the Massachusettes court decision/a question

[kayanne]

Now that Massachusettes has legalized gay "marriage" (sorry, I have to put it in quotes; it is not a marriage in the eyes of God), will other states have to recognize those "marriages"? If so, then isn't it pretty much like our whole country has legalized gay "marriage"?

Or perhaps in other states they will not be considered "married." Does anyone know for sure? I have been surprised that this has not been addressed in our newspaper stories about the court decision.

 

[KristiXP]

I don't think it will spread to other states unless the government of those state makes it so. Isn't there a state where you can have more than 1 spouse? I think there is, and that hasn't become a universal thing in the U.S.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

That is probally Utah KristiXp! But I am not sure.
I think that its a discrace to this country. Can you IMAGINE the health insurance rates in Mass will be like. I am wonding if the health insurance companies will HAVE to insure the couple because they are concidered spouses in that state. I cannot imagine what will happen to heath care if this law gets passed in other states. Lord help us and please come soon Lord AMEN!
GEL

 

[Cright]

There are no states that allow more than 1 spouce, although unlawfully it was once quite popular in Utah.
As far as I understand (still doing research) the state constituation in Mass says this is legal. And there IS some loophole that would force other states to reconise the same-sex "marriages" in other states.
Bush is working on better clairifying the US constitution to further show that those marriages don't exist and are illegal which would over rule all states on the matter, including Mass.
However, Gay Civil Union's are next in line.. and I don't think Bush (or anyone) can do much to stop that. (ugh!).
I encourage everyone to write their state representatives and let them know your feelings on the issue. Reps generally want to do what the majority of their supporters want them to do, so this really does make a HUGE difference. If you don't know who your state rep is, it's easy to find out by doing a google seach. example: Ohio State Representative. or whatever your state is... many times you can find an email address.. so you don't even have to snail mail!

I really wish this issue I never had to see addressed in my lifetime.. I think it's horrid!

 

[Eusebios]

Marraige licences, not unlike driver's licences, etc. are in fact "portable". My Ohio drivers license allows me to drive in Indiana, Illinois or wherever and entitles me to all the rights and priveledges granted to drivers in those states. My own marriage license, issued in Illinois is valid and entitles me to all the rights enjoyed by those people in my new home state of Ohio. It is a principal as old as the Constitution itself and it has been upheld on many occasions by the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is why, I believe that marriage need to be the sole purview of the Church, though in our society, structured as it is, this would be a most difficult proposition. We have a 200 plus year history of "civil" marriage services, this would be most difficult to undue. It is indeed a deep crisis, and the Church must find the necessary intestinal fortitude to resist it. However, from a purely legal standpoint, gay marriage is indeed a lock.
I know that Crazy Liz, here in the Baptist/Anabaptist forum, is also most concerned about this subject and would greatly like input from the anabaptist theological tradition on the appropraite response.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

 

[P_G]

No they do not have to recognize the sodomite union. NY has already said it will not recognize these abominations and also there are no rights granted on the federal level.

One state cannot impose it's laws on another state. So if a state has defined marriage as 1 man with 1 woman that is what it is. A more common inturpertation of this kind of law is where a state will allow (many times with parental consent) the marriage of a very young person (15 - 16 years old) if the spouse of that person is of age (over 18) and the couple moves to a state that has statutory rape laws the spouse who is of age can and has been charged with statutory rape.

We are in a terrible spiral. Beware of firey chunks of brimstone headed towards Concord and Boston (That will be a shot heard round the world!)

Before I go
Riddle me this

Why would G-d bless America?



Pastor George

 

[Crazy Liz]

There actually is another thread where we have had some discussion on how Baptist and Anabaptist theology should speak to the government about this issue. I encourage you to read it. I only got one response (Thank you, Seebs) to my request for a rationale based on Baptist/Anabaptist/Quaker/Free Church Protestant theology. I still hope some others will try to post one.

As far as the legal question, that one's very complicated. Actually, it's one of the major topics of a book I'm writing right now. Family law in the US is changing so fast (and has been for 35 years) that it's very hard to predict how this is going to shake out. Politically, I've been amused at how the Democrats have been trotting out "states rights" as their preferred solution. As just about everyone reading this thread can probably tell, Americans are so mobile a state-by-state solution will definitely cause a lot of chaos.

The gay issue aside, the current system of 50 ever-changing systems of family law has served to destabilize the American family incredibly. Still, I don't think a Federal or uniform family code is going to solve the problem. I think Eusebios, Seebs and a few others have argued that the church alone should regulate marriage. I see the possibility of churches and other groups (including gay and lesbian groups) regulating marriage and family issues within their own communities as the most promising (although possibly interim) hope of legally stabilizing US families in the next generation. I would be interested in hearing any of your thoughts about this.

 

[thirsty]

Now that Massachusettes has legalized gay "marriage" (sorry, I have to put it in quotes; it is not a marriage in the eyes of God), will other states have to recognize those "marriages"? If so, then isn't it pretty much like our whole country has legalized gay "marriage"?

Or perhaps in other states they will not be considered "married." Does anyone know for sure? I have been surprised that this has not been addressed in our newspaper stories about the court decision.

It is reassuring to read here support for the marriage as God intended it to be. I was on an other thread discussing whether homsexuality is a sin in this forum and was a minority. I can not believe how people can say that homosexuality is blessed by God, the scriptures are quite clear.
Here in Canada the Province of Ontario legalized same sex marriage with pressure from gay rights groups for other provinces to do so.
There is also a Bill before our government to make literature against gays a hate crime and that also includes the Bible.
There is a darkness coming to this world. Come Lord Jesus Come

 

[seebs]

The legal question is a very complicated one; the most similar case would be Loving v. Virginia, which involved a legally invalid marriage in Virginia which was performed in another state.

I am personally seeing this as a clear indication that we should be working aggressively to create a clear barrier and distinction between civil "marriage" and any kind of church or sacramental concept of marriage. This would provide us with insulation against having churches asked to accept relationships they don't approve of as "marriage". If the cost of having my church free to reject as invalid marriages we don't accept, is that we must allow other churches to accept those marriages (or risk them rejecting ones we accept), well, that's fine by me. I would rather have the freedom to follow my conscience than risk losing that freedom in a pointless attempt to constrain others.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Seebs, I'm leaning the same way, but the approach needs to be refined. If we take a look at how the Jewish community is dealing with the agunah problem (the problem of women who are divorced legally, but not religiously, and are therefore not allowed to remarry), we can anticipate some of the kinds of problems that can arise when Christians follow this approach and try to develop structures to prevent them.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't know whether I should start a new thread, but I'd like to propose a hypothetical and ask how your churches would handle it. Give me your thoughts.

Sally and Sonia have been legally married to each other for 10 years, and are raising two children together, Bill, age 6, and Jill, age 3. Both women are the legal parents of both children. They become Christians and want to join your church. What should your church do?