Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And here's my favourite faith-based weaseling around marriage equality. Last month, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey thundered that marriage equality in the UK would be "a threat to the bonds of Church and state". Yes, not only an act of "cultural vandalism" but an assault on the Constitution itself.
Tradition and constitutional niceties could go fuck themsleves, however, when Lord Carey was exhorting us all to "get behind Charles and Camilla" -- because it's different when a notorious adulterer and divorcee makes an honest woman of his long-time mistress, innit?
"I believe the country should get behind Prince Charles. I think it's good for Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles.
"I think it's good for the country because it's important that at the heart of the monarchy we have stable relationships, and therefore I do believe that we in the country should get behind them and welcome this relationship, this marriage, support them, and all Christians to pray for them both in the run up to the wedding and afterwards."
Nor do I recall Lord Carey declining to attend the solemn blessing of the (civil) re-marriage of these divorced persons by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in St George's Chapel, Windsor, in the presence of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith (and mother of the groom).
Hypocritical douchebag.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Lilith __,
Personally, I think if the State recognises and regulates marriage, then it’s a civil more than a religious institution.
Oh of course it bloody is... Unless I've epically misread the relevant sections of canon law, I couldn't get married in a Catholic rite even if David was a woman. Because of the perfectly sensible reason that he's not Catholic and has no intention of converting in this or any other lifetime. Nor, as far as I'm aware, does the Catholic Church recognize civil marriage or any other form solemnized by other faiths,
Which, as an intriguing sidebar, was the loophole divorcee Nicole Kidman flung herself through to have her second go-round conducted by a Catholic priest. Here's an interesting passage from the linked story:
The Catholic Church began to make annulments easier to get in the 1970s, adding a category of "psychological grounds", which includes "lack of due discretion" - in other words, an applicant might claim they'd not fully appreciated the responsibilities of marriage.
Today, this category - which also takes in "psychological incapacity assuming the obligations" - is the main grounds upon which annulments are granted.
Lack of due discretion centres on the question of what it is that couples are consenting to when they agree to marry.
Priests say considering a petition for annulment on such grounds is very complex - and requests for annulments are often turned down (in which case an applicant cannot remarry in a Catholic church).
While many in the Church argue priests should be trying to discern a "grave" lack of discretion, some argue that priests, particularly those in the US, are too easy.
According to the Holy See, 43,153 straightforward annulments were granted worldwide, almost 29,000 of which were issued in north America in 2003. This compares with 511 in Great Britain and 304 across Ireland. Many of these were later overturned by the Vatican.
Rome has long been concerned that priests in the US are handing out too many annulments.
The Vatican argues that American culture demands maximum self-fulfilment and that includes what can be expected from a marriage. As a result, more annulments are granted in the US, leaving Rome worried that the Americans are, essentially, letting divorce in through the back door.
But I'm the one weakening the institution of marriage by wanting access to civil marriage the Catholic Church doesn't recognize anyway? Weird...
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
It's not a dress - it's a mystic caftan and straight men have unnaturally glossy flowing hair too.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Gareth Ward,
Key’s particular phrasing around “won’t affect my marriage” recalls that awful Herald front page
And it’s also a direct and non-weasely counter to the most glib and intellectually dishonest argument Colin Craig et. al. are going to trot out along with “oy noes, it’s the radical homosexual agenda to ‘redefine’ what marriage has always been’.
Really, Colin, if my pansy arse entering into a civil marriage is going to destroy your connubial bliss may I respectfully suggest that I’m the least of your problems?
As for the idiotic idea that marriage equality radically re-defines an immutable, changeless marriage can I ask these questions.
When my parents wed, inter-racial marriages were not only illegal in the Republic of South Africa but inter-racial sex was criminal. Both laws were repealed in the 1990s, and whose marriages were threatened there?
Before 1982 (IIRC), a man could not be charged with raping his spouse. That “redefined marriage”, but if anyone wants to argue that’s a bad thing don’t do it in my ear shot.
How about no-fault divorce?
Or our laws and social customs frowning on marrying (and impregnating) young girls as soon as they hit puberty? If you constantly want to appeal to historical authority, you better be ready to go some ugly and creepy places.
And don't even get me fucking started on the idea that marriage equality is some kind of vicious assault on "religious freedom". Personally, I'm pretty comfortable living in a country that forbids all kinds of faith-based barbarity -- from human sacrifice to genital mutilation of young girls.
-
I must not go trolling the Kiwiboggers, I must not... Oh, screw it I can't be bothered walking down the river to the next troll-free bridge.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Gareth Ward,
Also, Key in full support. Good.
You've just got to make sure the bugger sticks the landing at the third reading, but (of course) credit where credit is due. :)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Well, I am going to withdraw from that in one respect: It’s well on the record that she was pressured by some arse-weasels in the Labour Party to marry before the ’81 general election because nobody in Mount Albert would vote for a woman living in sin. Right? That was just revolting, and I’ve no cause to doubt her sincerity in saying a civil union would have been her preferred option if it was available to her at the time. Shouldn’t have disrespected that, and I withdraw and apologize.
But, still… I hope she got the irony in saying she would have made a choice that, in the other direction, same-sex couples (including some very close friends of hers) didn’t have. It really raised my hackles and (yes) I sincerely think there was some tone-deafness from someone usually a hell of a lot more prone to thinking twice before speaking.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to steve gray,
there are only two differences betwixt the marriage act and the civil unions act.
And there’s one massive baseline equality fail. I know it didn’t go down well around here, but I wanted to tell Helen Clark to go fuck a weasel when she said if civil unions were available at the time, she would never have gotten married.
You know why that irritated me me no end – there’s nothing preventing Helen Clark and Peter Davis dissolving their marriage and becoming civil union partners. But she’s was perfectly happy denying same-sex couples absolute, unconditional equality before the law. So thanks for sharing your unthinking hetero privilege with the rest of us Helen but you just didn’t get it.
Oh, and here's another opportunistic weasel-speak I can't stand. "Gee, gay person X. doesn't think marriage equality is an important issue either." What that proves beyond the fact that Teh Gay Borg don't exist currently escapes me. I've no interest in forcing GLBT people to the nearest registry office at shotgun-point. But, one more time, I'd like David and I to be able to make that choice on our own behalf.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Phil fryer,
should be able to, but, its a bit of a 1st world issue, don’t imagine its a hot topic
With all due and sincere respect, I’m fucking sick of hearing that from (as often as not) enormously privileged straight people. You know what? I have no less respect for Russell and Fiona because they’ve raised two great chaps and faced their full measure of adversity without benefit of clergy or a civil unification. But, gee, isn’t it great that it was their choice?
Telling me to sit at the back of the bus and be fucking grateful that someone deigned to put cushions on the seat is annoying. Marriage equality doesn’t have to mean a damn thing to you, but please pay the courtesy of acknowledging it does matter to me.
ETA: And none of that means I don't also fully own my own privilege in being a gay man in a country where that doesn't make me a criminal - or a corpse. But, hell... it is possible to figuratively walk and chew gum at the same time. Isn't it?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Russell Brown,
He’s taking a pasting for it it on Twitter and Facebook
Yup - and I decided to forgo the pleasure because, yet again, "what the fucking fuck you stupid fuck" is as uncivil as it is repetitive.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 166 167 168 169 170 … 1235 Older→ First