Prop 8 defender of sanctity of marriage is divorcing his wife

[Diuretic]

none of that chages the fact that marriage is a religious sacrment.

gov administering the laws of marriage? you mean gov meddling with religious sacraments

Marriage can be a religious sacrament, yes. Depending on the jurisdiction you'll probably find that the law allows marriage to be celebrated as a religious sacrament, it doesn't require it to be celebrated as a religious sacrament.

But if marriage was only a religious sacrament then it would have no legal basis, a bit like Holy Communion.

religious sacrments do not need the ok of the law. laws can be changed and manipulated to fit political agendas, the history of the religious rite of marraige is thousands of years old.

Religious sacraments shouldn't - if they are solely religious sacraments - require the approval of secular law, well as long as they don't breach secular laws. Do you agree with that?

Laws are changed all the time and in a liberal democracy they're changed in public, via the legislative process. If they weren't society would grind to a halt.

The history of marriage is interesting. It was a legal arrangement before it took on a religious hue.

 

[Fatality]

Marriage can be a religious sacrament, yes. Depending on the jurisdiction you'll probably find that the law allows marriage to be celebrated as a religious sacrament, it doesn't require it to be celebrated as a religious sacrament.

But if marriage was only a religious sacrament then it would have no legal basis, a bit like Holy Communion.

religious sacrments do not need the ok of the law. laws can be changed and manipulated to fit political agendas, the history of the religious rite of marraige is thousands of years old.

Religious sacraments shouldn't - if they are solely religious sacraments - require the approval of secular law, well as long as they don't breach secular laws. Do you agree with that?

no, I dont agree with that. Religious sacraments that do not violate natural law, are above the manipulation of the civil law.

Laws are changed all the time and in a liberal democracy they're changed in public, via the legislative process. If they weren't society would grind to a halt.

you mean a Federal Republic if youre talking about the US.

and as I said, civil laws always change which is exactly why religious sacraments are outside the purview of the civil law. Religious sacraments dont bend with the wind they way the civil law does. They are not open to the manipulation of beurocrats.

The history of marriage is interesting. It was a legal arrangement before it took on a religious hue.

funny how you seem to try and lump all of civilization, ancient to modern, into one little ball. Ive noticed that about you, you try to fit everything into your managable little box to try and make it fit into your worldview.

 

[editec]

Well perhaps now he's also a defender of the sanctity of divorce.

In his universe , only hetersexuals deserve the right to divorce, too.

 

[Diuretic]

religious sacrments do not need the ok of the law. laws can be changed and manipulated to fit political agendas, the history of the religious rite of marraige is thousands of years old.

no, I dont agree with that. Religious sacraments that do not violate natural law, are above the manipulation of the civil law.



you mean a Federal Republic if youre talking about the US.

and as I said, civil laws always change which is exactly why religious sacraments are outside the purview of the civil law. Religious sacraments dont bend with the wind they way the civil law does. They are not open to the manipulation of beurocrats.

The history of marriage is interesting. It was a legal arrangement before it took on a religious hue.

funny how you seem to try and lump all of civilization, ancient to modern, into one little ball. Ive noticed that about you, you try to fit everything into your managable little box to try and make it fit into your worldview.

I think you might find that religious sacraments won't get away with breaches of secular law.

The US is a federal republic, it's also a liberal democracy. Again, like marriage which can be both a religious sacrament and a legal arrangement, a republic can be a liberal democracy; it can also be a totalitarian regime. The US republic is a liberal democracy and not a totalitarian state.

Religious sacraments are the purview of the religion that contains them and that's only right. The religious law that creates and protects the sacraments is subject to change instigated by the authorities who run the religion.

And as for my worldview - I try and understands things as best I can.

 

[Fatality]

I think you might find that religious sacraments won't get away with breaches of secular law.

yeah, and thats is the reasoning behind writing civil laws that attempt to manipulate religious sacraments. keep your state out of my religion. Sacraments that do not violate natural law are not subject to civil authority.

The US is a federal republic, it's also a liberal democracy. Again, like marriage which can be both a religious sacrament and a legal arrangement, a republic can be a liberal democracy; it can also be a totalitarian regime. The US republic is a liberal democracy and not a totalitarian state.

democracy is mob rule, the US is a Federal Republic

Religious sacraments are the purview of the religion that contains them and that's only right. The religious law that creates and protects the sacraments is subject to change instigated by the authorities who run the religion.

and not by the state.

And as for my worldview - I try and understands things as best I can.

try a little harder

 

[JBeukema]

the history of the religious rite of marraige is thousands of years old.

Not in anything resembling its current form, it aint.

 

[Fatality]

the history of the religious rite of marraige is thousands of years old.

Not in anything resembling its current form, it aint.

irrelevant

 

[JBeukema]

no, I dont agree with that. Religious sacraments that do not violate natural law, are above the manipulation of the civil law.

'natural law'? You're joking, right?

Religious sacraments dont bend with the wind they way the civil law does. They are not open to the manipulation of beurocrats.

Your ignorance of the history of western (abrahamic) religion is astounding

 

[Fatality]

'natural law'? You're joking, right?

keep your state out of my religion. you stay on your side of the wall.

Your ignorance of the history of western (abrahamic) religion is astounding

youre a ******* dope, i have singled out no particular religion. from what ive seen you post in the religion forum youre the one whos head is so far up your ass daylight is just a long distant memory.

 

[Immanuel]

Been married since Aug 10 1983, and you?

You have me beat by one year and one day: August 11, 1984.

Marriage can be a religious sacrament, yes. Depending on the jurisdiction you'll probably find that the law allows marriage to be celebrated as a religious sacrament, it doesn't require it to be celebrated as a religious sacrament.

But if marriage was only a religious sacrament then it would have no legal basis, a bit like Holy Communion.

religious sacrments do not need the ok of the law. laws can be changed and manipulated to fit political agendas, the history of the religious rite of marraige is thousands of years old.

Religious sacraments shouldn't - if they are solely religious sacraments - require the approval of secular law, well as long as they don't breach secular laws. Do you agree with that?

Laws are changed all the time and in a liberal democracy they're changed in public, via the legislative process. If they weren't society would grind to a halt.

The history of marriage is interesting. It was a legal arrangement before it took on a religious hue.

Marriage is a religious rite and quite truthfully the government has no business being involved in its promotion. Why is the government involved? Well, one because it is good for society and two because it is another way for government to tax us. That is right, the fees you pay to get that marriage license is a tax.

There is no reason that the government can not promote "family values" and collect those taxes without interfering or promoting a religious rite. If the benefits of "marriage" were not granted to couples who were only married in the church (grandfathered marriages excluded) but required a civil union for all couples straight and gay this would be accomplished. Basically the marriage license issued by the state is nothing more than a civil contract. In today's society, a person need not be married by the church, nor is it blessed by the church if it is simply a "courtroom wedding". So, why do we have to insist that this be called a "marriage"? Why can't these kind of arrangements be called "civil unions"? Why can't a religious couple "buy" the societal benefits of a civil union AND be married by the church which offers none of those benefits yet blesses the marriage?

Along with that, there would be no reason that a gay couple could not go to a church that condones homosexual relationships and get "married".

What it means is this.

Marriage, after all, isn't a sacrament, it's a legal arrangement.

Or it means that Mr Manchester no longer has his Catholic faith.

But could mean that Mr Manchester still has his Catholic faith, just not all of it, he's ditched the bit about marriage being a sacrament.

Mr Manchester could also be a hypocrite.

Your choice.

I disagree with you here and it seems to me that everyone is missing a piece of the puzzle here. It seems that everyone assumes that Mr. Manchester chose to leave his wife. After reading the OP, and maybe I missed something, I don't know for sure that Mr. Manchester is the one that began the divorce proceedings and that it was not his wife who started all of this. Maybe she fell in love with someone else and threw him out despite his love for her? I don't know how it happened, but, maybe it was not his choice. Nor is there evidence that Mrs. Manchester held Mr. Manchester's beliefs on the Sanctity of Marriage.

And, with ALL that said, it is true, that to some the Sanctity of Marriage means that marriage is between one man and one woman. To some, it may not mean that a particular marriage is sacred and cannot be broken by divorce. Just because I believe that marriage is for life, doesn't mean my wife does, although it appears to me that she does, but it doesn't mean that just because Mr. Manchester believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, as I do, doesn't mean that he believes that marriage is eternal or at least lifelong.

Immie

 

[Diuretic]

I think you might find that religious sacraments won't get away with breaches of secular law.

yeah, and thats is the reasoning behind writing civil laws that attempt to manipulate religious sacraments. keep your state out of my religion. Sacraments that do not violate natural law are not subject to civil authority.



democracy is mob rule, the US is a Federal Republic



and not by the state.

And as for my worldview - I try and understands things as best I can.

try a little harder

Natural law has given way to positive law.

The US is a federal republic for sure. Now, how do the members of the legislature get their jobs?

 

[Diuretic]

Been married since Aug 10 1983, and you?

You have me beat by one year and one day: August 11, 1984.

Religious sacraments shouldn't - if they are solely religious sacraments - require the approval of secular law, well as long as they don't breach secular laws. Do you agree with that?

Laws are changed all the time and in a liberal democracy they're changed in public, via the legislative process. If they weren't society would grind to a halt.

The history of marriage is interesting. It was a legal arrangement before it took on a religious hue.

Marriage is a religious rite and quite truthfully the government has no business being involved in its promotion. Why is the government involved? Well, one because it is good for society and two because it is another way for government to tax us. That is right, the fees you pay to get that marriage license is a tax.

There is no reason that the government can not promote "family values" and collect those taxes without interfering or promoting a religious rite. If the benefits of "marriage" were not granted to couples who were only married in the church (grandfathered marriages excluded) but required a civil union for all couples straight and gay this would be accomplished. Basically the marriage license issued by the state is nothing more than a civil contract. In today's society, a person need not be married by the church, nor is it blessed by the church if it is simply a "courtroom wedding". So, why do we have to insist that this be called a "marriage"? Why can't these kind of arrangements be called "civil unions"? Why can't a religious couple "buy" the societal benefits of a civil union AND be married by the church which offers none of those benefits yet blesses the marriage?

Along with that, there would be no reason that a gay couple could not go to a church that condones homosexual relationships and get "married".

What it means is this.

Marriage, after all, isn't a sacrament, it's a legal arrangement.

Or it means that Mr Manchester no longer has his Catholic faith.

But could mean that Mr Manchester still has his Catholic faith, just not all of it, he's ditched the bit about marriage being a sacrament.

Mr Manchester could also be a hypocrite.

Your choice.

I disagree with you here and it seems to me that everyone is missing a piece of the puzzle here. It seems that everyone assumes that Mr. Manchester chose to leave his wife. After reading the OP, and maybe I missed something, I don't know for sure that Mr. Manchester is the one that began the divorce proceedings and that it was not his wife who started all of this. Maybe she fell in love with someone else and threw him out despite his love for her? I don't know how it happened, but, maybe it was not his choice. Nor is there evidence that Mrs. Manchester held Mr. Manchester's beliefs on the Sanctity of Marriage.

And, with ALL that said, it is true, that to some the Sanctity of Marriage means that marriage is between one man and one woman. To some, it may not mean that a particular marriage is sacred and cannot be broken by divorce. Just because I believe that marriage is for life, doesn't mean my wife does, although it appears to me that she does, but it doesn't mean that just because Mr. Manchester believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, as I do, doesn't mean that he believes that marriage is eternal or at least lifelong.

Immie

Immie, marriage is whatever a society says it is. It's a human invention.

 

[Fatality]

Natural law has given way to positive law.

natural law gives way to nothing.

The US is a federal republic for sure. Now, how do the members of the legislature get their jobs?

they let maniacs like you into voting booths. you just learning this?

 

[Diuretic]

Natural law has given way to positive law.

natural law gives way to nothing.

The US is a federal republic for sure. Now, how do the members of the legislature get their jobs?

they let maniacs like you into voting booths. you just learning this?

Natural law gave way years ago.

Again, how do members of the legislature get their jobs?

 

[Fatality]

Natural law gave way years ago.

not, natural law is a universal constant.

 

[Diuretic]

Natural law gave way years ago.

not, natural law is a universal constant.

Universal? A Macedonian invented it and the idea spread from ancient Greece and, via some diversions, to what we now call "the West". So I think I'd have to disagree with the idea of it being universal, at least in the sense of it being acknowledge by humanity in general.

It did give us the common law though so it has some effect even today but if you want bang for your buck go with positive law, that's the one that's pretty much influential in the common law jurisdictions nowadays.

 

[Fatality]

Natural law gave way years ago.

not, natural law is a universal constant.

Universal? A Macedonian invented it and the idea spread from ancient Greece and, via some diversions, to what we now call "the West". So I think I'd have to disagree with the idea of it being universal, at least in the sense of it being acknowledge by humanity in general.

natural law was not invented, it is observable fact, it was realized.

It did give us the common law though so it has some effect even today but if you want bang for your buck go with positive law, that's the one that's pretty much influential in the common law jurisdictions nowadays.

blah blah blah

 

[Diuretic]

Okay, natural law was always there, it just had to be realised. Right. Is it sort of like gravity then?

 

[Harry Dresden]

What it means is this.

Marriage, after all, isn't a sacrament, it's a legal arrangement.

Or it means that Mr Manchester no longer has his Catholic faith.

But could mean that Mr Manchester still has his Catholic faith, just not all of it, he's ditched the bit about marriage being a sacrament.

Mr Manchester could also be a hypocrite.

Your choice.

could it also mean that 2 people could not tolerate each other anymore?.....it has nothing to do with Prop 8....

 

[Diuretic]

What it means is this.

Marriage, after all, isn't a sacrament, it's a legal arrangement.

Or it means that Mr Manchester no longer has his Catholic faith.

But could mean that Mr Manchester still has his Catholic faith, just not all of it, he's ditched the bit about marriage being a sacrament.

Mr Manchester could also be a hypocrite.

Your choice.

could it also mean that 2 people could not tolerate each other anymore?.....it has nothing to do with Prop 8....

It could mean that one couldn't tolerate another Harry or yes, it could mean a mutual agreement that they needed to separate. However it would seem that if there was mutuality it was allegedly disrupted by Mr. M. But then that's between he and Mrs M. so I should zip the lip.

On Prop 8. As I understand it the idea was to deny the right to a legal arrangement of marriage to persons of the same sex in California. Mr M. was a strong proponent. The link might be in some sort of irony.