Text 8947, 82 rader
Skriven 2005-02-10 15:05:00 av THURSTON ACKERMAN (1:10/345)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: RE: Proud Democrat
==========================
JH>08 Feb 05 00:05, THURSTON ACKERMAN wrote to JOHN HULL:

JH> ->>snipped<-
->snipped<-

JH> VH>>TA>Marriage is a matter of contract law; not of religion of course.
                    ^^
JH> VH>>TA>If one breaks the law,one must expect to pay a penalty for
JH> VH>>TA>such illegalities.

JH> TA> Please note I was useing the present tense. The various
JH> TA> commentaries did prompt me to refreash my ageing memory
JH> TA> by visiting:

JH> TA>   www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html

JH> TA> Which starts its legal observations: "In English law tradition....
JH> TA> a marriage was a contract based on a voluntary private agreement
JH> TA> by a man and a woman to become husband and wife...."; and much
JH> TA> more legalize you may also appreciate when you visit the site.

JH> TA> Massachusetts Title III, Chap. 207, Sec. 38, establishs who may
JH> TA> be authorized to solemize a marriage in the Commonwealth I am in.

JH> TA> There are citations for every other jusidiction in the USA you
JH> TA> may wish to familarize yourself with.

JH> VH>>There's a slick way of justifying suppression of civil rights!

JH> TA> My kid brother lawyer (who spent a few decades in the USA Justis
JH> TA> Dept. (before being forced retirement during the Nixon misdeeds
JH> TA> severl years ago 8-( has taught me to never apply slick ways to
JH> TA> civil rights!

JH> VH>>Are you saying the Catholic Church, for example, must accept
JH> VH>>divorce and remarriage?

JH> TA> The Catholic Church can not prevent a divorce of a couple (whether
JH> TA> or  not they may have participated in the initial somelization
JH> TA> of a given legal marriage contract or not); but the priest or
JH> TA> deacon may not  be  forced to solemize a marriage they may
JH> TA> object to (as they did in the case of my grandson and his
JH> TA> Catholic baptized bride last Oct. 16th  because he had not been
JH TA> baptized a Roman Catholic; so their marriage was solemized by a
JH> TA> woman minister in her father's Methodist Church  8-(

JH> TA> Or are troops to be used to force the Catholics to change
JH> VH>>their doctrine?

JH> TA> Fortuanately our troops are fully occupied surpressing Islamic
JH> TA> facists  at the moment in Iraq, where our Constitution does not
JH> TA> prevent same.

JH> TA> I shall be quite busy the next few days celebrating the win of our
JH> TA> New England Patriots National Football League Championship again
JH> TA> for  this year; so I am sure your will comprehend why I probably
JH> TA> won't be available for future discussions regarding marriage
JH> TA> (and I will then be busy celebrating my own 63 wedding
JH> TA> anniversity in a couple JH> TA> weeks 8-!

JH>Doesn't alter the fact that it was a religious ritual long before it became
JH>civil contract.  Even in cases where there was no priest (religious function
JH>if you prefer), it was still carried out between the man and the woman
JH>according to religious custom.

It also has been a religious ritual to offer up burned animals,
and/or our first born, as sacramentalism to God in the past; but
most of us have learned better with the passage of time.

I have been a Senior Deacon for more than 25 years in my United
Congregational Church of Jesus Christ (and previously have been
Supt. of the Church Sunday School and have sat as Moderator and
Clerk) so I don't need prompting of the religious rites we have
inherited from our ancestors. Fortunately we live in a free country
so one is at liberty to believe in what ever mythologies one values
most.

Ciao, Ack.

---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ He has a clear mind-not cluttered up with facts.
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)