For instance, during marriage annullment proceedings in the Catholic church, the spouses in question must pay the church...much like you would pay a lawyer for a divorce.  But, if the sacaraments are the very components of salvation, why do you pay money to erase one?
208340
Hmm, good question.\n\nI seem to recall a passage in the Bible about Jesus throwing moneychangers and salesmen out of the temple... apparently their presence in the house of God offended His son.\n\nThere does seem to be a conflict of interest present between the Catholic Church (RCC) and God's Word.  Then again, the RCC's leader, the pope, said that the Bible was something that the average person shouldn't worry too much about, and to just accept whatever the RCC said instead.  \n\nYeah.
271891
How much can you sue for?\n\nI see. This isn't about closure. This isn't about holding someone responsible for an allegedly inappropriate act.\n\nYou are out to extort the Catholic Church because, in your opinion, it is "way too wealthy". The reason the Catholic Church has the money it has is because of charitable Catholic parishioners!\n\nI have a suggestion: stop pretending to have a moral backbone and just admit you're looking for easy money.\n\nIn your question, you stated the touch was "unpleasant", but then you go on to claim you were "aroused"? It can't be both.\n\nYou are looking for easy money and using the Catholic Church as an excuse to get it. You had the wherewithall to know the Catholic Church has a lot of money, and you fail to addresss the moral side to the issue. This is proven by the fact you asked, "How much can I sue for?" as opposed to "Should I sue?"\n\nGranted, 6% of the clergy has made the Catholic Church an easy target. But that does not mean you have the right to extort money from the Catholic Church.
667508
because if you allow two consenting adults the ability to marry regargless of sex, and enjoy the same tax benefits as other couples then scociety will crumble... it says so in the bible, towards the back, look it up
410609
Yes.  The government should get out of the business of marriage and look at only those relationships that can be governed legally.\n\nLook at it this way, if two people (man and woman) get a marriage certificate but don't get married by a preacher/priest/rabbi/etc. are they married in the eyes of the church?  If they never said their vows to God, probably not.  But by the government's standards, they still have the same benefits and liabilities.  Or look at it the other way around, if two people marry in a church but don't get the license, do they still get the tax benefits?  No, because to the government they're not married.\n\nAnd you want it this way.  Do you want the government telling you what a valid marriage is?  Or do you want your church to give you the rules for marriage?  Isn't marriage between two people, not two people and the government?\n\nAlso look at it on the back end, if the government says what a marriage is, it can also tell you when your marriage is over.  So if I'm Catholic and get a divorce through the courts, am I still married according to the church?  You bet you are.  You have to get the marriage annulled or you can't get married in the church again.  But if the government says you aren't married, why can't you get married in the church?  Because the church doesn't care what the government says, they make the rules for marriage.\n\nKeep them separate.  It makes it a lot easier.
485132
There should always be a separation of church and state.  Religion should not dictate the laws made for all people because not all people are religious.  I am not asking the Catholic Church to marry us if they do not believe in it.  They won't marry anyone but Catholics and you must convert to be married there.  So be it.  I don't mind.  I can find someone else to marry me and my partner of 26 years.  It's a matter of equal rights.  I want to take care of her as any couple would --health benefits, choice in each other's financial/personal affairs, tax benefits and other things married couples enjoy.  I don't think it's too much to ask our government.  It falls under the equal rights section of our Constitution.  End of story.
644677
It pains me to read this, that a man would do this to two women he loves. I pray for all involved. I'm a Catholic, deeply believing in marriage and its sanctity.\n\nYou have many questions. I"ll try to tackle them organizedly.\n\nI think, more important than a discussion of the sin, is the damage that is being done to the spouse and to the family and to him and to the OW. Those who say sin has no consequences beyond the sinner are sadly mistaken. We can talk about what the sin means and where there was sin and what punishment is merited later. Right now what matters is for him to cease in this sinful way.\n\nIt is true that the Blood of Christ means forgiveness; but HE HAS TO STOP SEEING HER in order to really and truly accept that forgiveness. Catholics seek this through Penance, non-Catholics through direct prayer or accountability groups or whatever practice they have interpreted to be correct.\n\nAll Sins are against God alone, but there are sins (small s) against several people here:\nHe is sinning against the spouse for very obvious reasons; "love, but not in love" is not a good enough reason to be unfaithful.\nHe is sinning against his family.\nHe is sinning against the OW by not loving her (love is a choice, very true).\nHe is sinning against the community by breaking his marriage vows.\n\nFirst, where is there Sin? There is Sin in the extramarital affair on its own - and this sort of Sin begins in the heart; he doesn't love the OW by choice, so the love is not in the heart, and that is the Sin of lust. There is Sin in being unfaithful in marriage, and I consider this to be the worst because it is breaking the marriage vows. I think the Church would consider breaking the vows the most grave Sin. I can go on and on, but the case is made.\n\nThe punishment for Sin is death; he may feel guilty, he may wish to repent, but it cannot be a sincere repentance until he stops seeing the OW and gives his heart time to forget her. The Sin and sins end at this point because:\n\nThe marriage has the chance to be made whole.\nThe hurt stops being piled upon the spouse.\nThe lust of his body ends.\nThe lust of his heart will fade.\nThe family has stopped being rent and can begin to heal.\nThe community sees that the vow is again being honored.\n\nIf he is not truly sorry for his Sin, whether he stops or not, this is for the Lord to know. The Lord may condemn him, the Lord may complete the good work begun in him (per Phillippians) and eventually admit him to Eternal Life, as the Lord may do to all of us. But to persist in unrepented sin is a grave decision.
675237
Some days ago a Christian on Q/A explained to me that it is like you are condemmned by the court any some rich guy comes and pay the fine so that I have not to go to jail.\n\n\nI am still wondering why should i still have to go to jail after the rich guy paid my fine?
339368
My husband and I both have our own separate savings and checking acct as well as one joint acct we both contribute money to as we're both employed.  All the household bills and mortgage payments are taken out of the joint acct.  Personal spending is taken out of our own accts.\n\nThe reason ours is set up this way is because my husband is the bigger spender between us two and we want to have emergency money for "just in case" as u never know if something will come up.  This was an agreed upon arrangement prior to getting married.
470943
Maybe she can get an annulment of marriage instead? She should consult a lawyer as it might be a bit trickier than a straightforward divorce. In Catholic countries, I've heard that the Catholic church has to grant the annulment or something. Best of luck!
297269
These website explains it all...I hope it helps.\n\nhttp://home.earthlink.net/~rickpen16/catholicmarriages/index.html
336140
Because this practice(along with others) by Catholics is not scripturally based. \n\ntosmith
628332
I had a child out of wedlock.  I can tell you that some Catholic priests would not baptize my daughter for precisely that reason.  That's one of the reasons I went to one of the Protestant churches.  I asked for and received forgiveness, and it was never considered something my daughter needed forgiveness for.  She has since been baptized.  Neither of us are going to hell for it, at least not according to our church :)
20038
The institution of marriage was created around property rights including the rights of inheritance. \n\nToday we have two different institutions that are called marriage - one a civil marriage which is about the property rights and a religious marriage - which is a part of an individuals faith/morality. Civil marriage should be available to anyone who wants to enter into the legal contract. Religious marriage should be left up to the faith of the church (not the government).
65646
IT'A LONG, BUT INTERESTING:\n\n“They Must Become One Flesh”\n\nWhen the first human couple were wed, God stated that a man “must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Hence, marriage was to be a permanent bond. That is why Jesus later stated that “the ground of fornication” is the only basis for Scriptural divorce with the possibility of entering a new marriage.—Matthew 19:3-9  DEATH WOULD ALSO END THE MARRIAGE\n\nA Christian cannot enter marriage thinking: ‘If it doesn’t work out, I can always divorce.’ Marriage is to be viewed as a permanent bond.\n\nJesus made clear that marriage was to be permanent when he answered a question put to him about the propriety of divorce. He stated: “Did you not read that [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6.\n\nDIVORCE AND SEPARATION\n\n  God, the Originator of marriage, designed it to be a permanent union. But is there any Scriptural reason for a person to divorce his or her mate—and one that would allow for the possibility of remarrying? Jesus addressed this matter by declaring: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Sexual infidelity by a mate is the only ground for a divorce that will allow the innocent mate to remarry.\n\n  In addition, the Bible’s words at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, while encouraging marriage mates to stay together, allow for separation. Some, after trying very hard to preserve their marriage, feel they have no choice but to separate. What can be acceptable Scriptural grounds for such a step?\n\n  One is willful nonsupport. When getting married, a husband assumes the responsibility of providing for his wife and children. The man who willfully fails to provide the material necessities of life “has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” (1 Timothy 5:8) So separation is possible.\n\n  Another is extreme physical abuse. So then, if a mate physically abuses his wife, the victim may separate. (Galatians 5:19-21; Titus 1:7) “Anyone loving violence [God’s] soul certainly hates.”—Psalm 11:5.\n\n  Another ground for separation is the absolute endangerment of a believer’s spirituality—one’s relationship with God. When a mate’s opposition, perhaps including physical restraint, has made it impossible to pursue true worship and has imperiled the believer’s spirituality, then some believers have found it necessary to separate.—Matthew 22:37; Acts 5:27-32.\n\n  However, if divorce is pursued under such circumstances, one would not be free to enter a new marriage. According to the Bible, the only legitimate ground for divorce that permits remarriage is adultery or “fornication.”—Matthew 5:32.\n\nNEXT IS A ??? THAT WAS ASKED BY  SOMEONE:\nNo Divorce?\n\nI disagree with your view that the Bible allows the innocent mate to remarry. (January 8, 1986, page 12, footnote) Whoever separates from the other should remain single or else be reconciled. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) One should be prepared to forgive the mate.\n\nO. A. F., Nigeria\n\nForgiveness is proper when the guilty party truly repents. However, at Matthew 19:9 Jesus stated: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” This indicates that if the innocent party gains a divorce on the grounds of fornication, he is free to marry another without that being considered adultery. At 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is referring to a separation rather than a Scriptural divorce.\n\nTo what extent need a faithful Christian wife resist a divorce action brought by her mate?\n
618093
Well, in Catholicism, divorce is the inability on both parts to work out the marriage and is widely not accepted purely because both refuse to make the marriage work.  The annulment however, is a single person within the marriage had not intention from the beginning of the marriage to ever make the marriage work.  In Protestant churches, divorce is acceptable if it is because of unfaithfulness.  Annulment would then be the shared determination that the marriage will not work because of one's own personal beliefs and not the others.
581000
my cousin got married to her boyfriend in court and I attended it. It didn't cost much and it was wayyyyy cheaper then a marriage in Church. Trust me if you wanna save money or have money issues then get married in court because it's worth it. Because your married lol =)......and it's a good way for your money situation...believe it's not a lot of money.
648549
Marriage is more of a legal issue than it is a religious one.  While many people do get married through a church of whatever their particular religion is, the church in no way makes the marriage official in the eyes of society, just in the eyes of the church.  What really makes you married is the certificate that you get from the state when you tell them you're getting married and go through the whole paperwork thing.