Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Ben Kenobi]

why should your son, or anyone else for that matter, listen to anything you say if you can't practise what you preach?

Is it true because of Kidicious?

[Ming]

In our case, the Corren Accord made it so that two men had the opportunity to change ours to include what they believed were necessary components. That is unprecedented. No other group has had such access. The Corren Accord introduced required elements, giving me the palatable choice of holding a job in my chosen profession and teaching against my faith unnecessarily, or finding work in another field. I took a third option.

Your choice... Again, nobody is stopping you from practicing your religion. All jobs have rules and regulations that you have to follow. If you don't want to follow them, that's your choice.

So yes, gay marriage did have a significant negative impact on mine, and on other Christian professionals here in BC. We're talking equal rights, why did they give 'special rights' here that others did not have access to? Why should the changes trump my freedom of religious expression, something which is constitutionally protected in Canada? See, if we believe rights actually matter, Christian professionals have conscience rights too.

Yet again, nobody is stopping your from practicing your religion. You can still worship how you wish.

In my case yes it does. It no longer says 'wife' on the marriage certificate. Perhaps for you folks this isn't important because you're already married. For those of us who are not, we are swearing different vows than you did.

Uhhhh... the marriage certificate isn't the sacrament. The sacrament (you know the important thing you always talk about) hasn't changed one bit.
The marriage certificate is NOT the vows that you are swearing. It's a piece of paper that allows you to have a religious wedding. It's nice to know you think so little of a sacrament that a piece of paper issued by the government and not your church can change your relationship with God and your wife.

What your argument is, is that because other people are getting married that it shouldn't affect how I feel about her. But... that's part of what I'm getting at. Marriage is much more than just about feelings. Marriage is a sacrament, a public act. It is not a private act between two people who love each other. This is the main source of the conflict. Changing what that public act means changes what marriage means.

Marriage is ONLY a sacrament in the Catholic church. People get married all the time already in civil services. And according to you, they are living in sin because they didn't participate in YOUR sacrament. People have religious ceremonies that are not Catholic also fall into the not your Sacrament category, and based on your own faith, are living in sin. You have ignored how the public views marriage already.

It's legal discrimination that the courts have stepped on and granted the university their accreditation. It should never have happened in the first place as they are a private university.

If they don't want to follow the rules, then they should accept what happens to them.

Does Oberfell say that we are to arrest Christians who refuse to participate in gay marriage? No, it does not. And Davis has been fully exonerated and successfully protected her conscience rights. She should never have been arrested in the first place.

No, she has not been fully exonerated. And yes, she should have been arrested in the first place because she broke the law. At the end of the day, they have reached an accommodation, but it was AFTER the fact that she broke the federal law.

Yes, they are, Ming. Why did Davis sit in jail?

Because she broke the law... the same reason the bakers got fined, they broke the law.

Then why are Christians being arrested for doing that? We are not free.

Don't break the law, it has nothing to do with being free.

Can Christians obtain a marriage license without the state?

No, but what's your point.

It changes the public meaning of marriage, and changes what the license says, at least in BC. Do you not think that removing references to "wife" is a substantial change in the marriage contract?

One more time... is the Sacrament of marriage provided by GOD so weak that the words on a civil marriage license cheapens it or your feelings toward your wife. I guess you think that the state is more important than God.

Frankly, I don't think I've looked at the my marriage license since the day I got married in the Church. What it says on the license means nothing in the eyes of God. It was the ceremony itself that means everything to God and to me and my wife. The license is nothing more than a piece of documentation that we need to deal with civil legal work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your choice... Again, nobody is stopping you from practicing your religion. All jobs have rules and regulations that you have to follow. If you don't want to follow them, that's your choice.

Indeed. When I went to school for it that wasn't the case. The curriculum changed while I was there with a year left. I was not very happy about that.

Yet again, nobody is stopping your from practicing your religion. You can still worship how you wish.

Do you think that freedom of religion is confined to worship? That's not all it means.

Uhhhh... the marriage certificate isn't the sacrament. The sacrament (you know the important thing you always talk about) hasn't changed one bit

But the contract has. You stated, "nothing has changed", but I'm not signing the same document you did. So, in fact it has changed in significant ways.

The marriage certificate is NOT the vows that you are swearing. It's a piece of paper that allows you to have a religious wedding. It's nice to know you think so little of a sacrament that a piece of paper issued by the government and not your church can change your relationship with God and your wife.

*sigh*

you would get married without a contract, without anything because you believe it is a private act, and that the internal portion is the important part. I've heard that pretty much endlessly from many many folks. I don't want that.

All I want is what you and your wife had. Nothing more nor less. The same contract the same sacrament. That you see it as a formality.. we are very different people. My signature is going on that, and I'd like it to read that I'm legally promising to marry my wife, not spouse B.

Marriage is ONLY a sacrament in the Catholic church. People get married all the time already in civil services. And according to you, they are living in sin because they didn't participate in YOUR sacrament.

I am speaking for myself and what marriage means to me. Where did I say that 'people are living in sin because they married outside of the Church?" I don't believe that, and two, it's not what the Church teaches.

People have religious ceremonies that are not Catholic also fall into the not your Sacrament category, and based on your own faith, are living in sin. You have ignored how the public views marriage already.

The catechism does not teach this.

If they don't want to follow the rules, then they should accept what happens to them.

Well the judge says they are following the same rules as everyone else. The problem is that the government is disobeying their own rules. Private universities are permitted to have conduct regulations. If you wanted to have a private Jewish university, you could. This is part of freedom of religion that I keep getting back to.

No, she has not been fully exonerated.

By the laws of the glorious state of Kentucky, she has. It's over.

At the end of the day, they have reached an accommodation, but it was AFTER the fact that she broke the federal law.

Well, that's generally how these things work. Bad laws get fixed.

the same reason the bakers got fined, they broke the law.

Raiding their bank accounts gives all Christians a serious impetus to:

1, remove the public officials responsible and,
2, change another bad law.

Can Christians obtain a marriage license without the state? No, but what's your point.

Then gay marriage does affect every Christian who gets married after Oberfell.

One more time... is the Sacrament of marriage provided by GOD so weak that the words on a civil marriage license cheapens it or your feelings toward your wife. I guess you think that the state is more important than God.

I'm not putting my name on a contract that says I'm marrying "spouse B".

Frankly, I don't think I've looked at the my marriage license since the day I got married in the Church. What it says on the license means nothing in the eyes of God. It was the ceremony itself that means everything to God and to me and my wife. The license is nothing more than a piece of documentation that we need to deal with civil legal work.

It's a promise I am making to my wife. The contract needs to state that before I sign it, because I'm not signing it otherwise. I'm not marrying "spouse B" I'm marrying my wife.

[C0ckney]

I'm not putting my name on a contract that says I'm marrying "spouse B".

then don't. it's a purely theoretical question for you in any case.

[giblets]

then don't. it's a purely theoretical question for you in any case.

Ben has very elaborate plans for a wedding he'll probably never have.

[Ming]

Indeed. When I went to school for it that wasn't the case. The curriculum changed while I was there with a year left. I was not very happy about that.

Yep... life is change...

Do you think that freedom of religion is confined to worship? That's not all it means.

No... but trying to cram your religious views on others that don't believe is also freedom of religion.

But the contract has. You stated, "nothing has changed", but I'm not signing the same document you did. So, in fact it has changed in significant ways.

So yet again, you are placing civil over God. Isn't that a sin in your book. The Sacrament of Marriage has NOT CHANGED. and isn't that what counts.

you would get married without a contract, without anything because you believe it is a private act, and that the internal portion is the important part. I've heard that pretty much endlessly from many many folks. I don't want that.

Your "contract" is between your wife and God. You know, the SACRAMENT. And if you don't want that, then don't get married in the eyes of God.

I am speaking for myself and what marriage means to me. Where did I say that 'people are living in sin because they married outside of the Church?" I don't believe that, and two, it's not what the Church teaches.

Gee... I had a Bishop explain to my wife that we didn't need an annulment to get married in the church because her previous marriage had been a civil service and that she had been living in sin and not officially married in the eyes of the Church. I'll go with what the Bishop said...

Well the judge says they are following the same rules as everyone else. The problem is that the government is disobeying their own rules. Private universities are permitted to have conduct regulations. If you wanted to have a private Jewish university, you could. This is part of freedom of religion that I keep getting back to.

Obviously a judge who is more familiar with the law disagrees with your opinion.

By the laws of the glorious state of Kentucky, she has. It's over.

But not by the Federal Government.

Well, that's generally how these things work. Bad laws get fixed.

Yep... and that's why the laws concerning gay marriages are getting fixed.

Raiding their bank accounts gives all Christians a serious impetus to:

1, remove the public officials responsible and,
2, change another bad law.

Yet again, they didn't RAID the bank accounts. The law was broken, and fines/judgements were paid. You keep wanting to make sound like theft or that the action was illegal. It wasn't. The illegal action was by the people that broke the law and then paid for their crimes.

Then gay marriage does affect every Christian who gets married after Oberfell.

Nope... not one bit. In the eyes of GOD, nothing has changed. You are still married and what others do outside your own faith means nothing.

I'm not putting my name on a contract that says I'm marrying "spouse B".

Then don't legally get married. Your choice.

It's a promise I am making to my wife. The contract needs to state that before I sign it, because I'm not signing it otherwise. I'm not marrying "spouse B" I'm marrying my wife.

Yet again, the Church and God are concerned about the Sacrament, not the silly piece of paper. If you don't have faith in your own god...

I have yet to find a Catholic who proudly displays their marriage license. They will show pictures and videos of the church wedding, talk about their commitment to each other... describe their wedding vows word for word... but NEVER parade the license around.

But gee... if that will stop you from getting married in the eyes of God, your church and your soul mate... That's your problem and choice.

It shouldn't stop other people who love each other from making a commitment to each other. That's FREEDOM!

[Dinner]

Kid: "My propaganda is fact! Everyone else's is just proganda,"

You have serious issues if you can't see what is wrong with your position.

[Kidlicious]

Kid: "My propaganda is fact! Everyone else's is just proganda,"

You have serious issues if you can't see what is wrong with your position.

Don't you mean what's not my position?

[Kidlicious]

None of you have ever been to my church. How about at least trying to stick to what you actually have some idea about?

[C0ckney]

How about at least trying to stick to what you actually have some idea about?

if you followed your own advice, you'd have to stop posting altogether.

[Ben Kenobi]

then don't. it's a purely theoretical question for you in any case.

Better yet, I will sign the actual promise that I am making.

[Kidlicious]

if you followed your own advice, you'd have to stop posting altogether.

[Ben Kenobi]

No... but trying to cram your religious views on others that don't believe is also freedom of religion.

Well then, changing the documents and preventing me from signing a promise to my wife would also violate my rights.

So yet again, you are placing civil over God. Isn't that a sin in your book.

So is lying and signing something that is false.

The Sacrament of Marriage has NOT CHANGED. and isn't that what counts.

Then why would I be forced to sign a lie?

So yet again, you are placing civil over God. Isn't that a sin in your book. The Sacrament of Marriage has NOT CHANGED. and isn't that what counts.

Interesting. So you don't consider changing a marriage certificate to remove the word 'wife' be a 'significant' change.

Your "contract" is between your wife and God. You know, the SACRAMENT. And if you don't want that, then don't get married in the eyes of God.

Then why am I not permitted to do so? Why am I being forced to sign a lie?

I had a Bishop explain to my wife that we didn't need an annulment to get married in the church because her previous marriage had been a civil service and that she had been living in sin and not officially married in the eyes of the Church. I'll go with what the Bishop said...

Canon law states clearly that an annulment is not required should she be:

a) civilly divorced from her previous husband.
b) not married within the Catholic church.

If, as you state she was not Catholic and not married within the Church, if she were in fact civilly divorced she would have been free to marry you.

The reason being that the Catholic church does not provide for divorce, and the understanding of the sacrament is different. We don't bind people who are Christian to their non-Christian wives/husbands should they desire to leave - but we also don't force them to leave them.

If she were married civilly, than no, she was not, "living in sin". and your Bishop was wrong to say that. If the arrangement was not 'civilly married', ie, she was with someone but not married, then your bishop was right.

Obviously a judge who is more familiar with the law disagrees with your opinion.

Uh, the judge confirmed that the province of BC was breaking the law, and has restored accreditation. S

But not by the Federal Government.

Then Obama is free to arrest her at his leisure.

Yep... and that's why the laws concerning gay marriages are getting fixed.

And Christian liberties being upheld. Funny that.

Yet again, they didn't RAID the bank accounts.

Yes, Avakian did. The case is currently in appeal.

While the case remains unsettled the state has no right to seize moneys that it is not entitled to due to due process. Doing this is a good way to get the entire case tossed out.

The law was broken, and fines/judgements were paid.

What law was broken? Fines and judgments cannot be collected while the case is still being tried. I'm sure prosecutors will like that but the law is pretty clear here. The State of Oregon cannot just help themselves to the bank accounts of American citizens.

You keep wanting to make sound like theft or that the action was illegal.

While the case was still under appeal, yes, it was illegal.

It wasn't. The illegal action was by the people that broke the law and then paid for their crimes.

What crime was committed? The state of Oregon levied a fine of150k, which will be eventually overturned on appeal.

Nope... not one bit. In the eyes of GOD, nothing has changed. You are still married and what others do outside your own faith means nothing.

Insofar as Christians are required to sign a marriage license, changing the text of the license alters every single marriage license, Christian or no, issued in the US since Oberfell. This is a logical conclusion.

Now, if the state were to permit the Catholic church to issue marriage licenses under their own power this would be different.

Then don't legally get married. Your choice.

I will sign the truth, that I am marrying my wife. If the state chooses to claim I am not married, then I will fight that.

Yet again, the Church and God are concerned about the Sacrament, not the silly piece of paper. If you don't have faith in your own god...

Then why am I forced to sign a 'worthless piece of paper'?

I have yet to find a Catholic who proudly displays their marriage license. They will show pictures and videos of the church wedding, talk about their commitment to each other... describe their wedding vows word for word... but NEVER parade the license around.

I have. I just had the privilege of attending a 50th wedding anniversary this year. They had the whole pictures and the marriage license. I thought it was very beautiful. I would love to have the same thing.

It shouldn't stop other people who love each other from making a commitment to each other. That's FREEDOM!

Indeed, and I should be free to promise that I am marrying my wife and not, "spouse B".

[giblets]

None of you have ever been to my church. How about at least trying to stick to what you actually have some idea about?

No one has mentioned your church. Why does it matter if we've been to your church?

[Kidlicious]

No one has mentioned your church. Why does it matter if we've been to your church?