Beck falsely claimed Iowa marriage ruling "is actually about going into churches"
SUMMARY: Glenn Beck falsely asserted that the Iowa Supreme Court's decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage "is actually about going into churches ... and saying you can't teach anything else." In fact, the ruling does not affect religious institutions' definitions of marriage.
Discussing the April 3 Iowa Supreme Court ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, Glenn Beck falsely asserted on the April 13 broadcast of his Fox News program, "I believe this case is actually about going into churches and going in and attacking churches and saying you can't teach anything else." In fact, the unanimous court ruling explicitly states that constitutional principles "require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected."
The Iowa Supreme Court further stated that the ruling does not affect religious institutions' definitions of marriage:
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person's religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.
As Media Matters for America noted, media figures advanced similar falsehoods about the 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. That ruling was reversed by Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage in that state.
From the April 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: We're back with attorney and co-host of America's Newsroom, Megyn Kelly -- and I want to talk about something that is happening. Do we have the footage from -- is it Iowa where people were marching today? Do we have that? There it is. This is in Iowa where people were standing up. The Supreme Court said, "Yeah, you gotta have same-sex marriage."
And look, I mean -- Megyn, I don't -- you know, if a state wants to do it like Vermont, they got together and they said, hey, this is what we're going to do. And they passed it, and you know, people vote on it or whatever.
KELLY: Or California --
BECK: Or --
KELLY: -- which has voted it the other way.
BECK: But that's the opposite. Yeah.
KELLY: But I was just saying, people -- the people's will prevailed.
BECK: Yes. Correct. But, now, we have this argument that, in California, that the state attorney general is trying to make that you don't have the right to change the Constitution.
KELLY: That the constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional.
BECK: How can you do that?
KELLY: That's ridiculous. He's going to lose that argument. That's the worst argument I've heard so far in the entire gay marriage debate.
BECK: And this is where transnationalism comes in, because if you can't change the minds of the people, you can't change the mind of your state Supreme Court. Then if you can just get it to the Supreme Court and they can look to France or to Europe or anyplace else, then they say, "Well, now, wait a minute. We're evolving. The law is evolving in this direction."
KELLY: Well, two points. Two points: number one, that's exactly what they usually use transnationalism for.
BECK: Right.
KELLY: If they can't find a precedent they need domestically, so they say, "Hmm, where can I find the authority I need to make this decision?"
BECK: Correct.
KELLY: Gay marriage -- not yet abortion, but that's possible. The death penalty -- those are the two biggies where they've looked abroad because they haven't found the support they need locally.
BECK: Right.
KELLY: And the liberal justices, and also Justice [Anthony M.] Kennedy who swings both ways, you know -- he's in the middle on the court --
BECK: Right.
KELLY: -- do what they want to do. So that's number one. But having said that, the court -- when it comes to gay marriage, doesn't need to look internationally because we have more and more states in this country that are now saying it's OK.
And this is what people who oppose gay marriage worry about. They think that, at some point, that the gay marriage advocates are going to say there's a trend --
BECK: Yeah.
KELLY: -- evolving standards of decency --
BECK: Exactly right.
KELLY: -- in this country now mandate gay marriage --
BECK: Right.
KELLY: -- the same way they mandated the homosexual sodomy be protected and so on.
BECK: OK. So help me out on this, because, look, I have Barack Obama's position on gay marriage. Civil unions, fine. I mean, who doesn't want somebody to have all the rights? Whose business is it? You have all the rights, of course.
Marriage, however, is different, because I believe this case is actually about going into churches and going in and attacking churches and saying you can't teach anything else. When you say marriage -- civil union is different -- when you say marriage must be defined as this, well, then you also have to go into the schools. This has already happened.
KELLY: Well, this is -- I mean, listen, if you had somebody who supported gay marriage here, they'd tell you you're dead wrong. They would tell you it's a matter of equal protection, and that they have just as much of a fundamental right to marry another gay person as a heterosexual person does --
BECK: Right.
KELLY: -- to marry a heterosexual person, and that they are a protected class, same way as African-Americans are or women or so on. So they get more protections under the law than straight people get.
BECK: If I didn't think -- if -- I would buy that if I hadn't lived in America for the last 30 years and seen that it's never about the issues. I'm not saying about gay marriage. It's about all of it.
KELLY: Well, what do you mean? You think the Iowa Supreme Court has some massive conspiracy to crack down on churches?
BECK: No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. Oh, no, I think that there is the -- the gay marriage argument is a lot like the global warming argument. That it is -- there are those that have agenda. There are those who aren't that way. They're just like, "Hey, man, I want to be married" or I don't want -- I know a lot of gay people that are like, "I don't want to be married."
You know what I mean? That's an individual. But there is a movement to dismantle -- what was it that Chuck Schumer said over the weekend? That all these traditional values are gone. Well, it's not about gay marriage. That's about everything.
Again with the poor, persecuted churches?
And to bring up the idea that he believes the global warming people and gay marriage advocates have an agenda is a bit hypocritical coming form this brain addled teabagger.
Like a typical right-wing zealot, Beck wants the church in the state, but doesn't want the state in the church.
Yeah. I'm pretty sure from listening to him that Glenn Beck isn't "actually about going into churches."
It's called the SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and it IS for the protection of BOTH. RW nimrods like... well... all of them, actually, never seem to understand this.
BTW, I'm unapologetically in favor of referring to all the morons at Fox News as teabaggers from now on. They've earned it.
I second that.
OMG, LMAO. Shuster delivered one heck of a zinger last night.
KELLY: -- to marry a heterosexual person, and that they are a protected class, same way as African-Americans are or women or so on. So they get more protections under the law than straight people get.
BECK: If I didn't think -- if -- I would buy that if I hadn't lived in America for the last 30 years and seen that it's never about the issues. I'm not saying about gay marriage. It's about all of it.
Except that homosexuals ARE considered a class like any other group of people. Furthermore, last time I checked the United States Declaration of Independence, we as a people (and by people I mean all US citizens) have a right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the best of my knowledge, marriage is apart of a pursuit towards happiness.
To be fair, the Decleration of Independence establishes neither a government nor law. It establishes core principals, to be sure, but its primary purpose was our disconnection from the English crown, wasn't it?
It's like a letter of resignation from the C.E.O. of a major company does not establish rules in corporate policy.
the Declaration of Independence is a pledge on how we as people will establish a way of living. True, it does not establish the laws nor is it a contract. however it does act as springboard to which the Bill of Rights and the proceeding Amendments to those Rights are founded upon.
I am afraid I must disagree with you. It makes no pledge nor, as I had mistakenly suggested earlier, does it establish core principals. As a document, it may very well be an inspiration to the structure of our government, but it makes no promise, pledge, law, or policy.
I think it can best be summed up with the final portion of the DoI :
I disagree with your definition of what the Dec "is". I believe it was meant and acts as sort of a mission statement, kind of like what a non-profit organization or company would put together as a statement of its guiding principles.
Except that the Declaration, while a great document of our founding, has no force of law whatsoever. Remember, when they wrote it, women were still considered 2nd or 3rd class citizens, and there was plenty of that slavery stuff still going.
But that being said, I have to agree with you. Marriage is a part of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness (for some, or those that choose to engage in marriage). And no Glenn, this isn't about going into churches and doing anything. Since possibly the inception of this country, churches have not been the only place where people could get married. There is legal marriage, as in what most gay marriage advocates are pushing for, and then there is religious marriage, that says any religion or church doesn't have to marry people in their church according to their religious beliefs. Example, Catholics. If you're not a Catholic in good standing, you can't get married in the Catholic church, which means having received your first communion, been confirmed in the church, gone to confession, and met with a priest with your significant other many times before being allowed to marry in a Catholic church, This ruling will change absolutely none of this.
And if Beck is worried about the government going into Churches, he isn't old enough to have affected the decision of the federal gov to recognize religious marriages as civil unions.
This debate is really, really, really easy.
1. Any two consenting adults can join in a civil union. Frankly, if 5 adults want to, I don't see a legal issue with it.
2. "Marriage" is a religious or philisophical term (I think atheists can still make a lifelong committment to each other).
Easy.
"Marriage" is not a religious term. It's a legal institution. "Holy matrimony" is a religious term.
The problem with polygamy is it creates major inheritance issues, and also essentially forces some of the partners to have lower standing, otherwise courts would have to hear legal battles between the multiple partners over who has authority. And this is entirely unnecessary, since any group that wants to engage in this can simply have a regular marriage with unofficial partners, or no marriage at all.
there are also some of the polygamy situations where they are collecting welfare because the man is unable to provide for all those people. meanwhile they insist no one has the right to tell them what to do.
There are also MONOGAMY situations where the parents are unable to provide for all those people.
and i never said there weren't. but that doesn't mean that polygamy is a good idea. as brab said it basically forces the multiple partners into an inferior standing. plus, old men doing young teenage girls seems to be a factor in far too many of these situations. and those girls are brought up from childhood to believe that's ok. they're told anyone from the "outside" who tells them different is evil.
There can be and are issues in all relationships and families like that. I see absolutely no moral or ethical difference at face value, and I don't know how you can justify being for homosexual unions but against polygamous ones, among consenting adults. If there is abuse, there's abuse, and it can be dealt with legally.
there just seems to be an extra amount of abuse in polygamous situations. consent is a relative term, as i said, because these girls are brought up with that society and kept away from outsiders. there may not be a legal issue, but there are lots of others. if a guy and two women want to live together, i don't care. but polygamy all too frequently is abusive by it's nature. the man is not to be questioned.
It makes a difference if abuse is an integral part of the relationship.
And as I said, homosexual unions are the only option there. You don't get any rights just living together. For polygamy, two people can establish rights through marriage and anyone else involved can be symbolically married or whatever. There's absolutely no reason to create a legal recognition for it.
Why not?
"For polygamy, two people can establish rights through marriage and anyone else involved can be symbolically married or whatever."
The state shouldn't be in the business of codifying relationships where it will lead to people being unequal to each other. Polygamous relationships have inequality inherent to them. Gay and straight relationships don't have that problem intrinsic to them.
Mags,
Where do you come by your Catholic Church requirements? Can you post a link?
I have been a Catholic all my life, married in the Church, and witnessed many other marriages in the Church. I have never seen thosed requirements. However, maybe it's different where you live. So I would be very interested in seeing your source.
Because of the high divorce rate, I have seen different dioceses recommend pre-nuptial retreats where brides and grooms discuss spend some time together to discuss what it means to them to be married and what it means to be married in the Catholic Church. I have also seen Catholic marriage ceremonies between Catholics and non-Catholics. I don't recall any couple refused to be married because one of the two is non-Catholic.
I have never seen or heard that one has to have recieved first communion, confirmation, gone to confession, or having to meet with a priest many times before you are allowed to be married in the Church. Again, if you can show me the Church doctrine or practice that says that is so, I would appreciate it.
In my view, the Catholic Church considers marriage to be a blessed Sacrament and as such treats it seriously and expects everyone who enters into marriage through the Church to do the same.
That being said, I have seen priests counsel couples that if they are not interested in the teachings of the Church, and they are not planning on becoming a part of the Church community, they should think twice about being married in the Church. That seems fair to me. That being said, I have seen couples agree, get married in the Church and never return. Oh well.
Like many others have said, if one wants to be married, they can go to the courthouse or Las Vegas and become legally married. They do not need the Catholic Church. However, if a Catholic wishes to accept the Sacrament of Marriage with their partner, as a continuing expression of their love of God, through Jesus, they are very much encouraged to marry within the Church.
magnolia was correct. it even says here that it's canon law that you have to be confirmed. maybe you need to get up to speed.
http://www.catholicmarriagepreponline.com/faqs.htm#Q1
Thank you for correcting me. That makes sense. The
Someone needs to go back to Cathecism methinks. That would be AA. I mean, this is basic church canonical law, as mefirst stated above. How serious of a Catholic are you?
Mags,
Well, not perfect, but I am still practicing. :-)
ha. Tell that to my mother-in-law. She's been crying since we got married that her son has been ex-communicated. And though perhaps some VERY liberal Catholic Churches don't insist that the people involved in the marriage be Catholic, that's pretty standard practice in most of the Catholic churches I've known.
In a happier note for my mother-in-law, since we didn't get married in a Catholic church, the church never actually recognized the marriage, and though that means we're technically living in sin now, if we break up, my husband technically won't have been divorced!
Seriously, I think you haven't been paying attention to your priests if you didn't know the things Mags mentioned.
I stand corrected on the confirmation. You are saying your husband has been excommunicated since he married outside the church?
I have never heard of that and know practicing Catholics who have indeed been married outside the church and continue in good standing within the Parish community. It may be that the letter of the law differs from the practice of it.
I do believe you are correct about the Catholic Church's position regarding marriages outside the Church not being recognized by the Church. However I don't believe your husband has been excommunicated. But any priest would be able to answer that question.
It depends. If you get married in a civll ceremony, as in, no religious affiliation, you are still a good standing member of the Catholic church. if you get married in a different church under a different religion, and the local priest at your parish finds out about, he can have you ex-communicated for getting married into another religion.
mags,
Speaking of errors, I think you made one. Only bishops can excommuincate a member of the Church. If you know of any priest who has excommunicated anyone, please correct me.
I have never heard of anyone in any of the dioceses I belonged excommunicated for simply being married in a different church. Again, if you have any facts to back that up, please let me know.
he didn't say that. he said "can have you ex communicated".
rkall,
So you believe one should be able to redefine marriage?
Would you agree that the traditional definition is that marriage is the union between one man and on woman? Would you also agree that this definition has been in general acceptance in Western culture, (with a few exceptions,) for over 2,000 years?
If you can redefine it to suit your purpose, why cannot anyone else redefine marriage to suit their purpose?
considering the reckless and disposable fashion that many straight people define as marriage nowadays, they would do themselves a favor by redefining it as more than just a quick vehicle towards divorce. clean up their own definitions and sanctities before they go out and tell someone else they shouldn't mess with it.
JamesB,
I am in agreement that there are far more serious problems with straight people abandoning marriage, either by not getting married, or divorcing later on, - because of the harm they do to their children - than gay marriage.
However the problems with traditional marriage is a different subject than redefining marriage. One can be for strengthening traditional marriage while a the same time in favor of keeping the traditional definition.
nobody I know is against strengthening any marriages, or creating an environment where monogomy and committment are celebrated and revered and held to a high standard. Not shabbily treated and tossed aside by many straight couples regardless of the consequences. anyone that elevates the sanctity of marriage and truly wants to see it strengthened should celebrate when two consenting adults are serious enough to enter into it legally, with all the responsibilities that entails. To spit on that and say it redefines an institution that is so commonly trashed by those very people is nothing but a smokescreen for their real bigotry, at least admit that, it has absolutely nothing to do with some traditional definition. I am not stupid, sell that elsewhere.
JamesB,
You are just projecting. You have no proof that one's principled objection to redefining marriage is a smokescreen for some anti-gay bigotry.
I see your response as, "If you cannot argue the facts, attack the messenger". I see it all the time here. That way you can brush away the arguments without reasoned response. Oh it might feel good for you to try to take the moral high ground, but it really means nothing to me.
Just because we disagree does not mean we are not people of good will. Lets just discuss the issue and support our arguments rather than make unfounded accusations shall we?
because I have heard that excuse for years. that is all about preserving the tradition. Bunk. If someone will answer how two homosexuals living together as a married couple has any negative affect on anyone else, show me. If someone can tell me how they are so concerned with traditional marriage when straight couples routinely spit on it, trash it, pervert it, and disrespect it, show me. If as asked by Brab below, it is not about redefining anything when at one point people of opposite races weren't allowed to marry. The institution was not rocked to it's core then, and it won't be now. So people that toss up that as a reason to oppose gay marriages are just not saying what they really mean. it doesn't make common sense otherwise, and if it doesn't make sense it's not true.
Some people, including myself, see gay marriage as another avenue that weakens traditional marriage.
If one can redefine marriage, it means there is no real definition. Many people feel, why get married at all? Why stay in a marriage when things get tough? The marriage commitment has been weakend. Half the people who vow, "for better or for worse", break that vow. Instead of trying to make marriages work, people feel it is better to simply get out. Yes, I know there are many good reasons why people divorce, but that is because one or both failed to live up the marriage commitment.
I personally believe that traditional marriage is a commitment for life. That belief is based on my faith.
It takes lots of work and unyeilding commitment to stay marriage. My personal marriage has been tested just about every way possible and to the breaking point. Only our commitment to keep going has kept it going.
I am a traditionalist. I believe in the tradition and that marriage should not be redefined. I think the redefinition weakens an already battered institution. My fear is that more people will abandon marriage because they see it as only a custom that can be modifed and not a lifetime commitment. I see all the statistics that single parenthood increases the problems of their children.
I am all in favor of "gay marriage". If two gay people want the legal benefits of a committed relationship, I am for that. I think they should create their own institution rather than change the heterosexual institution be redefining it.
Gotta run. Thanks for the discussion.
I would disagree with the way you framed it. Multiple words in the English language have several definitions so we would be adding to the definition of marriage. The institution will become more inclusion.
Secondly, if a person decides not to marry because gay people are doing it then I don't think they cared too much for the institution in the first place.
AA, this is very simple. If you believe that marriage strengthens and stablizes society and involves committment, these benefits would extend to gay people as well. And their children. And yes many gay people have children either through natural means, or by other means such as adotption or artifical insemination. Just like straight people.
Your argument is weak and shows a bias. It's not attractive, I must say. If marriage is good for straight people, it's good for gay people. And in my mind, there is no redefinition to two people loving and committing for life.
I'm disturbed by the fact that many churched people seem to like to make God and his word into their own image. That's called Idolotry. There's scant info. in the Bible to make your claim as to the so called repugnant nature of homosexuality. There's a bunch of stuff in there about marriage being a sacred institution. And who are you to say gay people's unions aren't as sacred as anyone eles?
I have never argued the nature of homosexuality is repugnant so you are framing my opposition in a misleading way.
I never said that two people loving and committing to life has to be redefined. I simply argued that marriage is a heterosexual union, not a gay one.
I just said I am in favor of gay's having a gay marriage with all the legal rights of traditional marriage. But it is a gay marriage. It is different than a traditional marriage. So in that we are in agreement that gays can have their own committment, and legal benefits as heterosexual marriage. I agree with you that that type of commitment has benefits for any children over a noncommitted relationship.
I do believe that the bible, including Jesus in the NT, talks about marriage between a man an woman is sacred. If Jesus wanted to bless a same sex union, I do believe the gospel and epistle writers would have included that.
AA, most people that argue against homosexual unions do think it is repugnant and refer to it that way. If you don't, then fine. I don't know specifically what's in your heart.
But you must realize, if you are privvy to any history at all, that the only reason homosexual unions were ever frowned upon is because they didn't produce children.No other reason. So your truck with the so called "redefinition" of marriage has no validity in this day and age.
Get used to it, it's going to be a reality in every state, as it should be.
julia,
If you can back up your contention that the only reason gay unions were frowned upon was because they didn't produce children, I'd be interested to see it. Since you say it is all history, that should be easy for your to find.
Maybe it will eventually be a reality in every State. We simply disagree.
i don't think it was the only reason, but it is definitely one. because the church can, and has, denied marriage to couples if they were unable to have children.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=58967
I was speaking in terms of Biblical history. Back then it was all about populating the earth. Now since then people have conjured all sorts of biases for their own self serving reasons. That brings up my concept of idolotry again. People making God into their own image.
I do believe that the bible, including Jesus in the NT, talks about marriage between a man an woman is sacred. If Jesus wanted to bless a same sex union, I do believe the gospel and epistle writers would have included that.
1) According to the Bible, eating shellfish is an abomination, just like homosexuality. Exodus says that anybody working on the Sabbath should be put to death. Putting different crops in the same field and wearing clothes with 2 different types of thread are also forbidden. Slavery is OK as long as the slaves are not from this nation.
2) All of that is irrelevant--the United States is not a theocracy, so the Bible's definition of ANYTHING is irrelevant to laws here.
Anyone who decides not to get married because gay people can get married probably is better off avoiding marriage anyway, because they are grasping for an excuse to avoid it.
I'm sick to death of people using gays as scapegoats for the failure of marriages. "My marriage didn't fall apart because I drank and spent too much money, it didnt fall apart because my wife had an affair, it fell apart because two gay guys down the street could get married. That ruined it for us."
What a load of crap. Divorce rates are high NOW, with gay marriage being illegal practically everywhere. So who's to blame? The CONCEPT of gay marriage? "Why stay married, gays are going to be allowed to get married anyway?" So once marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals, heterosexual marriage will be destroyed?
You're just a bigoted moron. The success of my marriage does not hinge on the success or failure of ANYONE ELSE'S RELATIONSHIP. If yours does, don't blame the gay guys who got married five states away. Take responsibility for your own failures.
Let's leave scapegoating in the sad and best-forgotten past.
this from very conservative Cal Thomas recently; his pragmatism is to be applauded, and hopefully will ring the ears of many who are so opposed to gay marriage;
"To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve "traditional marriage" in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: what poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them"
While I agree with Cal, I don't know of any mainline Christian religion that demonizes gays.
I can't speak for all Christians, but my Church does all it can to support marriage partners, offering counseling for those marriages in trouble and support and encouragement for those who's marriages have ended.
Take a look at these divorce statistics among Christians
49% Never attend church
46% Less than once a year
46% About once or twice a year
42% Several times a year
42% About once a month
41% Two or three times a month
31% Nearly every week
27% Every week
28% Several times a week
Clearly, having a strong faith and attending church reduces divorce.
http://brewright.blogspot.com/2006/12/divorce-rates-among-christians-by.html
Look, This below I vehemently disagree with but at least it's honest, and from that standpoint can real dialogue begin, this I respect for that, at least when someone says "Look, I just don't like the gay lifestyle, I don't agree with it, I don't want marriage between the two legalized. it's the way I feel, it is my right to feel that way".
This below I have no respect for, considering the reasons I have already outlined, it is patronizing and dishonest, it is deceptive and devious, when someone says, "I want the traditions of marriage preserved".
That's the difference for me. Why can't people be honest about what they really mean? Stop hiding behind useless crap.
JamesB,
I must admit, you have lost me, with "This below". Why do You keep accussing people who oppose gay marriage of being dishonest without any proof.
The deceptive and devious part is only in your mind. Just take what people say for what it's worth rather than thinking you know what they really mean... because it is apparent that you don't.
i never said people who oppose gay marriage are dishonest, people who say they just don't like or approve of gay people are not being dishonest, however those that say they oppose gay marriage because it threatens traditional marriage or because they think it redefines it are being at least disingenuous, and most likely dishonest, in my opinion. for the reasons I have already explained. If you are so concerned about redefining marriage or preserving its traditions, then you would work on that from the inside, by strengthening it by heterosexuals which have shown little respect for the institution. It would be like worrying about getting an alarm in your house because you say you don't want it burglarized, yet ignoring the fire that's raging in your basement.
It also forces people to stay in dysfunctional relationships.
Or it keeps people from being quitters and doing their best to work on things and uphold their committments. But Loonz, whatever feels good at the time, right???
some of the biggest so called "christians" i know have been through multiple marriages.
Absolutely, but I'm not the one posting a one-sided, bigoted generalization.
and who is?
Loonz. See the post I was responding to.
What generalization did I make?
i thought that was who you meant, but i wanted to be sure. he spoke the truth. i know churchgoers who have stuck it out and i know non churchgoers who have stuck it out. in the case of the catholic church, people are forced to stay together. unless you have the money for an "annulment".
I think the disparity between people attending church and those who aren't is the people who go to church are more willing to stay in a dysfunctional relationship and be miserable.
me,
I know of Catholics who do get divorces outside the Church and still stay in the Church. There are even Church support groups for such people.
So you perception is in error.
Annullments are not based on the amount of money you pay. I am not sure that there is even a cost to the parties involved.
Sure, you can get divorced, and still be in the church, but if you want to get re-married in the Catholic church, you need an annulment, and only that can come from the Vatican, and believe me, they're hard to get. Case in point. My mother. She got married straight out of HS, and then found out that her first husband was cheating on her. She was granted a divorce, but when she wanted to get married to my Dad, they couldn't do it in the church, because they would not grant her an annulment, because there was no "proof" that her husband had been un-faithful. They had to go through a multi year process, getting legal depositions taken by Catholic lawyers, and someone had to plead her case to the Holy See, before she was finally allowed an annulment, this was 11 years after she had married my father, I was 5.
Thanks for the update. I do know annullments are difficult. My heart goes out to you and your mother and the ordeal she had to go through for her annullment.
aa, you don't seem to know a whole lot about the catholic church. first you were wrong on the confirmation part. and what you're saying is only half the story about divorces. those people may get divorced outside the church, but they cannot remarry within the church without an annulment, as magnolia said. that's not my "perception". and it does cost money. and the more you give, the quicker the process can be, which even the church says can be a lengthy time and is not an automatic favorable result.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070223083854AAABs7q
It's too bad that AA is the only one with any knowledge of the Catholic Church's teachings. And I'm also glad that the church that I had planned on dedicating my life to has finally been shown (by AA) to be a fraud and not the "one, true church as they used to tell us). That church called itself the Catholic Church at the time, the damned liars.
I've got uncles who were priests in that church and aunts and cousins who are nuns. These people who chose a life in the church have all admitted what everyone here buy AA has admitted. That each parish picks and chooses what rules to enforce and which to ignore.
The last time I was married in this Church (1998) I was required to sign a statement saying that any children we were to have must be raised as Catholics. Friends and relatives who married non-Catholics had to sign statements saying that their children must be raised Catholics or no marriage would take place.
My brother was not permitted to have his daughter baptized a Catholic because he was not married in the church. He said fine, and left the church and never looked back.
The church requires that when babies are baptized that the parents choose god-parents who are Catholics in good standing. They don't require that the people be kind, caring people just that they can get letters from the parish in which the prospective god-parents reside saying they go to church.
The same goes for children being confirmed. They've got to choose a sponsor who is a "Good Catholic (can they get that letter?)". When my youngest son was confirmed, we had my alcoholic brother be his sponsor. Buy this time we didn't care and my son thought it was "cool". But he produced that letter, so everything was fine.
I know of many more cases in which people had demands placed on them in order to qualify to remain catholics in good standing. Most of the demands were placed on those parents who needed to find sponsors or god-parents for their kids. Parents were required to get friends and families to jump through the many fiery hoops the church placed in front of them.
I've also known people who were able to get annulments. They paid dearly. I know others who had no money and were told that the process was expensive.
When I was married in 1998 the priest at insisted that my wife and I, each of us widowed after twenty years of marriage to attend marriage classes taught by a couple who had been married for two years. We laughed at him and were ready to walk out when he came to his senses and admitted that it was my wife and I who should have been teaching the class. So there goes another one of AA's items refuted.
I'm just glad that I came to my senses when I was young. My thoughts of becoming a priest disappeared as soon as I discovered women and strong drink. But I also understand that many priests still enjoy an occasional drink and a little on the side.
Worrier,
We all have our own stories and yes the Catholic Church does expect those married in the Church to raise their children as Catholics. Obviously one does not have to be married in the Church, so it is up to the individual to agree to that stipulation. It is also obvious one can change on mind and parents are free to raise their children anyway they like. No argument there.
I realize that there are differences in Parishes and Dioceses and some of the rules they follow.
In my diocese the rules on baptism and confirmation are not as stringent as they were when we were young. Some of my nephews and neices have had godparents that are not Catholic. There was no requirement for the godparents to Catholic. So that might have changed since you last were in the Church. I think we both agree that change is for the better.
Confirmation may still require a Catholic to be a sponsor. That makes sense. Confirmation is a Sacrament for spiritual maturity. Obviously one can be chosen to be sponsor and still be poor role model. It is not up to the Church to decide who the sponsor is, but the person being confirmed and the parents. If you were satisfied with your brother being the sponsor, that is your choice and not a problem with the Church.
I had a similar experience when I got married. I attended the pre-canna retreat and had to laugh at some of the people younger than either my spouse or me giving advice. However they were well meaning, so I let it go at that. I'm glad your priest came to his senses. I do not see how your experience refutes my point?
We all know that some priests have sinned grieviously. Nothing new there. But that is their failing, not the Church. We all know that some Church bishops failed to protect children against abusive priests. It was a dark chapter for Catholics and I hope to God it is over for good. I have always been a proponent of harsh and swift punishment for those guilty of such crimes. I am glad the Church has made financial restitution for those were abused.
you're about 0 for 10,000. a godparent "must be a catholic". and it was not just a failing of the priests, but of the church as a whole. there were many many dioceses all over this country where the priest was simply moved to another parish. the church was well aware of this problem.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0233.html
I'm tired of explaining the real world to AA. No matter what anyone says or what experience they've had, it's not like that in his world or his church. Or things are much different today, as if my claims are about things long ago which they're not.
My experiences are mostly current and span the states of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. I'd say that's a pretty broad spectrum but I know Barney will continue to say that we're wrong.
I give up.
the thing is that he keeps insisting that things are this way or that in "his diocese". they're not. it's all basic church doctrine.
Everything you said about requirements for Catholic marriage mirrored my own experience. Before my fiancee and I could get married in 1991, we had to attend several weeks of counseling sessions with a priest. We had to promise to "accept any children God saw fit to send us" (not use artificial birth control,) attend services religiously (pardon the pun,) raise any children we had as Catholics- and I had to promise not to join the Freemasons as well.
Sadly, we divorced after 4 years. I didn't know it at the time, but it turned out to be the fault of some gay people we didn't even know who wanted to get hitched. ;>)
mefirst,
I do not claim to be a Church expert, only a practicing member. Yes, I made a mistake about one of the spouses having to have been confirmed in the Church before one can receive the sacrament of Marriage. I should have known better. However, I do believe that Mags was in error on multiple points regarding other requirements. I simply tried pointing that out.
From the link you provided, I saw someone say it cost both parties $500 in Las Angeles. So I think it is safe to say there may be some cost involved.
I did not read it all, but I did not see where you can expedite the process by paying more.
you're the one who's been "in error on multiple points". and of course they're not going to admit you can expedite the process by paying more. but ask the spouses of ted and joseph kennedy and john kerry and rudy guiliani. they were all given fairly quick annulments, as opposed to the many years it can take in the case of someone like magnolia's mom. you can bet their money had something to do with it. and those annulments all occured over the strenuous objections of the ex wives. they did not like the church declaring that their marriages were not legitimate in the eyes of the church.
mefirst,
I find this discussion laughable. I am not defending annullments nor am I defending the Kennedy's Kerry's or Guiliani. I simply would like people to provide some facts with their conjectures. I only wondered if there was a cost to get an annullment, so that is not an error.
You have not proven that the more money you give the more the process is expedited. Citing a couple of high profile annullments does not prove your point.
Indeed Pope John Paul II chastized the American Church for granting too many annullments.
the only thing laughable is how wrong you have consistently been. for instance, a godparent being a catholic, or that if you're are catholic you must be confirmed to be married, so maybe you're not the guy to be talking about "facts". and the "fact" is that in the case of these four very high profile annulments, they did get theirs resolved very quickly. you can say that's not proof, but it is.
Are you calling Mefirst a liar?
He's talking about people he knows and you're saying he's a bigot?
I agree 100% with Mefirst. I can't tell you how many "family values" lectures my kids get from their born again, serial home wrecking, divorced and then remarried aunt.
Eaaaasssy Tiger. See above.
Why should people stay in dysfunctional relationships?
Then you can take a look at these statistics...
Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Religion % have been divorced Jews 30% Born-again Christians 27% Other Christians 24% Atheists, Agnostics 21%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Thanks for the link Ben. Some like to believe the myths.
Isn't is funny that the highest divorce rates are in red states and the lowest divorce rate in the nation is from, the often vilified, bluest of blue states, Massachusetts.
There are other factors to consider. Income levels and education being two. Also what is missing from the statistic is how many non-married relationships are in each State and how many of those eventually disolve.
People in red states are relatively poorer and less educated? Interesting.
It's not just a matter of definition. There are literally hundreds of rights that married people share that single people do not. Including homosexual marriage as part the institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with anybody else's marriage. Nothing. There is no relationship at all.
Traditional marriage also used to be between members of the same faith and the same race.
Yes, in some faiths and some cultures, including the United States not too far past.
fyi - Interracial marriages have never been banned by the Church nor is it found anywhere in scripture that one cannot marry outside one's race.
So why is it fine to redefine marriage to include those of the same race, then? Remember, marriage is a legal institution. I don't really care what anyone's church approves of or not.
I think it makes a difference what church you're referring to. I'm pretty sure Mormons didn't approve of black/white marriage until the late 1970's.
That is a good point. I have yet to see a single argument against gay marriage that wasnt a warmed over argument in support of miscegenation laws
I never said it was right to redefine marriage based on the same race or same faith. I just stated the obvious - that it did occur.
Oh, so you want to leave it up in the air as to whether you approve of interracial marriage or not?
Brilliant idea.
No. You are in error. It should be obvious that I have never voiced any restriction of marriage by race anywhere. And that is for good reason. I do not believe in restricing marriage by race.
This is what you said:"I never said it was right to redefine marriage based on the same race or same faith. I just stated the obvious - that it did occur."
If you don't have any problem with interracial marriage, you shouldn't need to specify that you "never said it was right" to redefine marriage that way. You created that doubt, not me, so don't you dare act as if I'm misrepresenting you.
I only said you were in error about my views. I only "specified" my views to calm any misimpression you had regarding my standpoint. That is all.
You have my permission to get off your indignation horse anytime now. :-)
That is a lie.
"It should be obvious that I have never voiced any restriction of marriage by race anywhere."
It's not "obvious" when you go out of your way to correct me about something that's already supposedly true. I asked why the redefining of marriage was fine for race, and you made a point that you didn't say that.
Why? If you do think it's fine, then what's the purpose? The only way that makes sense is if you don't think it's such a good thing. That's the impression you created.
They were complicit in the ban. They could have easily gotten it overturned if they wanted to.
You state the obvious.
It looked like you were trying to absolve the Church.
Nope.
The people in the Church in different societies and times and places have included their racist views into marriage requirements. However the Church teachings, and the Bible never prohibited interracial marriage.
"The people in the Church in different societies and times and places have included their racist views into marriage requirements."
In other words, traditionally marriage was limited members of the same race until, thankfully, that tradition changed.
The most basic definition of traditional marriage would be a union of two individuals. Gender is no more relevant than race.
We disagree.
On what? Marriage is traditionally defined as the joining together of two individuals. The traditions of who is eligible to marry has changed over time.
pastors in the south used to quote the bible to support segregation.
Yes they did. They were wrong.
If the church relinquishes all benefits of marriage from the state and simply confines marriage to the religious realm than you wouldn't have to deal with the issue of gay marriage unless churches do it voluntarily. The Church has gotten too involved with the state.
Beck, and FAUX, give it a rest. You are stupid fools.
Gay marriage will affect no one except those involved, just like hetero marriage affects no one except those involved. Leave people alone.
Actually it's just the opposite. If a church wanted to marry a same sex couple prior to this ruling they couldn't. The churches actually have more freedom now.
No. Wrong. Fail.
Churches cannot issue legal certificates of marriage.
I don't think he said they did. If they marry straight couples now, they will be able to marry gay couples with this ruling. That's true whether they issue legal certificates or not.
Churches can marry whomever they want...it's whether the state/civil body will issue a marriage certificate that's the issue. Churches can't legally marry anyone.
exactly. shaggles statement "If a church wanted to marry a same sex couple prior to this ruling they couldn't." was flat out wrong. you were correct in your original response.
I don't think anyone's saying the church is "legally" marrying anyone, but they serve as a witness for legal marriage purposes. Why would they marry anyone outside of that purpose?
If shaggles wasn't saying the Church can legally marry someone, why would he have even typed what he did? A legal ruling won't affect what a Church does if a Church doesn't do anything civil.
and churches don't serve as a witness for legal marriage purposes, I have never heard of such a thing. Churches marry because those that marry in a church want the union blessed by their religious affiliation, it acts completely and legally independent of any civil proceeding. It is a social and religious ceremony that many perform regardless of whether the state sanctions it or not.
So you can get married in a church without a marriage license? People who get married in a church also have to go to City Hall or something to get "officially" married, or what?
Yes, churches are free to perform their own marriage ceremonies with or without marriage licenses. Many of my friends have done exactly that, it's mostly symbolic and not legally binding, but it is done, for them and their friends and families.
I take it this generally happens after two people are married elsewhere.
I'm so proud of you. You were actually able to muster up enough courage to hit that "reply" button. This is a big day for you!
You're being very pedantic but I admit my original statement was not 100%. Churches could certainly perform a marriage ceremony that was not legally recognized. Why they would is beyond me and I doubt it occurs often if at all. However for a marriage to be legal the marriage certificate must be signed by a justice of the peace. The minister presiding over a church wedding performs this task so Yes churches do serve as witness for legal marriage purposes. Otherwise people who married in churches would also have to have 2 weddings like they do in France. I stand by my original statement that the churches in Iowa now have more freedom rather than less.
That should read "not 100% accurate."
If a church wants to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, but the state doesn't recognize those unions at all, then how can they do it? And why would they? It would serve no purpose whatsoever.
For once, I am in agreement with jamesB.
OMG, the world is coming to an end.
I've been to weddings for same-sex partners married within their church. It's recognized by the church and its members but not by society and not legally binding.
Because they're having a religious marriage, not a civil one. If my wife & I couldn't get married legally for whatever reason, I would still seek the blessing of the Church.
I see what you're saying, I did get off track. I just didn't read that comment as suggesting that churches issue legal documents or anything. Giving it more credibility should make it easier for churches to perform more ceremonies.
yeah im sure he does, in the mormon church that were the ones funding ads for prop 8
He may. I think there are a lot of conservatives who are closet cases.
Also, I believe the state attorney general's argument is that a simple majority vote on a proposal isn't sufficient to change the constitution, or shouldn't be, given that consttions usually have to be ratified by 2/3 or 3/4 majorities of legislative branches or principalities.
i thought there was supposed to be a seperation of church and state.....why is this even an issue. seriously.
why is it these homophobic idiots rant about the bible says this is wrong.....thats their own personaly beliefs. there is no room for this to be injected into weather or not gays have the right to marry. they are american citizens. and as citizens they have the same rights as i do, to marry in a church if they wish, and if a church won't marry them, thats their perrogative.
no one has a right to tell someone they cannot marry no matter their orientation.
this is a religious matter not a matter of law. and the two should be seperate
Beck and anyone else who thinks this way about the gay marriage issue has got real comprehension issues.
Forget about the gay marriage issue for now. Churches choose every day not to allow heterosexuals to marry. If the present law defines marriage as between a man and a woman that doesn't mean a church has to marry any man and woman who want to marry each other. Try getting married in the Catholic Church if you're divorced. Try getting married to a person of a different faith and see what the church says. Or try telling the priest that any children you have will be raised in the faith of the other spouse.
Every day people are denied the right to marry and there's nothing anyone can do about it so why would a law granting gays the right to marry force any church to marry anyone.
Fox should stop insulting our intelligence. I could understand how someone might not be in favor of gay marriage but don't let Beck's and Fox's moronic reasoning sway you.
Why do so many choose ignorance?
I think you meant to reply to the polygamy thing earlier. I don't think "more rules" is a good enough reason to prevent consenting adults marriage.
It certainly is a good reason if there's no reason to grant the right. Why should courts be burdened with conflicts in polygamous relationships, which are a matter of chosen behavior?
as slade said about divorce law. what if one wife wants to divorce the husband and asks for alimony because she never worked outside the compound and has no skills and she has four kids that she wants to take with her and that's child support? how does the judge work all that out? if giving her enough to live on her own takes everything from the other "wives" and children, who pays for them?
You're correct, my post should have appeared up higher. I'm a bit slow.
Not just more rules, but also changing centuries of common law rules, most state and federal statutes, etc. It would be a mess. But who knows.
KELLY: -- to marry a heterosexual person, and that they are a protected class, same way as African-Americans are or women or so on. So they get more protections under the law than straight people get.
Aren't they asking for the same rights, not extra. Isn't she contradicting herself.