Sentences with phrase «marriage as a civil rights»

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

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

(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.)

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 lRights Era, but state's rights factor into issues as diverse as same sex marriage and speed lrights 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.»

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, marriage was defined as a civil right.

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:

That makes them a legitimate sociological subgrouping who should have access to the same civil rights, including civil marriage, as anyone else.

However, with that said, Gay Marriage is a Civil Right, as well as a Religious Rite.

In this quote from a wedding couple in 1855, we see that the church had no problem blessing a legal marriage that was considered by many — including this couple — as a violation of the woman's dignity and civil rights:

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.

After ritually assuring us of same - sex marriage's inevitable triumph as a civil right, and noting the predictable criticism of Wuerl's stand from progressive Catholics, the editorial rightly points out that there is precedent for a legal compromise.

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.

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.»

Suffice to say, our President WILL get gun control, health care reform, and gay marriage — all providing civil rights just as President Lincoln would want.

The civil rights debate, such as Gay marriage, there are tons of LGBT and LGBT accepting churches that are in agreement with you and have been pushing for Gay marriage.

«With the civil rights of New Yorkers hanging in the balance, Donovan needs to state publicly: Does he take his cues on intolerance from his mentor and political patron Guy Molinari, or does he stand with principled New Yorkers — and now, thankfully, a federal court — who view marriage equality as a fundamental right?»

I'm not exactly sure what an «estate» is (I know the word is used in the Book of Common Prayer), but the civil part of the «estate» carries with it certain rights and responsibilities; those rights and responsibilities are inherent in religious marriage as well, but there's more, too.

You will find numerous differences in legal rights, from inheritance to access to medical information, presence in hospital ICUs, etc. «Marriage» is a legal, as well as a social contract and its denial based upon sexual orientation is a base violation of civil rights that future generations will condemn.

If you'll remember, a deal between Smith and the «gang of three» (Diaz, Kruger, and Espada) fell apart when Smith decided his moral standing would be reduced by bargaining away civil rights because the deal hinged on same - sex marriage as a bargaining chip.

She support her civil rights for marriage equality but, as mayor, would continue to infringe on the rights of the BLACK & LATINO males that get harassed via S&F.

Ramos» challenge made headlines this year, as he received endorsements from a number of civil and gay rights groups who saw him as a good shot at ousting Diaz, who feircely opposes gay marriage.

The strategy is to divide conservative candidates and moderate voters; framing conservatives as standing on the morally wrong side of the climate change issue; as they have been portrayed in the gay marriage and Civil Rights debates.9 The NextGen campaign applies a master narrative that is adapted to each state, emphasizing that climate change poses a serious threat to the economy, public health, and children, and that if a candidate doesn't believe in climate change, they can't be trusted.

The conservatives (denialists) in a society see themselves as being near the top of the heap, mechanisms that bring about major social changes are likely to be bad for their position, in comparison the liberals (alarmists) see such mechanisms as an opportunity to bring about social change to their advantage, examples of how conservatives fight against such changes can be seen all over the place, from giving women the vote, to civil rights legislation, to gay marriage, etc..

Basically, partners in a civil union have the same rights as spouses in a marriage.

By the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), same - sex couples were provided with a formal mechanism for recognising and giving legal effect to their relationships, and to confer upon them the same rights and obligations as entailed by marriage.

Furthermore, even when «civil contract» terminology is used in statute, it can not drive a wedge between the general and the ecclesiastical law of marriage: a union authorised by law must be recognised equally as a lawful union by the officers and tribunals of the national religion (Thompson v Dibdin [1912] AC 533) except to the extent that parliament limits parishioners» rights in order to protect individual clerical consciences.

Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, same - sex couples essentially have the same legal rights as couples who have entered into a civil marrCivil Partnership Act 2004, same - sex couples essentially have the same legal rights as couples who have entered into a civil marrcivil marriage.

How much real influence do these advocacy and lobby groups have at influencing public policy, such as the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada; the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies; the Institute for Canadian Values, the National House of Prayer, and 4MyCanada, Campaign for Life, the Catholic Civil Rights League, and REAL Women of Canada?

CONAF recognizes that difficulty obtaining vital documents such as birth and marriage certificates is a significant obstacle to accessing public services and claiming basic rights — especially for women and children in rural communities — and will carry out a series of capacity building and educational activities over the course of the next year to improve access to civil registry.

Same sex couples who sign a civil partnership registration document commit themselves to a range of rights and responsibilities which are essentially the same as those associated with marriage.

The Bill would extend this right to someone claiming to be a dependant, even if the deceased did not assume responsibility for their maintenance, and to anyone treated as a child of the family by the deceased even if there was no marriage or civil partnership.

Many Muslim couples do not register their religious marriage, so that on breakdown of the marriage, or the death of one spouse, there is no possibility of obtaining a civil divorce or exercising their rights as a spouse, because they are simply not married, either in life or on death, in the eye of the law.

Civil partners were given virtually identical rights and responsibilities as opposite - sex couples entering into civil marrCivil partners were given virtually identical rights and responsibilities as opposite - sex couples entering into civil marrcivil marriage.

Over the years, Scarinci Hollenbeck attorneys have been involved in pro bono matters relating to important civil rights issues in New Jersey, such as representing the New Jersey State Bar Association as amicus curiae in the marriage equality litigation (Lewis v. Harris), and defending the Anti-School Bullying Act in a challenge before New Jersey's Council on Local Mandates.

courts, and until the time of James I, it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.

Although civil partnership does offer some rights and protections, it is not equality and it does not extend all the same rights to same sex couples as marriage would, including rights...