Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:35:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1831 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
I’m not sure this is how it should be in the US with our legal precident.
If sexual preference is a fully protected non-discrimination item, then
private churches won’t be able to refuse to marry them. Maybe this is what
folks like John are actually fearing.
|
Marital status is a non-discrimination item, but that doesn’t prevent the
Catholic church from refusing to marry a divorced person. They can’t be
required to perform the ceremony if they can’t be required to recognize the
union, and forcing them to do so by law is prohibited by the 1st Amendment.
|
Could they, hypothetically speaking deny marriage to blacks by not recognizing
their legal status or somesuch?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) I'll admit that it's pretty thin, but there is a distinction nonetheless. By refusing to perform same-sex marriages, the Church is not refusing to perform weddings for gays at all. They're just refusing to perform weddings between them. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) Marital status is a non-discrimination item, but that doesn't prevent the Catholic church from refusing to marry a divorced person. They can't be required to perform the ceremony if they can't be required to recognize the union, and forcing (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
