Gay marriage ok.

[Gob]

MPs have approved same-sex marriage in England and Wales in a key Commons vote, despite the opposition of almost half the Conservative MPs.

The Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the move as "an important step forward" that strengthens society.

Early voting lists show that 136 Conservatives opposed the bill.

Of the remaining Conservative MPs, 127 were in favour, 35 did not vote, and five registered an abstention by voting both in favour and against.

Junior justice minister Helen Grant said: "As Tories we do differ at times. We have squabbles - we're like any other family."

But she described the legislation as "a major step forward for equality and justice".

[oldr_n_wsr]

I have yet to see any problems with my marriage (or any other heterosexual marriage) because of gays marrying since NY allowed gay couples to marry.

[dgs49]

I believe I read that the law permitted Clergy with moral reservations to refuse to marry gay couples.

The honest next step would be to remove the power of Clergy to perform civil marriage cerremonies, thus forcing the public to recognize that the "marriage" created by the state and the "marriage" created by their Church are fundamentally different institutions, with different rules.

[Grim Reaper]

The "honest next step" according to Chicken Little.

[Scooter]

Actually this is something on which Dave and I agree, and the way it already happens in most of western Europe and South America. Have a civil ceremony, at city hall or whereever, to have your marriage recognized by the state. Then, if you choose, have a religious ceremony that has no legal validity but will allow you to meet whatever dictates your faith requires.

[Guinevere]

Politics makes for strange bedfellows -- I'm with Scooter and Dave on this one.

[dales]

Let the four of us climb into bed together.

[Lord Jim]

Well I won't be hopping in....

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the government to strip ministers, priests, rabbis, etc., of the power to perform legally recognized marriages...

I don't think you could get 10 votes for that, in both houses of Congress combined...

So long (as is the current case) as the power is extended to religious leaders of all faiths, (Years ago I attended a Pagan wedding) I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[Scooter]

Whether it would pass (leaving aside the fact that it wouldn't be the job of Congress, but of the individual states) is a different question from whether it would be good public policy. Which it would be; the entanglement of religion with the state in the area of marriage has, as we have seen, produced significant conflict, most of which (if we are to believe religious leaders, that is) would have disappeared if there was a clear delineation between religious and civil marriages.

And as it stands now, the power is not extended equally. Some religions are prohibited from performing marriages that would be valid in their faith, but are illegal under secular law, because no one licensed to perform marriages can preside at any ceremony purporting to be a marriage, if the parties cannot be legally married. This is a significant intrusion on religious freedom, which could be eliminated if it were clear that a religious marriage was not intended to have any legal effect.

[Guinevere]

Amen Brother Scooter!

[rubato]

The ability to perform marriages is already an empty honorific. We got a license from the County which was the official recognition of the marriage. The officiant (an actual Doctor of Theology Univ. of Munich) just signed a form. The change is just a detail.


rip

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Let the four of us climb into bed together.

That sounds like the beginning of a very odd porn flick

[Gob]

[Scooter]

Fundies to SCOTUS: We know the science is against us, so you must ignore it:

A group of religious organizations, including the Mormon Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and National Association of Evangelicals, have submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing it should uphold both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The briefs, written by Mormon Church lawyer Von Keetch, make similar points to other anti-gay briefs about the inferiority of same-sex couples, but notably tries to brush aside the research that suggests otherwise:

DOMA BRIEF: Whether the Nation retains the traditional definition of marriage or redefines marriage to include same-sex couples is a social issue with potentially wide-ranging consequences. By their nature, such policy questions cannot be definitively answered by science, professional opinion, or legal reasoning alone. Although we are certainly persuaded by scholarly opinion supporting traditional marriage, the truth is that social science scholars, for instance, disagree about the effects of gay parenting on children. Whatever the ultimate conclusions may be, “nothing in the Constitution requires [government] to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.”

PROP 8 BRIEF: Admittedly, there is an active debate within the social sciences over whether some of these common sense judgments are empirically sound. But “nothing in the Constitution requires California to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.” Lawmakers – including the people of California – are entitled to “act on various unprovable assumptions,” including those that in “the sum of [their] experience” lead them to conclude that traditional marriage and the family structure it supports deserve distinctive legal protection.

In the footnotes, Keetch cites the Mark Regnerus “family structures” study, as well as the simultaneously published meta-analysis by Loren Marks, as evidence of research with a negative conclusion on same-sex parenting. But an internal audit by the publishing journal found Regnerus’ conclusions about same-sex parenting to be “bullshit,” and Marks’ analysis to be “lowbrow” and unworthy of publication. Despite how conservative groups have championed Regnerus’ methods and results, Regnerus himself has admitted that his research was not about gay parenting.

Contrary to what these religious groups claim, there is no debate among social scientists about the capacity of same-sex couples to raise children. In fact, it has already been nine years since the American Psychological Association resolved to support same-sex adoption, and subsequent research continues to confirm that children raised in such households fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Researchers have objected that other briefs filed in these cases have cited their studies to draw conclusions about same-sex parenting that are not evident from the research.

The language in these particular briefs suggest that the religious groups don’t care what the research says anyway, hence their haste to dismiss it.

[Andrew D]

When a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, etc., performs a legally recognized marriage, that person solemnizes the marriage by virtue of authority conferred on that person by the State, not by virtue of authority conferred on that person by her or his church.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize a marriage "between two baptized persons, of whom one is a Catholic, while the other is a non-Catholic," or a marriage "between two persons of whom one has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, while the other is unbaptized," "without the previous dispensation of [or "by"] the local Ordinary," generally the local bishop. (Matrimonia Mixta.)

But if a duly ordained Roman Catholic priest solemnizes such a marriage, the State will recognize that marriage, even if the Roman Catholic Church does not. That is because, although the State confers upon the duly ordained Roman Catholic priest the authority to solemnize marriages -- and, thereby, to give them legal effect -- the source of the priest's authority to give the marriage legal effect is the State, not the Church.

[dales]

Let the four of us climb into bed together.

That sounds like the beginning of a very odd porn flick

Remember "Bob, Ted, Carol, and Alice"?