Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The "Sanctity of Marriage"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
vssmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 06:19 PM
Original message
The "Sanctity of Marriage"
President Bush uses sanctity in regards to marriage. Sanctity means holiness. Holiness is the business of churches. I think churches should be allowed to do whatever they want about marriage. If the Catholic Church wants to not perform or recognize gay marriage so be it. If the Southern Baptist Conference wants to allow same then so be that too.

States should only be permitted to allow or disallow only7 civil marriages.

The federal government should stay the fuck out of it.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. They do that one about as well as
they do "sanctity of life." It's all good, as long as they get to decide what version of reality to "sanctify."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's a good idea, in theory.
However, marriage is a legal action, sanctioned by the state. Weddings are done by civil or church authorities. That's why they have marriage licenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Other countries (many "Catholic" ones) separate civil from religious
I've attended relatives' weddings in Italy and in Chile. In both, the couple had to have a civil union/wedding for it to be "legal". Then, they both chose to have a religious wedding for it to be religiously blessed.

They could've obtained only the civil union/wedding and dispensed with the religious and it would still have been "legal". However, if they've skipped the civil union/marriage then it would not have been "legal".

"Legal" here means according to the state with all the civil rights and responsibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. All state licenses should be Civil Unions
Leave sacred, holy, sacrement of marriage for religous ceremonies. I have been married for 32 years. I do not consider it "sacred" or "holy". President George W. Bush has no right to tell me or my husband what OUR marriage is.

We, the couple invloved, define what our relationship is, not government, and not religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 04:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. Gore's inner turmoil would seem to involve reconciling his past . . .
Edited on Tue Jun-06-06 04:43 AM by OneBlueSky
as a senator, a senator's son, and Clinton's VP with what he has come to understand and believe in the past four years . . . (which, imo, is substantial) . . .

Al knows that if he runs, one thing he MUST do is tell the truth -- at least as he honestly perceives it . . . that perception is necessarily colored (more like dyed) by his upbringing as a child of privilege and his prior service in the Senate and as VP . . . he's a politician who was raised and mentored by politicians -- a large portion of whose time, energy and ingenuity is devoted to finding creative ways to NOT tell the truth . . . and creative ways to talk and say absolutely nothing . . .

essentially, Gore's heart is telling him one thing, his brain another . . . (imo, of course) . . .

which one he will ultimately choose to guide his actions (and their extent) is what many of us are waiting to find out . . . (doing pretty well so far, imo) . . .



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC