North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Svartalf]

Well... a campaign against it is one thing... but the question is how in your face they get with it, and more importantly if they pour money into it.

Nuns can be RNs of course, used to be a time when all nurses were actually nuns... only now, a nun could not get hired as a nurse in a public hospital, and a nurse that was caught bringing too much of her religion to the workplace, breaking the laicity requirements, would get fired... that's why my JW aunt always operated in private practice.

As for clergy and politics... they'll make their views on various issues known... I mean, we have papers and mags like the Pilgrim, Catholic Life, or the Cross to make sure of that... but those are strictly private ventures moneywise, and the monsignors are going to be oblique if they want to incite toward certain parties... might refer to how well areas ruled by notorious political people are run, or refer to historical events like Charles Martel's stopping the Saracen invasion, or St Joan of Arc (two of the most notorious historical icons used by a certain party...) but they won't name a candidate or party.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well... a campaign against it is one thing... but the question is how in your face they get with it, and more importantly if they pour money into it.

I would love some link or something to the law on this in your country. I mean -- I doubt the question is "how in your face they get with it." I would think that there are defined rules, so groups know what they can and can't do with some reasonable certainty.

Nuns can be RNs of course, used to be a time when all nurses were actually nuns... only now, a nun could not get hired as a nurse in a public hospital, and a nurse that was caught bringing too much of her religion to the workplace, breaking the laicity requirements, would get fired... that's why my JW aunt always operated in private practice.

As for clergy and politics... they'll make their views on various issues known... I mean, we have papers and mags like the Pilgrim, Catholic Life, or the Cross to make sure of that... but those are strictly private ventures moneywise, and the monsignors are going to be oblique if they want to incite toward certain parties... might refer to how well areas ruled by notorious political people are run, or refer to historical events like Charles Martel's stopping the Saracen invasion, or St Joan of Arc (two of the most notorious historical icons used by a certain party...) but they won't name a candidate or party.

What's a "private venture moneywise" as opposed to whatever would be prohibited?

Naming a candidate or party, that I can believe. But, that's a much brighter line rule than "how in your face" they get. I mean, if you're allowed to publish, broadcast and lobby, then I'm not sure how anyone would determine what is "in your face" and what isn't.

[Traveler]

...I support gay marriage because I find the reasons advanced to oppose it to be weak. My solution to the problem would be for States to eliminate the word marriage from the law altogether, and make everyone considered to be "domestic partners" or "civil unions." Two people -- form a civil union - and then the laws that apply to those unions, including property rights, divorce, tax benefits, fringe benefits, etc. all apply. If you want to call yourself "married" then go to a church, synagogue or temple and be married there, in a purely private affair. If you want to be "married" to 10 people, fine -- but you can only be a "civil union" recognized by the state with one. Problem solved. But, of course, that will never happpen.

Eminently practical. And by the way, a non-religious person could get "married" in your scenario too, though why they'd bother is beyond me. There are plenty of random people who have licenses to minister from the internet and such. My marriage was a civil marriage. Justice of the Peace performed the ceremony. There was no mention of god or religion anywhere by anyone.

And you've addressed the very heart of the issue. Marriage is two things at once, and the primary focus differs depending on the person. There is legal marriage, which affects taxes, care-giving, and other legal rights. And then there is religious marriage, which involves god and such. They are different concepts, though apparently assumed to be the same.

[Svartalf]

Well... a campaign against it is one thing... but the question is how in your face they get with it, and more importantly if they pour money into it.

I would love some link or something to the law on this in your country. I mean -- I doubt the question is "how in your face they get with it." I would think that there are defined rules, so groups know what they can and can't do with some reasonable certainty.

Nuns can be RNs of course, used to be a time when all nurses were actually nuns... only now, a nun could not get hired as a nurse in a public hospital, and a nurse that was caught bringing too much of her religion to the workplace, breaking the laicity requirements, would get fired... that's why my JW aunt always operated in private practice.

As for clergy and politics... they'll make their views on various issues known... I mean, we have papers and mags like the Pilgrim, Catholic Life, or the Cross to make sure of that... but those are strictly private ventures moneywise, and the monsignors are going to be oblique if they want to incite toward certain parties... might refer to how well areas ruled by notorious political people are run, or refer to historical events like Charles Martel's stopping the Saracen invasion, or St Joan of Arc (two of the most notorious historical icons used by a certain party...) but they won't name a candidate or party.

What's a "private venture moneywise" as opposed to whatever would be prohibited?

Naming a candidate or party, that I can believe. But, that's a much brighter line rule than "how in your face" they get. I mean, if you're allowed to publish, broadcast and lobby, then I'm not sure how anyone would determine what is "in your face" and what isn't.

Tried to find you such an article, but the google fu failed spectacularly...

I mean that these papers, although openly Catholic, and dealing with matters of spirituality, events in the Church, and comments on current events from a religious viewpoint, are published by entirely secular press companies and receive no church funds... I'm pretty sure there are clergy who give freely of their time to write content, as they have regular columns signed "Father so and so", but if money flows, it's from paper to church coffers/clergy pockets, not the other way around... and of course even if there are clergy in the publishing team, there are none in the actual company's board, we don't have, can't have, an equivalent to L'Osservatore Romano.

and when I said lobby, I mean, no sending emissaries to politicos and men in power to let them know what they want, let alone distributing inducement...