You want to get married, come to the Catholic Church. The Church WILL marry you and will not marry homosexuals.

No issues here.

Have a nice day! 8^)

If I were getting married, I would certainly endorse the civil route, mention it on my invitations, and tell the local press. (I know, seems a bit self-aggrandizing, but as the mother of a lesbian, I tend to get a bit worked up over LGBT rights. I was always for equal rights, but once I found out my daughter is a lesbian, well, then, it got personal.)

I applaud the participating churches; the clergy are probably getting some flack for their public stance.

I also hope the inclusion of an African-American church in California in this movement starts to put an end to the lie propagated by the media and others that the "African-American community" is more homophobic and anti-gay rights than whites. Subsequent studies have shown that assertion to be false.

Also, I can state, unequivocally, that my divorce was not caused, in any part, by equal rights granted to the LGBT community. I fervently hope that, as same-sex marriage prospers in CT and elsewhere, heterosexual couples, married or divorced, will testify how granting equal rights to all does and did not erode their marriages.

Am I naive in hoping that if thousands of heterosexual couples say this publicly that will help knock down another anti-gay rights argument? Because, of course, nobody has put forth any concrete example of exactly how same-sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. None that I've seen.

what a novel idea?

White House Announces Troubling Faith-Based Order, ACLU Says Administration Is Heading Into Uncharted Waters (2/5/2009)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama announced today that he is taking the unprecedented and troubling step of forming a federal advisory committee to be made up mostly of religious leaders. Also of great concern, President Obama will increase federal funds going to religious organizations without first changing the Bush-era rules allowing federally-funded religious organizations to apply religious hiring tests to employees.

"President Obama launched his faith-based initiative today by heading into uncharted and dangerous waters," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "What we are seeing today is significant - a president giving his favored clergy a governmental stamp of approval. There is no historical precedent for presidential meddling in religion – or religious leaders meddling in federal policy – through a formal government advisory committee made up mostly of the president's chosen religious leaders."

Today's announcement included the appointment of 25 members of a government advisory committee that will be dominated by religious leaders. The mission of the government committee will be to advise the president and the White House faith-based office on how to distribute federal dollars, and also advise on a range of other issues such as AIDS and women's reproductive health care. Although former President George W. Bush gave prominence to his faith-based initiative and informally consulted with individual religious leaders, even he never formed a government advisory committee made up primarily of clergy.

Funny, even though I have been a life long Catholic, attending Catholic Grade School and several years of Seminary School, the Catholic Church refused to marry me because my wife was impure (if we would have coughed up some bucks and made a statement about her being impure, they would have considered it, but we really weren't in the mood.)

Of all the churches to recommend, I think you picked the wrong one. Try again.

I'm all for clergy not signing legal documents. I'm guessing many (most?) clergy would prefer having their marriage ceremonies being solely defined as a sacrament of their faith, anyway.

Conversely, clergy who refuse to perform marriages at all (i.e. even without signing the legal documents) are refusing to perform a sacrament of their faith. It would be like refusing to preach on Sunday, and perform baptisms. They are letting a political belief interfere with their congregation's relationship with God. It's wrong.

I support gay marriage, but I feel that when clergy can't/won't meet their obligations to their faith, then they should leave.

The requirement that a marriage must be "solemnized" by a minister or some justice of the peace or magistrate in order to obtain a marriage license has gotten to be an old chestnut and probably should just be abolished. Promises of love and fidelity couples make between themselves are purely moral and religious in nature and no reading of magic words or recitations by the betrothed can make a marriage stronger.

"the Catholic Church refused to marry me because my wife was impure (if we would have coughed up some bucks and made a statement about her being impure, they would have considered it, but we really weren't in the mood.)"

While you don't specifically state WHY she was considered impure, if she were married before, then she was still considered married by the Church. If it were something else, I would be very curious as to what the problem was. As for coughing up some bucks and making a statement about her being impure...I've never heard of such a thing myself. I have to wonder about the Church and your circumstances. Curious.

Some churches don't even have sacraments.

So why not?

First off - there's never been anything remotely suggesting any church would ever be forced to perform a wedding it didn't believe in. Zero. They don't have to today - a church may discriminate on race, religion, wealth, marital status (refusing to marry divorced people), medical status (refusing to marry pregnant couples) - for any reason or no reason at all, a church can discriminate. They always have been able to. So while it's good to bring that up, it almost gives the concept too much validity.

Second - in a fairly real sense, churches are separated from the legal ceremony. When you get a marriage license, you are legally married. Many people currently choose to include the church by having them sign off as the witness - but since they don't have to, since you can just have it signed anytime - it's really not much of a mix. And you can be married just by the church - as many gay people are - without the state being involved or approving in any way. They're separate. We just have to get the state out of the business of deciding which pairs of consensual adults should and should not be allowed to marry. If there's no harm to others, and two adults wish to marry - no reason why the state should have anything to say about it.