Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Church does not OWN marriage
BBC News ^ | 02/25/12 | BBC News

Posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:47 PM PST by EnglishCon

The Church does not "own" marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry, a government minister has said.

Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone said the government was entitled to introduce same-sex marriages, which she says would be a "change for the better".

Her comments come as ministers prepare to launch a public consultation on legalising gay marriage next month.

Traditionalists want the law on marriage to remain unchanged.

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; ungland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last
Look on this as the next step in the assault on religion.
1 posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:49 PM PST by EnglishCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: narses; wagglebee

Ping to your respective lists.


2 posted on 02/24/2012 11:19:36 PM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>> The Church does not “own” marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry, a government minister has said.

Like I said, the govt nor its parasitic scumbags should have the right to define marriage. Get govt out of the marriage business.


3 posted on 02/24/2012 11:24:39 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon; Gene Eric

The government DOES own marriage because the government licenses marriage.

Conservatives need to admit that.

And conservatives need to get the government completely out of marriage: no government licenses, just private marriage contracts binding only upon the man and the woman who sign that contract.


4 posted on 02/24/2012 11:36:48 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

I agree with this witch, provided that the government no longer has any say in religious marriage ceremonies. We’d have healthier families if the state didn’t make it extremely risky for a guy to stick his neck out, only to find himself ten years later paying for a home he doesn’t live in, barely seeing his children that still live there with their mother and some strange man. It is time for God and Caesar to part ways on the whole marriage question; the state can have people marrying their pervert-mates or pets with the corresponding legal contract, and the Church can have marriage on their terms in a religious sense, and there should be no overlap of the two.


5 posted on 02/24/2012 11:38:27 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; VinceASA; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


6 posted on 02/24/2012 11:44:44 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
Equalities minister

*eyeroll*

7 posted on 02/24/2012 11:45:34 PM PST by denydenydeny (The more a system is all about equality in theory the more it's an aristocracy in practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

I’m very suspicious of this particular trope, because it makes no sense: Of course the church doesn’t “own” marriage. The existence of civil marriage ceremonies would seem to establish this as a self-evident fact. I think something else is going on.

I think it’s a way for government to force churches to marry same-sex couples whether they want to or not.


8 posted on 02/24/2012 11:51:11 PM PST by denydenydeny (The more a system is all about equality in theory the more it's an aristocracy in practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

I know.

Makes me want to cry sometimes, the state of this once great nation.


9 posted on 02/24/2012 11:51:19 PM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Agreed.


10 posted on 02/24/2012 11:53:09 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
Sure, the Church does not own marriage. God does. HE established the institution of marriage in the Beginning, when HE made a help-meet for Adam.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And as our Lord Jesus also said:

Matthew 19:4-6 And HE answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that HE which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

But given that the Church is the people of God (founded on the Prophets, and Apostles, and our Chief Cornerstone, our Lord Jesus Christ) ... the Church has the best claim to minister the institution of marriage on Earth.

11 posted on 02/24/2012 11:53:48 PM PST by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

>> It is time for God and Caesar to part ways on the whole marriage question

I like that.


12 posted on 02/24/2012 11:54:37 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

>> I think it’s a way for government to force churches to marry same-sex couples whether they want to or not.

Exactly.


13 posted on 02/24/2012 11:55:46 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Oddly, this story was sent to me by an old friend from my teaching days.

He is gay - not camp or outrageous, just gay - has lived with his partner for 25 years and HE is totally outraged by it.
He thinks government should stay out of the bedroom. Marriage is defined by the Church and has no need to be licenced or regulated by man at all.

He put it much harsher than that, but I have been warned about my language on here before, so you’ll forgive me for not posting his exact words. Suffice it to say I expected my laptop screen to burst into flames.


14 posted on 02/25/2012 12:10:53 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: El Cid

Well said and worth repeating as loudly and as often as possible.


15 posted on 02/25/2012 12:12:21 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

The government, through the consent of the governed, gives consent for marriage. It does not create marriage.

Nor does it have the right to run a pen through the definition of marriage to make a fridge group feel accepted.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.


16 posted on 02/25/2012 12:13:08 AM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Marriage is the union of man and woman into one for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

The family is the oldest institution on Earth, predating tribalism. The core of what we are. No government ever has the right to change that, regulate that, or approve that.

The left have an unhealthy, nay unholy, obsession with what happens behind closed doors. It is sickening to me. When I got married - like most people - I gave my vows. My word of honor to the woman I love. Still love, trust and respect after 30 odd years.

I don’t need government telling me that my word is provisional, or that they can define the meanings of what I said. Like most here, to me those words are sacred. A trust that you simply cannot break, because breaking those vows breaks you.


17 posted on 02/25/2012 12:22:34 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

All 30 years were odd?

/ Gracie Allen


18 posted on 02/25/2012 12:32:58 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

They might just as well call it MiniEqual...


19 posted on 02/25/2012 12:38:58 AM PST by sthguard (The DNC theme song: "All You Need is Guv")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Some of them were extremely odd!


20 posted on 02/25/2012 12:40:31 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
Ummm. Yes, actually, the Church (as the body of Christ) does own marriage.

The state was a late in picking up that bit of booty. I think Henry VIII had something to do with that.

/johnny

21 posted on 02/25/2012 12:57:04 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
No. You are wrong.

Any criminal can issue a licence for anything, but that doesn't really mean they control it, or that it actually matters to them.

Marriage is a sacrament. And governments, around here, don't offer those.

They give you pieces of paper, and bills, instead. But no sacrements.

/johnny

22 posted on 02/25/2012 1:00:04 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
just private marriage contracts binding only upon the man and the woman who sign that contract.

Who decides, or enforces, that it is a man and a woman?

23 posted on 02/25/2012 1:01:07 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Marriage predates Christianity.


24 posted on 02/25/2012 1:02:06 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kingu

It took the federal government to stop polygamy in America, how do we stop it, and homosexual “marriage” now?


25 posted on 02/25/2012 1:05:30 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Aye, odd to think that if one man could have simply kept it in his pants and not been obsessed with a male heir that things would be hugely different today.


26 posted on 02/25/2012 1:13:29 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

Using govt to solve social issues is to fiddle with a double-edged sword. I prefer we persuade one another outside the fencing of statist rule.

The sanctity of marriage is a critical component of a healthy society. It cannot be used as a device to rationalize the illusion that “homosexual marriage” is something that can be realized. The terms “gay marriage” and “homosexual marriage” are completely degenerate having no real meaning.

This issue is less about homosexuality and more about destroying the fabric of a healthy, independent, Christian society.

I don’t fault anyone for wanting to “fit in”, but it’s obvious the commie secularists have identified a group that’s ripe for exploitation, and is using it to marginalize the traditionalism that’s required for a strong, independent society. It’s doing so through the force of law; rulings and law based on the fallacy of “homosexual marriage”.


27 posted on 02/25/2012 1:16:22 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Purely for the mental exercise and discussion, and not something I condone at all, but:

By what right did the federal government have to stop polygamy?


28 posted on 02/25/2012 1:17:53 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

What does that have to do with Islamic and Mormon Americans, and any homosexuals starting a church defining marriage anyway that they want, other religions may have even more bizarre “definitions”


29 posted on 02/25/2012 1:18:20 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

It sounds like you prefer polygamy not being stopped. That is pretty much the point of this thread isn’t it, that anything called a church “defines” marriage to it’s own desires and purposes?


30 posted on 02/25/2012 1:22:31 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

So what do you propose, govt regulations?


31 posted on 02/25/2012 1:24:43 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

You are fighting for polygamy and homosexual marriage, and whatever else churches like the Children of God come up with?


32 posted on 02/25/2012 1:27:27 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

The govt. licenses marriage and thus the govt. controls marriage.

Look at divorce: who gets what isn’t decided by a church, or the couple, or any concept of sacramental bonds, but rather by govt. courts.


33 posted on 02/25/2012 1:41:09 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Gene Eric
homosexual marriage

That is what is happening BECAUSE OF government control / licensing of marriage.

34 posted on 02/25/2012 1:42:31 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

What is your excuse for what gave us polygamy?


35 posted on 02/25/2012 1:44:24 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

>> You are fighting for polygamy and homosexual marriage

No, I am not fighting for that. But you are indeed advancing govt regulations.

You need to entrust a free society instead of embracing the kind of statism that makes you feel secure.


36 posted on 02/25/2012 1:47:29 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

What is your excuse for government controllers / licensers of marriage imposing “gay marriage”?


37 posted on 02/25/2012 1:49:12 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric; DNA.2012

So you are actually promoting marriage as having no definition at all, any church, any religion, any cult, issues their own definition, of course what power would insist and enforce that only religious entities can define marriage anyway, why not anybody, any group, and household?

Islamic and Mormon, and FLDS child marriage and Polygamy, homosexual marriage, and stuff that we cannot even name or imagine.


38 posted on 02/25/2012 1:56:19 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I agree totally. The state has zero rights to define something which is basically faith based and fundamental to being human.

Look, as I said, I have very good friends who are homosexual. One of them, the guy who sent me this story, in a long term relationship that outlasted the marriages of most of my heterosexual friends, literally saved my a$$ and my marriage. No jokes please!

Not a single one of them wants gay marriage. Civil unions, fair enough. I am not hugely happy with it, but it is what it is. I disagree from a moral and religious standpoint. As a friend I am happy for them, though most of them have not bothered.

To me, as a Christian and Catholic (yes, I seperate them sometimes - there are slightly different tacks depending on what hat you wear), their lives are simply and totally wrong. Against all teaching.

Yet it is their life. Not mine. I can talk to them, witness to them, but I can’t prevent them living as they wish. Watching a good friend following a path that is going to lead them to eternal damnation hurts. I pray hard for them every single day.

I don’t want my duly elected representatives - most of whom have problems in their personal lives too - sticking their nose in.
Because, in the interests of fairness and equality, those same politicians are going to degrade the sanctity of marriage as sure as eggs is eggs.

Two people - one man, one woman - joined before God in Holy Matrimony. That is marriage. Full stop, end of story.

We get it. My friend gets it. Why the H3ll doesn’t the government get it!


39 posted on 02/25/2012 1:58:04 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You a big fan of

A) not addressing questions while expecting others to

and

B) making up big long lists and pretending that someone else said them


40 posted on 02/25/2012 2:03:56 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

That is not what I said friend.

I simply asked by what right does the federal government put its nose into the bedroom.

One wife is hard enough do deal with. (full disclosure, my wife says “try dealing with one husband.”)


41 posted on 02/25/2012 2:04:09 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

You seem to be promoting homosexual marriage, polygamy and the end of marriage, not resisting it.

If homosexuals, Mormons, Muslims, cults, and atheists, and assorted weirdos, all get to make up their own definitions of Marriage, then marriage is over.


42 posted on 02/25/2012 2:06:39 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

>> So you are actually promoting marriage as having no definition at all.

I made it clear that ‘homosexual marriage’ is a degenerate term. Any man that chooses to marry more than one woman at a time should be committed. And children are protected from pedophiles. What now, my statist FRiend?


43 posted on 02/25/2012 2:09:08 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012; EnglishCon

The only question is why do you want to end having any definition of marriage, and just let everyone define it on an individual basis?

Do you guys think there is only one church in America, or even one religion?

Who would enforce that only Muslim, Mormons, Christians and all of the other hundreds of religious, and cult definitions count anyway, aren’t atheists equal in America?


44 posted on 02/25/2012 2:11:12 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The question was “What is your excuse for government controllers / licensers of marriage imposing “gay marriage?”

You’re welcome to address it.

It is, after all, directly pertinent to your expressed view that such things would come from a lack of government control, when a quick scan of Google News shows that such things are happening right now BECAUSE OF government control.


45 posted on 02/25/2012 2:17:02 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

By what authority do you impose all those rules, including what ages pedophilia involves when it comes to marriage, FLDS has some strong arguments on why they want to be left alone, as a religious body

By the way, you didn’t say that you want homosexual marriage and polygamy to not be legalized, you merely sniffed at it, this supports what I was saying, you are trying to eliminate marriage as we know it, and change it to anything and everything, which means that it no longer exists.


46 posted on 02/25/2012 2:18:25 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

>> all get to make up their own definitions of Marriage

Seriously, is that your concern?

You do realize states have enacted laws that can lead to the prosecution of those that don’t support ‘homosexual marriage’, right?

Marriage is a function of Faith, religion. It’s God’s law, not the law of fallible legislators.


47 posted on 02/25/2012 2:19:17 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Your inability to comprehend the written word is not my problem, yet I was ever a sucker for a debate.

There is ONE definition of marriage.

One Man, One Woman, United under God. That is it. The sum total and sole definition.

Under God. Not “with government consent.”

I am used to you trolling your faux morality on the prepper threads - I remember your faux outrage at the letter S in the phrase TSHTF. Got me told off by Admin Moderator as my language back to you was not exactly Christian.

Try showing some real morality and debating in a human manner rather than straw men and BS.

So, I am going to ask you a question.

One of your oldest friends. A person you can physically point to and say “Without him I would be dead” is gay. He hates the idea of gay marriage as cheapening the ideal of marriage.

What the heck would you do?

You know what I do - I posted for all the world to see. What would be your response.


48 posted on 02/25/2012 2:21:26 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Why be so obtuse, you want to eliminate all definitions of marriage, you want to let homosexuals, and Muslims, and weirdos, and cults, and Mormons, and the FLDS, and literally everyone, define it as they wish.


49 posted on 02/25/2012 2:21:42 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
First don't carry one thread to another.

"One Man, One Woman, United under God. That is it. The sum total and sole definition.

This is America, how do you tell the Muslims, the Mormons, the homosexuals that, and then enforce it, by what authority, what force, and who the heck are you? Are you going to conquer America and impose theological rule on us and force the Muslims and homosexuals, and Mormons to live under your churches law?

50 posted on 02/25/2012 2:26:10 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson