Sentences with phrase «civil marriage laws»

During his time in the legislature, Brian has sponsored legislation and worked with colleagues to extend and strengthen tenant protections; increase New York's commitment to cleaner more sustainable energy sources and greater efficiency; prevent people from being exposed to toxic chemicals; increase the minimum wage; ensure equality in civil marriage laws; strengthen laws intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands; and promote cleaner, fairer elections by modernizing voting and closing loopholes in campaign finance laws.

[1] The restoration of the civil marriage laws may have been one of those gems.

Civil marriage laws offers some protection against that which contributes to social stability; but have no power to affect a healthy spousal relationship.

Not exact matches

Individuals in other arrangements, such as civil unions, registered domestic partnerships, or other similar arrangements, that aren't recognized as a valid marriage under relevant state law won't be treated as married or as spouses as defined in this policy for federal tax purposes.

However, individuals in other arrangements, such as civil unions, registered domestic partnerships, or other similar arrangements, that are not recognized as marriage under the relevant state law, will not be treated as married or as spouses as defined in this policy for federal tax purposes.

Gay Marriage will soon be law as it is a civil right, even if Obama says it isn't.

Marriage equality ensures all citizens enjoy equal civil rights under Law.

Ragansteve, And in those hundred years, we have seen women obtain the vote, the end of child labor, the end of Jim Crow laws, civil rights for blacks, the end of segregation, the end of the prohibition of mixed race marriages, and the list goes on and on.

Last month, in the span of two weeks, American millennial Catholics had to confront two of the most important issues facing our generation: the protection of the natural world and the redefinition of marriage in civil law.

Considering the fact that a majority of Americans support change in law to allow for gay marriages, civil unions, etc., I would say that Driscoll's supporters are «small but loud».

The political right is moving back toward individual economic rights, and the younger generations are moving toward individual civil rights like being against substance and gay marriage laws.

«Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civilCivil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civilcivil right and a matter of civilcivil law.

[6] «There is no legal requirement for a ceremony to make a civil marriage legal, and the law on civil partnerships (available from 5th December this year) mirrors civil marriage.

due to some crazy religious beliefs out there in the world i.e. marrying off young children and marrying genetic kin, the government can't ever allow religion to dictate marriage policy, so have your ceremonies and deny same - gender couples to marry in your church but bluntly stated your crying and foot - stomping will accomplish nothing, marriage isn't a religious thing it is a civil rights and equality thing, thus if the religious win by denying same gender cuples their civil rights to equal treatment under the law, then don't be surprised when others use those same grounds to deny you your rights under the law.

If the union meets the requirements under the law, they can be eligible for recognition as a civil marriage.

Calvin, who extensively influenced the city of Geneva's marriage law in both church and civil courts and subsequently the shape of marriage in Calvinist countries throughout the world, is not mentioned.

In other words, civil marriage is not a purely human construct, which we can change at will, as we might the traffic laws; it is not a matter of positive law.

They also have a hard time with not endorsing gay marriage and will lie and say that civil unions do nt provide them the same protection which is a lie and some states do in fact have these laws on the books.

Marriage may have a religious component to the religious, but as far as the law goes, it's a civil issue.

The survey has been released as the first Scottish couple changes their civil partnership into a marriage after a change in the law.

For example, two priests in Saltillo in 1882 argued that the law requiring priests to get proof of civil registry of birth or marriage before performing Christian baptism or marriage violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

Is America now more morally sensitive, more well structured in its laws and practices insofar as it accepts publicly avowed homosexual behavior; constructs laws that protect homosexuals from the criminal penalties formally attached to homosexual acts; and allows for civil unions or even gay marriages?

In so far as that is the dominant view of law in America, «gay marriage» says nothing about the morality of homosexuality one way or the other, it simply guarantees that all «domestic partnerships» (an alternative term considered for «civil unions») are treated equally.

''» will, inevitably, be used to punish religious bodies that do not recognize any such thing as same - sex «marriage»: by taking away their tax - exempt status, denying their ministers the legal capacity to act as witnesses of marriage under civil law, or both.

«There is genocide again in Europe [No there isn't, unless one debases the term to mean perennial ethnic and religious conflicts]; there is economic inequality at home [There always will be; the question is whether there is greater economic opportunity]; civil rights are not assured for all Americans [Sullivan's particular campaign is for same - sex marriage]; civil liberties have had a terrible decade [I'm not sure what he means; perhaps new and intrusive antiterrorist laws in the Clinton era]; the racial question remains and festers [Undoubtedly true, although it is currently festering below fever level].»

But I also believe that social justice is important given the systemic disadvantages in our country; heterosexual divorce is probably more detrimental than gay marriage; caring for the poor goes a long way toward reducing the «felt need» for abortion; and that setting Biblical morality up as civil law is probably not the way to go in a pluralistic society...

The pledge argues for a voluntary withdrawal from the civil side of marriage as same - sex marriage increasingly becomes the law of the land.

And as such, because of the implications of marriage as a tradition crossing into the realm of civil law, it is also being seen as conflicted with the ideals outlined for separation of church and state.

Whether you enact a thousand laws banning Gay Marriage, civil unions, domestic partnershps, etc, we'll still form our households, our families.

But as more states pass civil - union and same - sex marriage laws, he acknowledges a need for gay - marriage...

If there is an inherent «right to marriage» for same - sex couples, religious groups that refuse to marry gay couples are violating their civil rights, which in turn could lead to a repeal of the churches» tax exempt status» or a complete overturn in our law and culture of the religious understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The clandestinely married did have the same civil - law rights as the licitly married — whatever that happened to entail in a given legal regime — but that was because the state recognized the capacity of the Church to arbitrate questions of contracting marriage.

In the Roman case, Coontz isn't entirely wrong in calling it a contract, insofar as marriage law would more often than not be adjudicated in the civil courts just like a contract law.

Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form of the Christian religion in which it is possible to be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil law should prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church; that moral laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.»

In a series of big changes to marriage law, opposite sex couples could be allowed civil partnerships... More

It was divided into six main sections, dealing with agriculture; with prayer; with the Sabbath festivals, fasts, and holidays; with phases of family life such as marriage, divorce, children, etc.; with civil and criminal law; and with matters of ritual cleanliness or purity.

Churches have no problem with divorce / remarriage, which is specifically condemned in the bible, yet still want to force biblical doctrine into civil law when it comes to same sex marriage.

She is not the first to question that; earlier this year, I read an intriguing essay by legal scholar Katherine Franke in the anthology, Marriage at the Crossroads Law, Policy, and the Brave New World of Twenty - First - Century Families, comparing the experience of African - American slaves who, once freed after the Civil War, also became free to marry — but «free» is a relative word.

Advocates and Cuomo have contended all along that the same - sex marriage bill is a civil matter and that enough protections are already enshrined in the Human Rights Law.

The retention of the civil law of marriage for the Church in Wales was not a product of the Church in Wales Act 1914, which designated Church in Wales churches as places of worship, like other non-established churches, where marriages could be solemnized and designated its clergy as persons who could be authorised to solemnize them.

However, even though the ECtHR found that the couple in the case was entitled to protection of their «family life» under applicable law, it refused to force the state to offer same - sex civil marriage.

Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract.

And as John H has blogged herehttp: / / curlewriver.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/redefining-marriage/ under English law marriage is more than a civil contract.

The Equal Love campaign was dedicated to full equality in civil marriage and civil partnership law.

My preferred option would be to keep the traditional definition of the word «marriage» because of its place in our law and history, but make it clear that civil partnerships, though different, are totally equal.

While civil partnerships were established nationwide, marriage law is a devolved matter in the United Kingdom and therefore the legislative procedure of same - sex marriage differs by jurisdiction.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) welcomed the withdrawing of the motion but commented that the law in relation to civil partnerships and marriage remains «far from equal» and called for further reform.

But State Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who has co-sponsored the same - sex marriage bill in past years, said civil liability for violating discrimination laws was already a fact of life.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights — with its attention - getting political odd couple of conservative Republican lawyer Theodore Olson and liberal Democrat David Boies — will announce Monday it is joining a lawsuit against what the lawyers called Virginia's «draconian» laws prohibiting same - sex marriages, the recognition of such marriages performed where they are legal, and civil unions.

As of June 1st, Illinois's marriage equality law went into effect, and we went to officially convert our civil union to a marriage.