Post Reply
Page 2 of 27  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Marriage as a legal contract
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 10:11AM #11
Rgurley4
Posts: 3,826

In Louisiana, the only "civil law" state, marriage is a "civil contract"...BUT it requires:


1. CAPACITY


2. Consent


3. Certificate


4. Celebrant / Celebration


#1 ...concerns age, sex, (race in the OLD days)....etc


LGBT marriage candidates do not have the legal CAPACITY to contract marriage in LA.


The States must give "Full Faith and Credit" to laws of other states EXCEPT when they violate Fed statutes OR do violence to OTHER state laws such as property, family, estates etc

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 10:40AM #12
fodaoson
Posts: 10,064

US Constitution Article VI sec 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


The Supreme Court continues to apply its public policy exception differently for state judgments as compared to state laws. In the 2003 case of Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, the Court reiterated that, "[o]ur precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments."[1]


If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. In cases of out-of-state judgments, the Court has stated that there may be exceptions to the enforcement and jurisdiction of out-of-state judgments, but maintains that there is no public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause for judgments


Federal statutory law provides that:


Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.


 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 10:57AM #13
fodaoson
Posts: 10,064

Her is and interesting Christian viewpoint


May 19th, 2012


My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage


Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


By Mark Osler, Special to CNN


I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.


What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.


A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.


During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.


After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.


Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).


His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”


None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.


It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.


Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.


The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether , but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.


Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality


The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!


I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.


The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.


At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.


I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.


It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.


The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.


religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-tak...

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 11:26AM #14
Find1Answer
Posts: 6,313

May 21, 2012 -- 9:12AM, TENAC wrote:

May 21, 2012 -- 2:29AM, Unworthyone wrote:


Catboxer posted this link in another thread titled, Big upset in Nebraska, and I thought that one of the points made by the author  warranted its own thread.

www.salon.com/2012/05/20/whats_the_deal_...


Towards the end of the article, (really a book excerpt) the author turns to the matter of marriage.
The author brings up an interesting point regarding one state having to (or not having to) recognize the marriages performed in other states. The reference point is the U.S. Constitution, article 4, which requires states to recognize and honor each others contracts.  A marriage is in my understanding, a contract, with obligations, rights and privileges that bind both parties in the marriage.  As such, are states obligated to recognize the marriage contracts of other states, just as they are obligated to recognize legally binding contracts of other states?


As far as I know, every state recognizes my marital status. If I move to another state, I'm just as married as I was in the state where the license was obtained, and I retain all the rights and obligations that the marriage contract holds.  This is true, even if the laws of one state differ from another.  Some states require a stipulated time of residence.  Some states require blood tests.  Some allow closer relatives than others to marry.  In all of these differences, the contract of marriage is upheld, regardless of where that contract was obtained.


But what of gay marriages?  Can a state declare a couple married elsewhere is not married in that state?  Does a place of residence nullify a marriage contract performed elsewhere?  What about the rights of inheritance and survivorship?  Suppose a couple was married for many years, accumulated  substantial wealth in a state that recognized and allowed gay marriage, and then the employer transferred one or the other to a state that does not recognize or allow gay marriage?  What happens to the wealth?  What if one spouse dies intestate (without a will?)  What if there are adopted (or natural) children?  What about medical power of attorney, or hospital visitations?


In all states a surviving spouse is recognized as next of kin.  Will this hold true for gay couples?  And what of rights regarding things like social security survivor's benefits? Or federal pensions?  The federal government recognizes and upholds marriages from all states.  Will this hold true for gay couples?


In other words, is this a can of worms, or what?





In a civil union, why would that not suffice?


Yes it is a can of worms.    Civil unions convey a second class citizenship on anyone that chooses that route.      Hetero are starting to use civil unions rather than civil marriage because they can get out of it easier legally and just moving out of state.   Civil union in France which has had CU since 1999 is finding that 92% of civil unions are hetero and has in fact undermined civil marriage.     Denial of ss civil marriage is actually destroying marriage.


Civil marriage conveys over 1300 rights and responsibilities.   Civil Unions convey 350.       Doma even knocks some of the 350.     There is no portability in civil unions,  zero federal protections like fed pensions, sponsorship of immigrant spouse, health insurance coverage, etc.  


and for further clarification I am not protecting Obama and blaming Bush.  The entire political process is nothing more than a boondoggle and pay for play.   Not only has it been going on for a long time but has achieved epic levels and will get worse with each succeeding presidency.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 11:53AM #15
arielg
Posts: 8,206

May 21, 2012 -- 10:57AM, fodaoson wrote:


Her is and interesting Christian viewpoint


May 19th, 2012


My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage


Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


By Mark Osler, Special to CNN


I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.


What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.


A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.


During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.


After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.


Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).


His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”


None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.


It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.


Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.


The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether , but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.


Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality


The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!


I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.


The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.


At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.


I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.


It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.


The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.


religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-tak...




This is the typical mixing and distorting of spiritual teachings with mundane affairs. 


 "My kingdom is not of this world".  Jesus was talking about the spiritual world, not the world of  changing and passing wordly concerns.


Spirituality is concerned with and teaches about eternal principles, not  with the fashionable issues of the times or moral relative interpretations according to  circumstances and people's self serving understandings. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 1:01PM #16
REteach
Posts: 13,195

It took about 80 years to get rid slavery and we are still battling for civil rights.  It is taking far toolong but it is happening.


I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 1:15PM #17
fodaoson
Posts: 10,064

after Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.


Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).


His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”


 


 


This is not Jesus talking about spiritual  kingdoms  it is Peter addressing the “church”. Although the Chruch is about “spirituality” is also “of the world, to the world”

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 1:31PM #18
Cesmom
Posts: 3,884

May 21, 2012 -- 10:57AM, fodaoson wrote:


Her is and interesting Christian viewpoint


May 19th, 2012


My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage




Really worthwhile read...thanks for sharing

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

Useless Knowledge: Allodoxaphobia - Fear of opinions
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 2:23PM #19
Iwantamotto
Posts: 6,133

fodaoson:  During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.


Pete was something, alright....


After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold.


Robin can become Nightwing all he wants, but he'll never be Batman.  :P


His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”


And why bother with water if you've already received the Spirit anyway?


Marriage and baptism are related:  they are both human-made institutions that only serve to acknowledge formally what your heart has already decided upon.


REteach:  It took about 80 years to get rid slavery and we are still battling for civil rights.  It is taking far toolong but it is happening.


I think the best part was reading about states' rights.  Now, with what official persecution have I heard THAT phrase before, hmmm?

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 21, 2012 - 3:42PM #20
Cesmom
Posts: 3,884

May 21, 2012 -- 3:13PM, arielg wrote:


May 21, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Cesmom wrote:


May 21, 2012 -- 10:57AM, fodaoson wrote:


Her is and interesting Christian viewpoint


May 19th, 2012


My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage




Really worthwhile read...thanks for sharing




Please tell me what you find "worthwhile" about it. What is the "spiritual" point they are making here, other than an argument  for the legitimization of gay marriage?




The "spiritual" point is that more people need to spend less time passing judgment and more time asking themselves What Would Jesus Do????


Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

Useless Knowledge: Allodoxaphobia - Fear of opinions
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 27  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook