Sentences with phrase «civil marriage as»

«Based on the success of civil partnerships, Ireland is rapidly evolving to supporting civil marriage as the next step for lesbian and gay couples.»

Civil marriage as a trial marriage gains more popularity in Russia of today.

Remember Justice Kennedy's astonishing words in Lawrence v. Texas about the word liberty in our Constitution, the words which will serve to justify the emerging right to same - sex marriage and even the deconstruction of civil marriage itself as an oppressive constraint on the individual:

If this is merely a question of the «definition» of marriage in a semantic sense, I see civil marriage as a different animal than holy matrimony.

Not exact matches

The same argument was used by southern states to defend segregation during the Civil Rights Era, but state's rights factor into issues as diverse as same sex marriage and speed limits.

In September, 2003, Harper said characterizing gay marriage as a civil - rights issue was «disgusting.»

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.

Don't see gay marriage as a civil rights violation.

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

Don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue.

He has stated that the government (as in some European nations) should only grant civil unions (to gay * and * straight couples) and that marriage should be left up to the churches.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties.

Were religious people promoting peace when they voted down gay marriage (a civil rights issue, opponents of which will be viewed in the same light as the opponents against civil rights in the 50s and 60s) You are just so comfortable in the majority, you can't see the prejudice and bias you put on people that aren't like you.

As more states embrace marriage equality and civil rights for LGBT people, how do you think the conversation regarding their inclusion in the church will change?

It is for these reasons that civilised states, in recognising the foundational place of the family, have made the public, life - long commitment of marriage as a civil institution.

Bishop Mark will also express concern that the Government may «further undermine» marriage as it considers proposals to reform marriage registration for the first time since 1837, including a right of heterosexuals to register relationships as civil partnerships instead of marriages.

The Civil Partnership Act, passed in November 2004, raised homosexual relationships to the same status as marriage by granting the same rights to couples entering a civil partnership as to spouses entering marrCivil Partnership Act, passed in November 2004, raised homosexual relationships to the same status as marriage by granting the same rights to couples entering a civil partnership as to spouses entering marrcivil partnership as to spouses entering marriage.

Civil partnerships celebrated widely as marriage.

He has co-written articles and a Supreme Court brief (with Douglas Laycock) on how government can protect religious liberty as well as same - sex civil marriage.

The signatories declared themselves to be in solidarity in their unequivocal support of the dignity and right to life of every human person, marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and the foundation of civil society, and religious liberty as an essential component of human freedom.

Gay marriage is NOT wrong, they deserve to have the same civil rights as straight couples.

Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right.

If we believe marriage is a sacrament, then all marriages performed outside the church are civil marriages, and however the state defines marriage can have absolutely no bearing on its sanctity as far as the church is concerned

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

Civil unions (providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name) are better, because a «separate but equal» institution is always constitutional.

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.

While I personally think gays should have civil rights and be lawfully recognized as domestic partners, I wonder what impact this will have on traditional marriage.

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.

When the constitution of 1917 was drafted, therefore, «Catholic» representation was nonexistent, and the resulting document not only repeated earlier material restrictions on the Church (such as government ownership of all church property, civil registry of priests, and making marriage a civil matter) but also got in a symbolic lick or two (for example, religious garb was not to be worn in public; worship was to be only an indoor affair; alien priests were forbidden; and no religious labels were allowed for political parties).

Should gay folks have the exact same civil rights as straight folks, including marriage?

I want it to have the same rights as modern, egalitarian, civil hetero marriage, which is by no means as «traditional» as you think it is.

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?

Further, reducing all marriages to civil unions by recognizing marriages as business contracts removes the argument from debate by recognizing equality for all regardless of their beliefs.

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.

Marriage is certainly viewed as a basic civil right among heterosexual couples, and President Obama believes that same right extends to gay and lesbian couples.

''» 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.

I am against calling their relationship a marriage, or so I thought because why not call it a civil union for legality purposes, as the argument for it goes?

tradition hard to break.the tradition of marriage is older and more meaningful than any other we know it crosses all religions and non religions, and races and cultures.it won't change easy.calling it something else for some people may make it easier to change.but what about those people who want that time tested tradition for themselves for their own self worth.it is a civil right give it to them today.this issues has divided my community as much as any other, but as we have fought to gain right after right, we have lost sight that all deserve the right of freedom of happiness.No gayness here, just can't fight the battle to keep someone down after being held down

(Because someone is bound to ask, I've made it pretty clear in the past that I support gay marriage as a civil right, and would hold this position regardless of whether I believed such marriages should be blessed by my church.)

If marriage and civil partnerships are all about commitment, as David Cameron insists, then there is no difference, apart from the sexual aspect, between the relationship of a same - sex couples and that of equally loving, cohabiting sisters.

«If we unwind civil and religious marriage as a way to solve the conflict in legal and religious understandings, we will have reduced that couple to mere cohabitants, with crappy remedies if the couple breaks up,» she said.

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...

Did not Jacques Derrida, the master of postmodern deconstructionism, propose in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, shortly before his death in 2004, the elimination of the word «marriage» from the French civil code so as to resolve the issue of the juridical status of homosexual couples?

Next spring, the government will begin a consultation on introducing what is often referred to as «full marriage equality», that is to say legislating to allow two men and two women as well as one man and one woman to form a civil marriage contract.

This conflict often operates in the alcoholic's marital relationship, where he will marry a dominant, mothering woman (who protects him to an absurd degree) and then so resent the dependency as to turn the marriage into a civil war.

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

For now, by registering gospel - qualified unions as civil marriages and not officiating at unions that are not gospel - qualified, we call the government to its responsibility even as we call attention to its limits.»

I prefer «civil union» to «marriage» as a term, but that's just semantics.