On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:02:07 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example,
>>> clergy, to marry people when that union goes against the religious
>>> beliefs.
>> The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the
>> same right to refuse.
> 
> I think that a civil servant would not/should not have the right to 
> refuse.  If they take the job, they know what they may be asked to do.  
> You can't take a job and then object to doing the job.

unless perhaps the law was passed after they took the job.

> It's like people here in the US who decide to become pharmacists and then 
> refuse to dispense medications because of their religious beliefs.  Too 
> bad, they knew they might have to do that when they signed up to do the 
> job.  If it's a legal prescription in the jurisdiction, they do not have 
> the right to refuse service for any reason other than nonpayment.
> 

[]

>> Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states
>> and countries?
> 
> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My 
> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious 
> ceremony), so it already is.

does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required 
religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my 
parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a 
superfluous extra)

> In the eyes of the Mormon church, my marriage isn't valid, because we're 
> not Mormon, but I don't really care about my status in the Mormon 
> church.  Similarly, I don't really care about my marriage's status in 
> Outer Mongolia, but if I did care, then I'd do some research to find out 
> what I had to do to make sure we got the rights and privileges that were 
> important to us should we move there.

or go on holiday

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Problem solved.

Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and 
want to punish people we don't like."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:41:51 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:02:07 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>>> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example,
>>>> clergy, to marry people when that union goes against the religious
>>>> beliefs.
>>> The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the
>>> same right to refuse.
>> 
>> I think that a civil servant would not/should not have the right to
>> refuse.  If they take the job, they know what they may be asked to do.
>> You can't take a job and then object to doing the job.
> 
> unless perhaps the law was passed after they took the job.

Then they have the option of seeking other employment.  As a public 
servant, their first duty is to serve the public, not their own personal 
prejudices.  That is what I mean by "they may be asked to do things they 
morally object to" - not just in current law, but laws change.  That's 
part of the job.

If they want to object, they can object by quitting.  The cannot object 
by infringing on the rights of citizens under the current laws of the 
jurisdiction.  They are paid to enforce and enact the laws, not to decide 
which laws should be enforced.  If they wanted to decide that, they 
should've gotten a job writing laws.

>>> Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states
>>> and countries?
>> 
>> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My
>> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious
>> ceremony), so it already is.
> 
> does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required
> religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my
> parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a
> superfluous extra)

Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is 
optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being 
married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot 
generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here as 
there.

>> In the eyes of the Mormon church, my marriage isn't valid, because
>> we're not Mormon, but I don't really care about my status in the Mormon
>> church.  Similarly, I don't really care about my marriage's status in
>> Outer Mongolia, but if I did care, then I'd do some research to find
>> out what I had to do to make sure we got the rights and privileges that
>> were important to us should we move there.
> 
> or go on holiday

Only if there are specific problems with us being married here but not in 
the eyes of the locals as we are on holiday there.  For example, if the 
local custom is to only allow a couple to share a room if they are 
married by a local tribal chief, then the chances of us taking a holiday 
there are pretty small.

Generally, legal protections only become a significant issue when you get 
into immigration status for purposes of residency requirements.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Problem solved.
> 
> Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and
> want to punish people we don't like."

I fail to see how the problem is anything other than that.  I'm 
interested in other perspectives, as always.

I fail to see how anyone else's relationship affects my relationship with 
my wife, or how my brother-in-law marrying his long-term partner (which 
they did, in fact, last year, in California) cheapens my marriage to my 
wife, your marriage to your wife, or the relationship between my parents 
or their parents.

Todd and Ron getting married doesn't make me love my wife any less or 
think less of the nearly 13 years we've been married.  It's not about 
*me*.  It's about *them*.  And if they want to celebrate their long-term 
relationship (which is older than that between my wife and I) and enjoy 
the same legal status that we have, then that is about them, not about us.

Anything else seems really bigoted to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and
> want to punish people we don't like."

Oh, and reading that again, I see that we're saying the same thing - my 
eyes have been acting up today and I misread "is" for "isn't".

So if I understand correctly, you could be saying that the problem just 
is "we're bigoted and want to punish people we don't like" - my solution 
works only if the problem isn't that.  If the problem is in fact "we're 
bigoted and want to punish people we don't like", then the solution of 
creating equality doesn't work, because the bigots don't want equality, 
they want to keep the discriminatory practices in place.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Problem solved.
>> Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and
>> want to punish people we don't like."
> 
> I fail to see how the problem is anything other than that.

Me neither. But that's why I said "problem solved" isn't correct. :-)

It's also the first step towards denying other rights, by starting to pass 
laws saying things like only married couples can adopt children.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 05-Jan-09 23:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> >>  It was
> >> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".
> >
> > Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
> > Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my
> > relationship with my wife.  Pretending that it does would be my choice.
>
> you know my position in this: this law is void as there does not exist a
> full proof definition of what a man or a woman is. Perhaps one of those
> more difficult cases could challenge the law.

Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.

And no, a dildo is not a penis, nor a slash just below the scrotum is a vagina.

I don't have a problem with homossexualism becoming a civil institution.  I
don't believe though that milenar religious dogmas will change much to accept
it when it goes against their core concepts of man, woman and single flesh.

Hey, one can always start a new religion for their beliefs and hope it
catches... seems to have worked with mormons, scientologists etc (one would
also say so of all religions)...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Todd and Ron getting married doesn't make me love my wife any less or
> think less of the nearly 13 years we've been married.

It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.  According to Jewish
religion, it's thus a sacred institution, the words of God.

Now, people not happy with it will try to twist the meanings of "man" and
"woman" and try to create men's laws to accept it in society.  That's their
right, of course.  It's also their right to try to create new religions that
suit their needs rather than trying to twist milenar religions into accepting
twisted definitions of the words of God.  They will call it the work of Satan.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:47:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>> I fail to see how the problem is anything other than that.
> 
> Me neither. But that's why I said "problem solved" isn't correct. :-)

Which I noticed you said after I wrote and wrote my second follow-
up.  :-)  I really need to see a vision specialist, my eyes were going 
crazy yesterday (though usually when I'm tired is when I have the most 
problem with them).

> It's also the first step towards denying other rights, by starting to
> pass laws saying things like only married couples can adopt children.

Yup.  I've got a friend who, along with her partner, wants to adopt her 
grandson.  Needless to say, it's been a very long struggle, particularly 
since they're here in Utah.

There was a very good 30 Days episode about just that topic.  Spurlock 
definitely leans towards the liberal side, but I think he generally does 
a good job of showing both sides (the one on immigration was something of 
an exception, according to the parties involved).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:41:20 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Todd and Ron getting married doesn't make me love my wife any less or
>> think less of the nearly 13 years we've been married.
> 
> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of
> Adam and Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they
> complement each other and turn into one flesh by the institution of
> marriage.  According to Jewish religion, it's thus a sacred institution,
> the words of God.

So let's talk about Abraham's wives, then, in the context of a monogomous 
relationship.  As someone else (Darren?) said elsewhere, it's a question 
of which traditions you take depending on how long ago you decide the 
important traditions are from.

And from a religious standpoint, I don't have a problem with Christian/
Jewish religious traditions being the guiding force *in those 
religions*.  The religious definition of "marriage" is not relevant when 
it comes to legal protections between people who identify as a family 
unit.

Jim

Post a reply to this message