Eyas wrote:

paleocon wrote:

Eyas wrote:How long must this go on?

It will go on as long as you respond to his rants.  I have put "the Yeti" on ignore and won't be reading his posts any longer.  It is pointless.

I was typing that last one while you were posting.

I will take your advice.

BTW, how's my Russian?

Tell me what you intended to say in Russian and I'll check your translation....

It is, indeed, unfortunate that we have allowed the government to assume the duty of defining marriage.  That happened long ago and is not a recent development.  The social sciences as well have had a hand in the defining of marriage in the context of modernity.  What they have NOT done--specifically--is to define Christian marriage.  In some parts of the world totalitarian governments have undertaken to define Christian, Muslim, and Hindu marriage.  That is a disaster!

As a Christian pastor of nearly 40 years service I have always refused to use in the wedding ceremony the common formula: "By the power invested in me by the state of ..... I pronounce you man and wife".  I contend that the state's empowerment of me (if, indeed there is any empowerment from the state) is of lesser concern and importance than the empowerment that comes to the office of Pastor from the Head of the Church--the Lord Jesus Christ.  

If the state moves towards forcing Christian pastors to bless unholy unions it will become a severe testing time for Pastors.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... (1st Amendment)

The powers not delegated to the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to theStates respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment)

The 14th Ammendment applies the bill of rights to the states

ERGO:

The government cannot FORCE priests to marry homosexuals. That would be a law respecting an establishment of religion. That fear is irrational paranoia.

The reguation of marriage as a secular device is reserved to the states. States have regulated marriage throughout our nation's history and have the right to determine who may enter into the legal contract of marraige. The idea that the state should apply  the majority's historical religious definition of a religous ceremony to a legal contract is ludicrous. Likewise, stating that it is government intervention into religion to change the definition of a secular term that overlaps a religious ceremony is logically flawed. For example, the sixth commandment is "thou shalt not kill." It has been existance long before the Constitution. However, legislatures adopt different definitions of what it is to "kill" to varying degrees.

Treeofliberty wrote:Likewise, stating that it is government intervention into religion to change the definition of a secular term that overlaps a religious ceremony is logically flawed. For example, the sixth commandment is "thou shalt not kill." It has been existance long before the Constitution. However, legislatures adopt different definitions of what it is to "kill" to varying degrees.

So, let me see if I have this correct:  Marriage is a SECULAR term that "overlaps a religious ceremony"?  Do I have that right?

So, does that mean government invented marriage?  Does it mean that Marriage was FIRST a secular term before later overlaping a religious ceremony?

No. It means they are two separate entities that share the same name.

As a secular term marriage is a legal contract that is regulated by the states.

As a religious term, marriage is defined by whatever religion those entering the bond adhere to.

Treeofliberty wrote:No. It means they are two separate entities that share the same name.

As a secular term marriage is a legal contract that is regulated by the states.

As a religious term, marriage is defined by whatever religion those entering the bond adhere to.

But wait....you said earlier that marriage was a SECULAR TERM that overlaps a RELIGIOUS ceremony.  Now, you are saying that they are two separate entities (civil contract marriage and religious marriage).  Are they separate?  Or, do they overlap? If they overlap...doesn't the very fact that they overlap then posit a direct relationship between the two entities?  And, if  secular government unilaterally changes the meaning...does that not also change the relationship between the two entities?  At what point in the process of change is the Government now forcing--by its unilateral change--a change in the other entity...if they overlap?  And, if Government is forcing a change in overlaping entities of a religious nature...is it not dangerously close to violating the First Amendment?

comicracy wrote:I am out here in CA and I think that a good point to put up in the fight against gay marriage is that; who gave the Government the right to change the definition of marriage? Your a imbecile if you don't know that marriage pre-dates our government by just a tiny little bit. Next they can change the denition of Bar Mitzvah, baptism, etc. so show me in the constitution where it says the government can trample on a pre-established religion and redefine its terms. This is a violation of human rights, and I'm talking about the rights of anyone who believes that marriage is a sanctimonious act far predating the government. The next thing they will do is tell Churches it is illegal not to marry people who are gay. This is like telling the Jewish people they have to let skinheads have Bar Mitzvahs.

And don't give me the crap about, well atheist get married... yah well its not obvious that they are atheists by looking at them is it.

the emperor has new clothes.

i don't have a horse in this race and it means to nothing to me what our government says are or are not the rights of homosexual couples under civil laws of marriage. granted this episode is a case study in pac's manipulating government but this is just the latest twist on the dance between money and power.

aside from this academic observation, these government definitions play no significance towards the spiritual or social legitimacy of the homosexual community. i can understand the initial outrage and emotion but seems to me its all moot now, and largely irrelevant with respect to the things people seemed to emotionally glum onto.

for starters, these governmental laws have zero implication towards the Christian definition of marriage and nothing about these laws requires a Church to marry homosexuals. further the relationship between God and a person is strictly private and there is nothing us Christians should be doing to judge one another's spiritual relationship with Him. in our world it is not possible to legitimize homosexuality before the eyes of the Church, or even recognize the marriage as a marriage. spiritually the marriage between man and woman is a sacred house that homosexuals have no capacity of entering irrespective of how they or our government defines their civil rights.

technically speaking the only legitimate thing this railroading of democracy has attained is to create yet another channel for attorney's to collect legal fees, and what a shocker its the attorney's who are behind the creation of these civil laws.

for the homosexual community these laws mean nothing in the way of legitimacy. so the emperor has new clothes, big deal.