A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Britain is floating the idea of legalising gay marriage (and literally making it one and the same as any other type of marriage), with Scotland seeming to be more likely to make it as the SNP government is largely in favour and controls the parliament. Even David Cameron has said he wants it to go ahead, though, so there’s good prospects across the UK, despite the likes of Cardinal Keith O’Brien claiming that allowing gay marriage is just like legalising slavery.
Yes. Yes, he said that. He was serious. He also called gay marriage “grotesque” and is quite upset about the whole thing. Fortunately he has an ally – Robert Mugabe.
I find it interesting that every other country that has legalized same-sex marriage has done so at the federal level in a single stroke, while the United States has this crazy patchwork that is still evolving.
Am I married? It depends both on where I am, and whether or not I’m dealing with state or Federal laws.
Federations have their downsides.
The Prime Directive, for one.
Not all federations have that problem. When Australia finally gets its act together, it will occur all at once for every state, because our constitution make marriage a federal issue.
I’m pretty sure every state in theory should recognize marriage licenses from any other state. They just decide individually whether to grant them in that state.
I doubt it works that way in practice though.
That’s true. The constitution says that states must ‘lend full faith and credence’ to the arrangements of their fellow states. However, the Defence of Marriage Act tries to change that. It remains to be seen whether this law will be overturned.
I for one look forward to the Defence of Marriage Act. Never again shall our good marriages be threatened from bloodthirsty cartilagineous fish!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bill-would-defend-marriage-from-sharks,2047/ (Sorry, I’m plugging this everywhere but it’s just awesome).
I’d never thought how insensitive and divisive the words “gay marriage” sounded until now. Thank you for pointing that out.
First, I will note with pride how many Scandinavian countries are on that poster. :)
Yes, and ‘pride’ is the very thing that will keep us from knowing the Truth.
JohnC, Ur use of ‘Truth’…….i don’t think it means what u think it means…just sayin.
And neither “pride”, in this context. Here it’s just a “being happy about things we’ve done”.
Denmark is getting there as well. In a few months homosexuals can be wed in church (where the priest agrees to it). Though it hasn’t been decided whether there should be a special name for this ceremony or it should simply be called marriage. For all practical purposes, though, same-sex and opposite-sex marriages will be equivalent.
A couple of priests are resigning in protest over this, and some people are threatening to leave the church (Denmark has a national, Protestant church with formal membership – which is the target of the new law).
Funny, isn’t it? These people leave the church because the Bible is opposed to same-sex marriage, and they don’t want to remain members since they see church policies going against scripture. Yet the Bible is also clearly (even more clearly, in fact) against female priests, but even though the church has employed female priests for decades these people still remained members. Clearly there’s more at play than just scriptural adherence. One could suspect they just don’t like gays.
This leads to awesome.
“The official position of the Church is that fags can’t marry. Therefore, when you gay-marry with the State, you actually lose Chruch membership”.
We should enforce this.
Membership of the state church is opt-out in Denmark, meaning you’re a member by default. Which also means you pay a church tax (about 1% on average) until you leave (and even then you still effectively pay a small amount in taxes to the church, though you’re not a member).
The church doesn’t want you to leave. That would mean a loss of tax revenue.
I’d like to put it the other way round: most western European countries acknowledge some form of same-sex couples. The details vary, but in general they are treated in the same way that mixed-sex couples are when it comes to legal issues. However, afaik there are too few countries where homosexual couples do have identical rights as heterosexual ones (depicted in the graphic, i.e. Portugal, Spain, Benelux, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), which in the end means that there’s still much work to do.
I really wonder how long it’ll take for people to realize that love is love no matter what. Sadly, I won’t be holding my breath.
They will learn it as soon as they learn that hating people that are not like you is pointless and unproductive.
It’s not entirely pointless if you can prop up your sagging self-esteem by putting somebody else down. There’s that whole smug, self-satisfied, feel-good factor. And if it leads you to connect with a peer group, well, you’re golden. You now have a social life! You can spend your Saturday evenings with like-minded folks, sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches and forming vigilante mobs instead of sitting alone in your parents’ basement playing WoW.
How is that not productive?
“Rick Santorum Relieved No One Has Asked Him About Interracial Marriage Yet”
Ok, again the Onion, but definitely relevant.
The Onion is always relevant. :)
Does anyone know if persecuted gays from other African countries are trying to make their way to South Africa? In so many African countries there isn’t even any struggle for equality, it’s a struggle to stay alive.
That’s a very good question. Africa is such a political and religious mess right now, and South Africa is just about the only ray of light on the entire continent. It has dismantled apartheid and granted equal rights to gays (although the reality may be less than full equality, but it’s still a step in the right direction, like the changes on paper to the rights of blacks after the American Civil War). If you’re gay and African, it would certainly seem like moving to SA would be the way to go.
I can’t see how pooves can be ‘married’ when their activities are quote “an abomination in the eyes of the lord”.
What does the ‘eyes of the lord’ have to do with anyone else? If you just let god judge them like you’re supposed to, at the very least, it would not have an effect on you. Do you expect your government to establish what’s good in the eyes of an imaginary character, your government is not your lord, you are not the lord.
Surely misspelling ‘poofs’ is an abomination in the eyes of this homophobic lord as well?
The reason they can get ‘married’ (love your derogatory quotes) is that marriage is largely a secular, civil arrangement. Modern societies can’t really be bothered with petty, homophobic deities and moral commandments originating in the bronze age.
In the United States, no church can perform a legal, binding marriage without the government’s prior approval, and there is no requirement for any marriage to have a religious basis. Religion is an optional part of the equation, to be included or excluded according to the wishes of the couple. It would overturn more than two centuries of existing law to add a requirement that some god must approve of the marriage. And whose god would you choose to do the approval anyway? People believe in many.
Successful troll…… =\
And that’s okay. It never hurts to sharpen your claws on a troll once in a while.
Follow Patheos on