimate?

:shrug:In the eyes of the state you are legitimate, in the Eyes of God something is missing.

My other question for the gay folks among us, why not drop the word "marriage" since that word seems to be what raises the hackles, and settle for legal civil unions? They'd have the exact same benefit as "marriage" but it's just a different legal terminology.

And once again, we agreed with each other.

 

[sleuth]

You're missing the point. The Bible is not pertinent to the legal state-sanctioned entity of marriage. You can trot right down to the JP, sign a few papers, and - voila - you're married in the eyes of the law.



Larry and I weren't married in a church - does that mean we aren't legitimate? :shrug:

My other question for the gay folks among us, why not drop the word "marriage" since that word seems to be what raises the hackles, and settle for legal civil unions? They'd have the exact same benefit as "marriage" but it's just a different legal terminology.

Although my position is still to legally paint all marriages as "civil unions", (though I suppose you can have a grandfather clause), and let the churches decide which civil unions they deem to be marriages, I agree with you in that allowing gays to have civil unions and heteros to have marriages would be a decent compromise.

But the bottom line is, gays want to be legitimized. To them, the term "civil union" just means their "marriages" are second-rate. They want what they aren't allowed to have, and won't be happy until they get exactly that.

 

[bcp]

They want what they aren't allowed to have, and won't be happy until they get exactly that.

Then they will never be happy regardless of wording, If they are looking for acceptance from the biblical sense, It is just not possible to get.

what they are looking for is society to be forced to look at them the same way that they look at a male/female marriage,,,, and it just is not going to be.

 

[BS Gal]

2a - I find it hard to understand why you believe your beliefs are the only right ones? I find it rather disturbing, actually, which explains why I am attending the church I am (albiet, only once so far). I want to celebrate God, not be told that everything I do, whether I believe it is a just and good thing, is going to send me to hell in a handbasket. I do not want to be fearful, nor do I want to become one of those people who refuse to accept anybody else's beliefs.