Sentences with phrase «civil marriage for»

Civil Partnership is civil marriage for same - sex couples in all but name.

By their public acts of love and commitment they are laying the foundations for further progress towards civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples» said Rose.

The position of the Equality Authority is that civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples is the full equality solution, but we welcome the Civil Partnership Bill as it will provide immediate legal solutions to the many urgent and pressing problems which gay and lesbian couples face in the absence of legal recognition of their relationships.

Local courts won't recognize my religion in order to process marriage documents for example as I have to undergo religious rituals, there's no civil marriage for citizens.

The consultation will only cover civil marriage for same sex couples and not religious marriage.

«The president made clear that his support is for civil marriage for same - sex couples, and he is fully committed to protecting the ability of religious institutions to make their own decisions about their own sacraments,» the letter said.

Many pastors support civil marriages for same sex couples but would not perform the rite themselves.

Not exact matches

Will the SEC take this opportunity to clarify that same - sex couples in civil unions, domestic partnerships, and similar legal relationships intended to give them at least some of the economic benefits of marriage, are «spouses» to one another, and thus eligible for the alternative accredited investor qualification standard made available to persons who are married (with the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA, it is already clear that persons in same - sex marriages are «spouses» to one another)?

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.

I do have compassion for the glbt community, however, but don't support gay marriage; I think civil unions should have been just fine.

May the Lord bless those who stand for morality of God first, family virtues, and keeping our country free and yes, even civil unions for those of the gay world, but not marriage.

Failing that, he should simply refuse the government's delegation of legal power, referring the couple to the courthouse after the wedding for the state to confect in its bureaucratic way the amorphous and ill - defined civil union that our regime continues to call «marriage.»

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.

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».

With the Latest News now out about the nation's largest Black organization endorsing Gay marriage and calling for an end to the hate and citing the 14th Amendment, Coretta S. King, wife of the very famous Black civil rights leader, would have been immensely happy!

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?

Benham also discusses the fight for North Carolina's Amendment One, which involved a ban on same - sex marriage and civil unions in the state constitution.

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 importance of preparation, for both religious and civil marriage was emphasised.

[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.

The situation is similar for most aspects of human sexuality, including sex before marriage, contraception, homosexuality, cohabitation, civil partnerships and divorce.

However, the General Register Office for Scotland issues guidance to district registrars on the form of civil marriage ceremonies, including a form of words, which registrars follow (except that, at their discretion, they can agree a different wording with the couple).»

One of the hot - button issues for the foreseeable future will be the question of homosexuality in general, and civil unions and gay marriage in particular.

The spiritual realities of marriage, however, called for safekeeping by the civil authorities.

Of course, we will not gain the rights and benefits (or suffer the losses — I have been part of «religious» weddings conducted by churches for elderly couples who did not want to lose retirement benefits if they had a marriage recognized by the state) of a civil marriage.

... Anyone who thinks marriage is something sacred needs to recognize that from the church's perspective all marriages granted by the state for tax and inheritance purposes are just civil unions by another name.

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

Arguments for civil gay marriage are one thing, but someone who claims to walk with the Lord suggesting gay marriage before God the Father?

That should be the only way these unions are eligible for the rights and protections provided to civil marriages.

Many sincerely spiritual persons today are pressing for the church's recognition of their life style, whether that be commune living (singles, marrieds or celibates), single living, gay alliances, celibacy, or trial marriages that might be civil before they are religious.

Not unlike the LDS church which stated Black men could never be leaders, until too much pressure from civil rights forced them to change (the same for plural marriage).

If the movement was for civil unions and not marriage, you would fine more Chritians getting on the bandwagon.

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).

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.

While New England, the Pacific Coast and northern Middle Atlantic states may support full - fledged marriage, comparisons of polling from a decade past to today reveals significant growth in support for same sex marriages and civil unions in those regions.

Meanwhile polling from other regions show that while support for same sex marriages or civil unions have increased across the country, the growth of support is not uniform, with a significantly lower level of support occurring in the Deep South compared to the rest of the country.

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.

«When they began this process with the consultation it was for civil marriage only — and wasn't going to have any religious input at all.

For gay people it is a civil union and it's not called marriage, although some people still call it this way.

Governor Romney has long supported the civil rights of all Americans while still opposing the right for same sex couples to be joined in marriage.

Issues of polygamy and concubinage are conpletely ignored, just for starters, nor is there any recognition that Paul treats marriage the way he treats slavery — in response to a civil insitution that mandates equality.

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

For a few examples: the protection of the unborn, the handicapped, and the dying; parental choice in education; tax and other policies supportive of marriage and the family; the defense of individual merit against quotas and related discriminations; the defense of property, civil, and religious rights against expansivist government control; and the vigorous affirmation of the achievements of Western culture, in opposition to multiculturalist fashions.

«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...