Gay Civil Partnership on Q & A RTE1 now

4red

Middle Ireland's favourite current affairs talk show discusses....

PS John Bowman stop calling us 'gays' - we're 'gay people'.

Marshy

4red wrote: »

PS John Bowman stop calling us 'gays' - we're 'gay people'.

I myself wouldn't get too worried about that.

There was nothing really that profound being discussed, all the usual arguments made. David Norris spoke well but it just seems from listening to this and following the dedates of late that Ireland wouldn't be ready for same-sex marriage and adoption.

The Civil Partnership legislation may be inadequate but its certainly better than nothing. Now its just time for the government to stop arsing around and to get the Bill sorted...

DubArk

Marshy wrote: »

I myself wouldn't get too worried about that.

There was nothing really that profound being discussed, all the usual arguments made. David Norris spoke well but it just seems from listening to this and following the dedates of late that Ireland wouldn't be ready for same-sex marriage and adoption.

The Civil Partnership legislation may be inadequate but its certainly better than nothing. Now its just time for the government to stop arsing around and to get the Bill sorted...

I agree it was so old hack the whole debate. The same old clap trap coming from the same old people. David did his best to put the argument across that we are, second class citizens, getting second class legislation.

But at least it’s a start and once in the door is open we can really fight for equal rights.

ateam

David Quinn has a particular problem with gay marriages. He frequently writes about it. Extremely irritating man.

who is this

Marshy wrote: »

Ireland wouldn't be ready for same-sex marriage and adoption.

Correction: politicians of Ireland. Debates don't represent public opinion.

The politicians (in particular FF) are just so concerned about trying to please everyone (even conservative bigots) that they wouldn't dare do anything that might cost them a single vote, even if it might gain several more. So instead they've come up with this "compromise" which pleases no one. You have:
1. these FF martyrs, who are "defending" marriage by protesting the bill's existance
2. most moderates attacking the bills shortcomings,
3. liberals and gay rights supporters also protesting its existance (as "equal but seperate" is never equal).

No one is happy. But FF wouldn't dare do anything more or less, lest they lose a vote from someone who'll be dead in a few years anyway. No consideration of the fact that younger people (with longer to live and vote) are more likely to support same-sex marriage.
The thing about it is though, are they so blind that they don't see that it is inevitable? And not inevitable like us reaching Pluto on a manned mission is inevitable: inevitable like within some of their lifetimes.

And don't start me on anyone with a connection to that "Irish Catholic" rag. The factual and even grammatical errors in that and that other conservative piece of trash, "Alive!". Worse than tabloids those two.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ateam wrote: »

David Quinn has a particular problem with gay marriages. He frequently writes about it. Extremely irritating man.

IS he the guy who argues against Atheism all the time in the independent? Utter tool.

who is this wrote:

The politicians (in particular FF) are just so concerned about trying to please everyone (even conservative bigots) that they wouldn't dare do anything that might cost them a single vote, even if it might gain several more. So instead they've come up with this "compromise" which pleases no one. You have:

To be honest I think the general public opinion is to support civil unions but not marriage & adoption. I myself have no problem with gay marriage as long as religious organisations wouldn't be required to support them. I disagree with gay adoption.

ixoy

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To be honest I think the general public opinion is to support civil unions but not marriage & adoption.

I think that a slim majority might favour gay marriage but not of those who vote. It would carry if we say restricted the vote to under 35 or so, which is a generation that grew up far more comfortable with homosexuality, but the older generation are more likely to turn it down. That's my feeling anyway.

Weidii

What's the argument against gay civil partnership?

ateam

Straight men 18 upwards(particularly over 40), women over 50 and rural Ireland won't have gay marriage. I think that means the gay side would lose.

I think once people in the small minded category see that gay civil unions won't wreck society like they think it will, they will eventually warm to the idea of gay marriage and then later adoption for gay couples. But Senator Norris is right, gay people shouldn't have to wait for this.

who is this

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To be honest I think the general public opinion is to support civil unions but not marriage & adoption. I myself have no problem with gay marriage as long as religious organisations wouldn't be required to support them. I disagree with gay adoption.

Thinking is the problem . We have many polls by numerous organisations which show support for marriage. Last two put it in the 60s. Of course the government disagrees. If the polls were 60/40 against, then the government would be throwing it around like nobody's business. But because they don't have any polls supporting their views they say "A referendum would fail." No rationale. No research to back it up. Nothing

ateam wrote:

I think once people in the small minded category see that gay civil unions won't wreck society like they think it will, they will eventually warm to the idea of gay marriage and then later adoption for gay couples. But Senator Norris is right, gay people shouldn't have to wait for this.

Of course. But there is also the issue that there will be some people who now support marriage would start to think "Civil partnerships are enough. You don't need to do anymore". The pressure would be off politicians as well who can equally claim "Well we've done something", and doubtless wouldtry to convince supporters of marriage there isn't a need anymore. I think as well to say "Straight men 18 upwards" is a bit extreme though. I'd say maybe 30+ before you could safely generalise and even then it would be a bit wishy-washy. Too bad there's no surveys which break down by demographic.

L1011

ateam wrote: »

Straight men 18 upwards(particularly over 40), women over 50 and rural Ireland won't have gay marriage.

Might want to change the 18 to 25 or even higher - attitudes have changed A LOT in the past ten years or so.

Rural - probably true. I'm from West Donegal, though... theres often a live and let live (but begrudge everything) attitude in rural Ireland.

DubArk

Same sex marriage (Civil partnership) is a basic right!


Why should people get to vote on it?

I didn’t hear of people voting in the 60’s in the USA on civil rights for Blacks or the same in South Africa again on Blacks Civil rights. Nor in the UK on the women’s vote.

As far as the church I personally couldn’t give two hoots what they think, as their organisations rules are theirs and it has nothing to do with me. I’m Not a member nor want to be.


Weather Mary in Donegal age 60 disagrees or Paul 22 in Dublin agrees; is not the Debate!

Civil Rights for all in Ireland; not something that people should be able to hand out like sweets to one group and not another. :mad:

I’m sick of been treated like a second Class citizen in Ireland with second Class laws.

philologos

DubArk wrote: »

Same sex marriage (Civil partnership) is a basic right!


Why should people get to vote on it?

If there is constitutional uncertainty it should be brought to referendum if it is putting a definition of marriage out there. What's wrong with civil partnerships instead of naming it marriage? Many, including myself would regard a marriage as the union between a man and a woman and I'd be on the younger end of the scale. I think it's only right that the people should have a say in what they want their country to be like. Changing the idea of marriage would be a major change.

ateam

who is this wrote: »

Thinking is the problem . We have many polls by numerous organisations which show support for marriage. Last two put it in the 60s. Of course the government disagrees. If the polls were 60/40 against, then the government would be throwing it around like nobody's business. But because they don't have any polls supporting their views they say "A referendum would fail." No rationale. No research to back it up. Nothing


Of course. But there is also the issue that there will be some people who now support marriage would start to think "Civil partnerships are enough. You don't need to do anymore". The pressure would be off politicians as well who can equally claim "Well we've done something", and doubtless wouldtry to convince supporters of marriage there isn't a need anymore. I think as well to say "Straight men 18 upwards" is a bit extreme though. I'd say maybe 30+ before you could safely generalise and even then it would be a bit wishy-washy. Too bad there's no surveys which break down by demographic.

Suppose it is a generalisation but it's an educated one. We all know that a lot of straight men have a problem with gay people whether they be 18 or 80. I think the vast majority of straight men over 40 would vote no and I think the majority of those under 40 would also vote no. There would be less of a majority but still a majority.

philologos

ateam wrote: »

Suppose it is a generalisation but it's an educated one. We all know that a lot of straight men have a problem with gay people whether they be 18 or 80. I think the vast majority of straight men over 40 would vote no and I think the majority of those under 40 would also vote no. There would be less of a majority but still a majority.

Why must the attitude be that people who oppose marriage for homosexuals are against homosexuals? That isn't true in the slightest. However, people obviously feel that they want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and to propose an alternative civil partnerships for homosexual couples who want to receive the same financial recognition that married couples do. I see that as a fair agreement, but I also think that we need to keep marriage, as it is intact. That's not that I'm against homosexuals, it's that marriage has always had a special position in my beliefs, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

That's not that I'm against homosexuals, it's that marriage has always had a special position in my beliefs, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

What special position is that, then?

The Iona Institute bang on about marriage equalling a union to produce children, but its not denied to infertile, sterilised or otherwise unable couples (too old, etc), even by the Catholic Church who's views they say they're upholding. While I'm not implying this is your position I'd be interested to know what is.

philologos

Marriage has always had the special position of a man and a woman coming as one before God in my view, this is what I understand by marriage. I don't uphold the Catholic view on marriage merely being there to allow for the birth of children. I understand that homosexual couples are experiencing difficulties in the current system, and I hope that the civil partnerships bill will allow for any further progression needed.

diddley

What if straight couples get married but Not before God? What damage would it do to your potential future marriage if there were same sex marriages? I don't understand your viewpoint like. Are all marriages in the world important to you? Do you take serious offence if you hear of domestic abuse in marriages?
Tbh I really can't see how anyone would oppose gay marriages unless they're personally being harmed (and in the case of many I think all that's being disrupted is their own sexual insecurities).

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage has always had the special position of a man and a woman coming as one before God in my view, this is what I understand by marriage.

So do you disagree with the state offering civil marriages to heterosexuals?

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

So do you disagree with the state offering civil marriages to heterosexuals?

I believe the current scheme the State is looking to put forward is adequate. There is no need to refer to it as marriage.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the current scheme the State is looking to put forward is adequate. There is no need to refer to it as marriage.

That doesn't answer my question.

Do you disagree with the state offering civil marriages to heterosexuals?

philologos

If it's marriage yes, if it's a civil partnership no.

L1011

So, you disagree with the fundamental legel tenet that provides any protection to those that get church marriages, then? Right so.

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

So, you disagree with the fundamental legel tenet that provides any protection to those that get church marriages, then? Right so.

I don't quite get where you are coming from? Please elaborate?

L1011

You said you are opposed to heterosexual civil marriages. The legal principle of a religious marriage in this country is just a civil marriage where the registrar is a member of the clergy - nothing more.

diddley

I'm relieved to hear, being young like yourself Jakkass , (18), that your prejudice stems from religion anyway. *Breathes sigh of relief. Thankfully young people of your mindset are very rare today.

philologos

diddley wrote: »

I'm relieved to hear, being young like yourself Jakkass , (18), that your prejudice stems from religion anyway. *Breathes sigh of relief. Thankfully young people of your mindset are very rare today.

I'd argue that it isn't a prejudice, I'm rather supportive of the civil partnership measures, I can see no reason why we should have to alter what is understood as marriage to get there though.

ixoy

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that it isn't a prejudice, I'm rather supportive of the civil partnership measures, I can see no reason why we should have to alter what is understood as marriage to get there though.

I'm assuming you see marriage primarily as one of the seven sacraments of the Church and thus you believe it should be governed under the principles of the Church?
In that case a couple of questions for you:
1) Do you think the State was wrong to allow marriage through a registry office and bypass the Church aspect?

2) Do you believe that heterosexual couples who marry through a registry office would be, in theory, as intrinsically false a marriage (spiritually or whatever) as a gay couple marrying in a registry office?

3) What differences would there be between a civil union couple and a married one in terms of State-sanctioned rights, etc?

philologos

1) No, I don't. I would consider the Church as a place for those who believe in Christianity to get married, as I would consider the Synagogue for a Jew, or the Mosque for Muslims. Perhaps the "under God" part confused you. God is present outside of a church in my view.

2) I don't consider marriages outside a church to be false.

3) It's not a difference in rights that I am discussing, although I hear the State are putting forward civil partnerships with slight differences to marriages, such as in adoption, and in their dissolution, I just object to the term "marriage" being used.

L1011

How can you reconcile your point 2 with the fact that in post 22 you said you didn't agree with civil marriages for heterosexuals?

philologos

Apologies, I glanced over your post very quickly when replying, I thought it was homosexuals instead of hetereosexuals. I merely said I disagreed with defining the union between two members of the same sex as marriage. If it were defined as a civil partnership, that's fair enough. Traditionally marriage is the union of a man and a woman, I'd personally prefer to keep it that way. The Government have addressed most if not all concerns in their Civil Partnership bill, and I think that's decent of them to do so.

L1011

I posted it twice.... did you 'glance over' both of them?

You initially said your opposition was due to marriage being the union of a man and woman before God. You've now dropped the before God bit and brought it back to just the union of a man and woman - and claim you're not against homosexuals.

Can you not see the logical fallacy there, considering that is the sole argument you're still holding on to?

philologos

I'm supportive of the governments new measures, so how exactly could I be against homosexuals? Homosexuals are just as much a part of society as any other human being, I don't think I'd be alone to say that the union of homosexuals isn't the same as marriage. However, you can describe me as homophobic if you wish.

Jakkass wrote:

1) No, I don't. I would consider the Church as a place for those who believe in Christianity to get married, as I would consider the Synagogue for a Jew, or the Mosque for Muslims. Perhaps the "under God" part confused you. God is present outside of a church in my view.

How exactly did I drop the before God bit? ^^

L1011

A civil marriage is not 'before God' in the eyes of the law - its before the state. Simple as. I doubt many atheist couples would be too appreciative of you asserting that their marriage was a religious one.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage has always had the special position of a man and a woman coming as one before God

And yet it hasn't always been defined that way OR had this position that you seem to put forward

When the constitution of Ireland was framed in 1937 -12 year old girls could marry - surely you don't consider 12 year olds to be women?

Marriage existed long before the chuch decided that it should regulate it and there is also evidence to suggest that the church hundreds of years ago actually supported and celebrated same sex couples

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Marriage existed long before the chuch decided that it should regulate it and there is also evidence to suggest that the church hundreds of years ago actually supported and celebrated same sex couples

I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to said evidence, I will then consult it with an open mind. However, I do support the current legislation being put forward by the Government, however I don't agree it should be defined as a marriage.

4red

Well said, JohnnyMcG

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to said evidence, I will then consult it with an open mind. However, I do support the current legislation being put forward by the Government, however I don't agree it should be defined as a marriage.

...because you're taking a narrow, Christianity-defined view of what the word 'marriage' is; when it is in fact a legal term in this country.

If Johnnymcg doesn't dig up that evidence, I will - was in an issue of GT or Attitude fairly recently IIRC.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to said evidence, I will then consult it with an open mind. However, I do support the current legislation being put forward by the Government, however I don't agree it should be defined as a marriage.

There's a book by a historian: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe which provides the evidence

Anyway whether you disagsree or same sex couples marriages are recognised in Canada, Norway, Belgium, Spain, America and Israel - this list will only increase in the future. Where same sex couples can get register their partnership - the media do actually define this as a marriage

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

There's a book by a historian: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe which provides the evidence

I will see if I can get a hold of said book, thanks again.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Anyway whether you disagsree or same sex couples marriages are recognised in Canada, Norway, Belgium, Spain, America and Israel - this list will only increase in the future. Where same sex couples can get register their partnership - the media do actually define this as a marriage

The media define a lot of things certain ways. However civil partnerships are at the minute different from marriages in several countries. I don't think just because certain countries have recognised it as marriage that it must be the same way in Ireland, don't you think that view is a bit simplistic?

DubArk

Jakkass wrote: »

If there is constitutional uncertainty it should be brought to referendum if it is putting a definition of marriage out there. What's wrong with civil partnerships instead of naming it marriage? Many, including myself would regard a marriage as the union between a man and a woman and I'd be on the younger end of the scale. I think it's only right that the people should have a say in what they want their country to be like. Changing the idea of marriage would be a major change.

Tell me how your country is going to change if my partner and I, who’ve been with each other for 24 yrs, get married in a registry office?

We’ve been living as a couple for that length of time and to my knowledge your country is still holding together!
By the way it’s our country too. I have little or no interest in any church or organised religion and therefore seek no permission from these institutions.

I only ask for the same civil rights as any other heterosexual in our country.

who is this

Jakkass wrote: »

The media define a lot of things certain ways.

I'm sure they do. I hear dictionaries do as well.

But seriously, I don't see how, whether opposed to it or for it, anyone could be so blind as to think it will never happen. It will happen in Ireland at some stage. End of discussion. If you disagree with me, don't waste your time trying to debate it -- I will not be swayed. If it is to never ever ever happen, then may I be struck down by any god in existence, right now.

Jakkass wrote:

I'm supportive of the governments new measures, so how exactly could I be against homosexuals?

Because for one thing, they're entirely inadequate. The Labour bill, now 2 years old if I'm not mistaken, had more provisions. So the government managed to introduce a bill (late, I'll add) which has less provisions than one drafted two years prior? They even ignored several of the DoJ's own studies and reports. Is this the new definition of progress? If the government were genuinely concerned about the Labour bill's constitutionality, they would not have voted it down. They would have amended it. It stands to reason -- why draft a whole new bill, when you can amend the one before you? They voted it down because they didn't like it.

And to echo DubArks' words, I defy anyone to give me an example of a negative effect same-sex marriage would have on anyone. And not something wish-washy like "it would weaken the institution of marriage". Something tangible -- something we would be able to see, measure, touch, hear, smell, or define.

Of course if someone can define what "weakening the institution of marriage" would be, or explain how we could measure it, please do so.

shewasoctober

Jakkass wrote: »

Why must the attitude be that people who oppose marriage for homosexuals are against homosexuals? That isn't true in the slightest. However, people obviously feel that they want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and to propose an alternative civil partnerships for homosexual couples who want to receive the same financial recognition that married couples do. I see that as a fair agreement, but I also think that we need to keep marriage, as it is intact. That's not that I'm against homosexuals, it's that marriage has always had a special position in my beliefs, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

I can see why people want to separate civil partnerships/unions from marriage. It is the same issue in the US. And, I don't see an issue with it as long as the law is equal for both. Hell, you can call it whatever you like as long as homosexual couple are given the same right. Whether people like it or not, there is standing religious tradition with the term marriage, which is seen as sacred and defined as being between a man and woman. If it makes people happy not to use the term "marriage" and in stead use the term "civil partnership" for homosexual couples, that is fine. What it comes down to are the rights associated with both. As long as both marriage and civil unions give the same rights to the couples, with the only difference being that one is church related, that is what is most important.

I don't know. I believe people think too much on one topic sometimes and it makes things worse. Everyone has a right to have a life-long partnership with all the legal rights that should come with it. As for adoption, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed as well. There are many children in the world who would give anything to have a loving family. Why should they have to remain orphans/foster children if there is a loving family willing to adopt them?

who is this

shewasoctober wrote: »

Whether people like it or not, there is standing religious tradition with the term marriage, which is seen as sacred and defined as being between a man and woman.

Your general stance is fine, up until this point. Whether people "like it or not" is absolute bull. I can't call it anything else.

Ireland is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.
The US is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.

At least by name anyway.

The people have said in many a survey (in Ireland) they support same-sex marriage. I will not quote them again because it just seems the same people ask for them over and over (I don't mean you). Last Time's one put it at 63%.
So yes. This is a "whether we like it or not" at the moment. But it should not be so.

A democracy is defined as: "Rule by the people". The people say "Yes". That's all that should matter. The church can say what they want but unless they can convince the people (which they're evidently failing to do) then tough.

To clarify, I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out the logical flaws in your statement

Although I do commend the fact that you were frank about the whole "like it or not" attitude most naysayers have - if opinion polls went their way they'd be flaunting them left right and centre.

Phototoxin

imho marrage = religous so probably limited by the religon to man + woman.

civil partnership (ie count 2 people as 1 more or less) should be fine. say 2 unmarried brothers want to share land or something then it should be ok for them to become civil partners even if they are not gay.

anyways thats my 2p

shewasoctober

who is this wrote: »

Your general stance is fine, up until this point. Whether people "like it or not" is absolute bull. I can't call it anything else.

Ireland is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.
The US is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.

At least by name anyway.

The people have said in many a survey (in Ireland) they support same-sex marriage. I will not quote them again because it just seems the same people ask for them over and over (I don't mean you). Last Time's one put it at 63%.
So yes. This is a "whether we like it or not" at the moment. But it should not be so.

A democracy is defined as: "Rule by the people". The people say "Yes". That's all that should matter. The church can say what they want but unless they can convince the people (which they're evidently failing to do) then tough.

To clarify, I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out the logical flaws in your statement

Although I do commend the fact that you were frank about the whole "like it or not" attitude most naysayers have - if opinion polls went their way they'd be flaunting them left right and centre.

Oh, believe me, I understand both places are democracy, though I don't believe that it is always run like that.

I probably should have not used the phrase "like it or not." I'm glad the the polls show the majority are in favour. This is where the democracy falls apart. Even though there is a good chance of legislation for gay-marriage getting passed, will the people ever have the opportunity to vote?

While neither are run by their religion, religion always seems to play a factor. It shouldn't, but unfortunately, it does. It tends to relate more to history and tradition. Traditions change people, and history, we should be learning from it.

I'm all about gay-marriage, but in the end, the politician can call it what they like, within reason, as long as it offers the same rights to same-sex couples as it does to couples of the opposite sex. For me, this would include adoption.

L1011

Phototoxin wrote: »

imho marrage = religous so probably limited by the religon to man + woman.

"civil marriage" by its very definition isn't religious. This has been offered in this country since the foundation of the state.

Marshy

This topic was discussed again in tonight's edition of Questions & Answers following Sean Brady's recent comments.

I find it so frustrating to listen to. It almost seems now that because there's little chance of full same-sex marriage being considered that the religious organisations are trying to attack the proposed bill as much as possible. This is despite the fact it is civil marriage that is at stake, something that is non-religious.

Now the government will probably be pressured into having even more watered-down legislation. On a positive note though, I'm glad its being debated again. I was worried the economic situation would force it into obscurity...

Amnesiac_ie

The bigotry and hippocracy of the catholic church truly knows no bounds. What right does Sean Brady have to try and impose his biggoted views on a secular state? Would it not be more worthwhile for him to work on addressing the many, many problems within his own church? I would be interested to know what the reaction and response on Q&A to his most recent threats was like last night.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Civil partnership is the right step to take. AFAIK same sex marriage would require constitutional change. I said on this thread a few months back a motion to change would be defeated and I still think it would.

People are saying polls say otherwise but these are polls without a scare campaign funded by the RCC. They'd play the gay adoption card and most people are against that. I was myself up until very recently.

If it is defeated now it will be a very long time before another referendum, best waiting until more younger people can win the vote.

DubArk

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

The bigotry and hippocracy of the catholic church truly knows no bounds. What right does Sean Brady have to try and impose his biggoted views on a secular state? Would it not be more worthwhile for him to work on addressing the many, many problems within his own church? I would be interested to know what the reaction and response on Q&A to his most recent threats was like last night.

Yes I read the views of Cardinal Sean Brady and how he advised Brian Cowen's government that it should not award 'marriage rights' to cohabiting couples.

I believe the crux (excuse the pun) of his argument is that the children of non-traditional families "do worse at school, suffer poorer health, and are more likely to face problems of unemployment, drugs and crime". He also claimed that 'marriage rights should not be given to cohabiting couples because any legal recognition would "promote cohabitation" which he believes is to the detriment of children too.

I too find that the hypocrisy of this church to now put children at the top of their agenda and start preaching from their blessed pulpit on the best way to bring up children and the sanctity of a relationship too beyond amusing.

Firstly I think most of the Irish population will never trust the catholic church every again with their children, let alone take advise from people who were wilfully unable to take care of their own affairs in relation to the safety and health of children. More children have been pushed to the sides of society, later on in their lives by the deeds of some priests then can be comprehended, then by the love of a parent or parents in a loving family situation.

Secondly it’s still hard to believe that these priests who have in most cases never had a partner or any sort of relation (Fr Michael Cleary's and Co exempt of course) feel it necessary to convey to the rest of us lowly parishioners and people who don’t give two hoots about their church; on the values of marriage in civil law. Grant us patience!

Brady your words fall on deaf ears these days