Comments on: The Right Tries and Fails to turn Marriage Into a Religious Institution

By: A Walkaway

A Walkaway — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:13:36 +0000

They won’t arrest everyone involved, but the officiant will have problems.

It’s considered one of the quicker ways to loose one’s license (according to at least one minister I know).

I’m not exaggerating… and I’d suggest that you go back and read some of my other posts. They may SEEM like I am exaggerating, but in some cases I can provide proof (such as pictures of my torched workshop, and pictures of racist graffiti in front of our mailbox).

I don’t have to lie or exaggerate and I don’t – I don’t have to!

Yes, this state and county are really that bad.

What do you think? 0 0

By: A Walkaway

A Walkaway — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:09:29 +0000

Uhh… I hope you aren’t trying to claim Jefferson for the UCC. If there is any church he accepted, it was the Unitarians.

As far as the Pilgrims and the Puritans, I have a different history than that taught in American schools… a history, btw, which is often backed up by science.

They weren’t nice people and should be held in the disrespect they richly deserve.

What do you think? 0 0

By: CatDeville

CatDeville — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:41:52 +0000

Please fix your article. In paragraph 2 you attribute the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli to George Washington. One sentence latter, in the opening sentence of paragraph 3, you attribute it to John Adams. The second attribute (Adams) is correct. There’s only one Treaty of Tripoli, and Washington wasn’t involved in it. ~ Regards.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:40:09 +0000

I think you’re overstating things just a bit. Churches are free to bless anything they want, including quasi-marriage commitments, without secrecy. It’s not as if the police are going to come in and arrest people involved in such a ceremony. It’s just that the state won’t recognize the validity of it. Plenty of UCC churches in states without marriage equality do this. Trouble is more likely to come from relgious authorities in denominations that do not favor marriage equality.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:35:07 +0000

There are non-UCC congregationalists to be sure, but relatively few and to be fair even UCCers don’t all agree with each other or with the denomination’s official positions. The beauty of the UCC is we are not required to march in lockstep. I will stand by the Puritan heritage however, just as I am a proud American without endorsing everything the USA has done in it’s history. Puritanism has definitely evolved and I am certainly not suggesting that the original MA colonists would have had enlightened views on homosexuality while they were still hanging accused witches and running out of town anyone they deemed a heretic. The point on which I will absolutely defend Puritanism is that they believed in an educated populace and especially clergy, that all can and should be able to read the Bible for themselves and to apply reason to theology and other aspects of their lives. As unscientific as it sounds today they were even pretty scrupulous about finding “evidence” as they understood it for witchcraft. Even if we don’t like their conclusions they set us on the path of enlightenment that ultimately resulted in more progressive values. This I believe is why Congregationalism ranks near the top of highly educated denominations and MA has always been a leader in public education. Think of it this way. Thomas Jefferson wrote the bulk of the Declaration of Independence with its eloquent defense of the idea that all men are created equal, yet he owned slaves. So while the founding generation hardly perfected their own ideals in this regard they pointed the way for future generations. I submit that the Puritans did likewise and as such made a positive contribution to our history.

What do you think? 0 0