SA Footy

it already has though - you can get married in a civil ceremony without the church anywhere near it

bennymacca wrote:it already has though - you can get married in a civil ceremony without the church anywhere near it

But can a gay couple get married in a civil ceremony?

Will passing a "yes" vote and making it legal for gays to marry force churches to allow them to marry in a church? Or can churches reject them?

MW wrote:

bennymacca wrote:it already has though - you can get married in a civil ceremony without the church anywhere near it

But can a gay couple get married in a civil ceremony?

Will passing a "yes" vote and making it legal for gays to marry force churches to allow them to marry in a church? Or can churches reject them?

Churches will be under no obligation to marry same sex couples.

That's another point I've tried to make before. If it's so important to be legally the same, why not campaign for "civil unions (or whatever you want to call them) besides "marriage".

That'd be a much quicker, easier process. With a lot less opposition.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:

bennymacca wrote:it already has though - you can get married in a civil ceremony without the church anywhere near it

But can a gay couple get married in a civil ceremony?

Will passing a "yes" vote and making it legal for gays to marry force churches to allow them to marry in a church? Or can churches reject them?

Churches will be under no obligation to marry same sex couples.

This is my point.
Like HH3 said, campaign for the right for 'civil union', not marriage. Like it or not, 'marriage' is a religious act.

MW wrote:

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:

bennymacca wrote:it already has though - you can get married in a civil ceremony without the church anywhere near it

But can a gay couple get married in a civil ceremony?

Will passing a "yes" vote and making it legal for gays to marry force churches to allow them to marry in a church? Or can churches reject them?

Churches will be under no obligation to marry same sex couples.

This is my point.
Like HH3 said, campaign for the right for 'civil union', not marriage. Like it or not, 'marriage' is a religious act.

So my wife and I aren't "married" because a priest didn't wed us???

WUB, would you be opposed to the law being passed instantly, and it being called a "civil union" with identical legalities as marriage?

Or does it have to be called "marriage" or nothing?

I got married in a big pub by some old boiler in a pants suit.

MW wrote:

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:

bennymacca wrote:it already has though - you can get married in a civil ceremony without the church anywhere near it

But can a gay couple get married in a civil ceremony?

Will passing a "yes" vote and making it legal for gays to marry force churches to allow them to marry in a church? Or can churches reject them?

Churches will be under no obligation to marry same sex couples.

This is my point.
Like HH3 said, campaign for the right for 'civil union', not marriage. Like it or not, 'marriage' is a religious act.

no it isnt. im married and i dont believe in god, and we werent anywhere near a church.

opposite sex couples can get married without any mention of God, but just try doing it without the permission of the government

edited to add: the argument about marriage being a religious act was lost decades ago (was it the 60's??) when the churches allowed the government in on the act. since then, it has been a contract between two people and the government, nothing more. some couples like to dress it up with religious symbolism, others dont, and neither is wrong.

if we had to have a churches permission to marry, it would be a valid point. but again, that point was conceded decades ago

HH3 wrote:WUB, would you be opposed to the law being passed instantly, and it being called a "civil union" with identical legalities as marriage?

Or does it have to be called "marriage" or nothing?

So, Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs, you can have the same rights as us but you can't call it the same thing?

I'd be pissed too!

HH3 wrote:That's another point I've tried to make before. If it's so important to be legally the same, why not campaign for "civil unions (or whatever you want to call them) besides "marriage".

That'd be a much quicker, easier process. With a lot less opposition.

it wouldnt be actually. amending the current act, is simple. just change the wording back to what it was before Johnny howard changed it. job done.

intorducing a completely new piece of legislation would be much more difficult. that and it would still be treating same sex couples "differently" as they had to have their own legislation, not the same legislation as everyone else

Yes you are married, that's the way it is set up now.
I don't know what the right or wrong set up is, like I said I will be voting yes.
I'm just trying to work out the best way to get around the 'no' voters who are voting 'no' purely on religious beliefs.

MW wrote:Yes you are married, that's the way it is set up now.
I don't know what the right or wrong set up is, like I said I will be voting yes.
I'm just trying to work out the best way to get around the 'no' voters who are voting 'no' purely on religious beliefs.

You won't and that's what has bred the acrimony between the two sides, there's two sides not willing to discuss the "why" it's just the "is".

MW wrote:Yes you are married, that's the way it is set up now.
I don't know what the right or wrong set up is, like I said I will be voting yes.
I'm just trying to work out the best way to get around the 'no' voters who are voting 'no' purely on religious beliefs.

tell them to stop forcing their beliefs onto others. i dont force my beliefs onto them. what makes them think they can do it?

Booney wrote:

HH3 wrote:WUB, would you be opposed to the law being passed instantly, and it being called a "civil union" with identical legalities as marriage?

Or does it have to be called "marriage" or nothing?

So, Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs, you can have the same rights as us but you can't call it the same thing?

I'd be pissed too!

Why?

You'd forego what you're fighting for over a word?

tipper wrote:

MW wrote:Yes you are married, that's the way it is set up now.
I don't know what the right or wrong set up is, like I said I will be voting yes.
I'm just trying to work out the best way to get around the 'no' voters who are voting 'no' purely on religious beliefs.

tell them to stop forcing their beliefs onto others. i dont force my beliefs onto them. what makes them think they can do it?

You're kidding aren't you?
The biggest voice in this whole campaign is how pathetic 'no' voters are.

Definitely voting yes. Hoping former tenants haven't updated details so I can vote yes multiple times.

Disgusting that it's reached the point of a vote. The real gutless, piss weak bigots are the ones in Canberra.

The sooner bullshit religions die out the better off.
Although before they do, I wouldn't mind a vote on whether the pedo protectors should be paying taxes.

MW wrote:

tipper wrote:

MW wrote:Yes you are married, that's the way it is set up now.
I don't know what the right or wrong set up is, like I said I will be voting yes.
I'm just trying to work out the best way to get around the 'no' voters who are voting 'no' purely on religious beliefs.

tell them to stop forcing their beliefs onto others. i dont force my beliefs onto them. what makes them think they can do it?

You're kidding aren't you?
The biggest voice in this whole campaign is how pathetic 'no' voters are.

and how is that forcing their beliefs onto the no side?

I say again, you're kidding aren't you?

MW wrote:I say again, you're kidding aren't you?

no. i dont see any smilies in my post.

how is that forcing their views on the no side?