Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'll be thrilled to know that this is exactly how it is now, and has been since the beginning of this nation.
Can't say I am 'thrilled' at the info but would have to say that in theory that may be what it is, in practice - not so much.
Seems like the state requirements are all done on the day of the ceremony. Iv'e been to weddings (including my own) where the marriage is not official until the paper work is done, so 'the signing of the registry' is traditionally part of the ceremony.
I am saying it would perhaps be in religions interests to abandon that tradition...
Quote:
This is exactly how it is now. If you want the state to afford you the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, you get a wedding license. If you also want a religion to sanctify your marriage as a sacrament, you then meet the requirements of that religion. If you don't want that sanctification - you don't have to get it. You're still legally married.
See my previous answer. I am not sure why you conflate my saying 'the way things are practice now' and 'that is exactly how it is now.'
Not in practice. In practice it is...like I said, see my previous answer...
Quote:
This is how it is NOW.
Not how it is practiced NOW.
Quote:
Again - this is how it is NOW. No compromise needed.
*sigh*
Quote:
Not sure what you're talking about here. But as it is apparent you don't understand how the institution of marriage actually works in the US, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're wrong.
Really? Or...maybe the law won't support them if they did try this one on. The site in question turns out to be a parody and the event has apparently been fabricated.
However, the point I was making had to do with compromise. If indeed, gays going out of their way to put religion to the test by asking those against SSM to officiate their union is not their lawful right, then 'no problem'.
As far as the compromise I suggested goes, if their is no obligation for religion to officiate SSM, then no compromise is necessary.
But if their is an obligation, then my suggestion is valid enough NOW.
Can't say I am 'thrilled' at the info but would have to say that in theory that may be what it is, in practice - not so much.
Not sure what you are talking about, because in practice, this is exactly what happens -
1) You apply for your marriage license. Basically, you attest that you are each of legal age and free to marry. You submit the results of a blood test should your state require one (most don't anymore) and fulfill any waiting period requirements. This also differs by state, hence people in a hurry will elope to a state such as Nevada that has no residency requirements and no waiting period.
2) You find an officiant to actually "perform" the ceremony. Basically, this is public witness that you actually went through with the marriage. There is no religious requirement AT ALL. And the "ceremony" can just be the county clerk who issued the license in the first place signing that the marriage took place, and witnessed by any one or two other people who happen to be passing by. This also depends on the state, but becoming a legal officiant is pretty darn easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Seems like the state requirements are all done on the day of the ceremony. Iv'e been to weddings (including my own) where the marriage is not official until the paper work is done, so 'the signing of the registry' is traditionally part of the ceremony.
Yes, the paperwork must be completed in front of witnesses. However, there may be a required waiting period between the issuing of a marriage license and the final signing by the participants, including the required witnesses (usually two, IME). NO religious involvement is required for legal purposes. A clergy person is not needed. Religiously prescribed vows are not needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
I am saying it would perhaps be in religions interests to abandon that tradition...
I fail to understand why religious people who want their marriage recognized/blessed/sanctified by their church should give up having their marriages blessed by their church.
Seems to me it works fine just as it is right now. All marriage licenses come from the state. People who wish to have their marriages sanctified by the church can do so, but it is completely irrelevant to the legality of the marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
See my previous answer. I am not sure why you conflate my saying 'the way things are practice now' and 'that is exactly how it is now.'
Not in practice. In practice it is...like I said, see my previous answer...
In practice, right now, the state issues the marriage license. The religious ceremony is strictly optional. I know of no state where a couple must have a church ceremony - because it would be unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Really? Or...maybe the law won't support them if they did try this one on. The site in question turns out to be a parody and the event has apparently been fabricated.
Not sure what you are talking about here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
However, the point I was making had to do with compromise. If indeed, gays going out of their way to put religion to the test by asking those against SSM to officiate their union is not their lawful right, then 'no problem'.
Right now, if a church is opposed to previously divorced persons getting married, that church is not obligated to perform a ceremony for divorced people.
Right now, if a church is opposed to interracial marriage, that church is not obligated to perform a ceremony for an interracial couple.
Right now, if a church is opposed to interfaith marriage, that church is not obligated to perform a ceremony for an interfaith couple.
Right now, if a church is opposed to extra-marital sex, that church is not obligated to perform a ceremony for a couple that the church knows has practiced extra-marital sex.
Right now, if a church is opposed to people with tattoos and piercings, that church is not obligated to perform a ceremony for people with tattoos and piercings.
Yet all of these people can be legally married, and do get legally married every day in this country.
Despite what some people fear, there is no reason at all to think that it will be different for gay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
As far as the compromise I suggested goes, if their is no obligation for religion to officiate SSM, then no compromise is necessary.
But if their is an obligation, then my suggestion is valid enough NOW.
There is no such obligation, so your "compromise" is not needed, since what you propose is already the case, and has been the case for a couple hundred years. As I said in my response to your post in the first place.
You folks are so quick to jump on to anything that activates the persecution complex and believe it's real you don't take a moment and actually read and fact check.
Cuppa3 points out that the site is a parody - it didn't really happen, but it does raise some interesting Q's.
Does it? Or does it result in far too many religious reactionaries believing the parody is fact, leading to their participation in the societal discussion being yet-even-further corrupted by myth?
If I have a license to drive a vehicle and break the law while doing so, I would more than likely lose my license to drive a vehicle.
One would think that in the above case, the pastor involved should lose his license rather than be sent to prison.
It would appear that you have very little understanding of how things work in the United States. Everywhere SSM was legalized either by legislation or by referendum, the right of religions officials to refrain from conducting services was protected. For example, the petition that put the issue on the ballot in Maine said: "Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?" There WAS a case where a wedding chapel operating as a business, and NOT operating as a non-profit church had a run-in with authorities, but any legitimate church official has religious rights for himself protected by the 1st Amendment (which again, you may not fully understand since you are not in the USA). I don't understand why you keep starting threads based on incorrect premises.
I don't understand why you keep starting threads based on incorrect premises.
It's a very common propaganda technique. Most casual observers have little time or inclination to validate comments directed at them. Especially if they're already positively inclined toward a form of hatred, if someone makes a false claim that bolsters the rationalization for that form of hatred, the casual observer will believe the false claim, harden their hateful perspective on the basis of it, and further promulgate the false claim as fact.
the law says you had a kid support it.
The law can't make you love it.
Law and religion, keep them separated but use both. Like a two lane road, it looks like the cars (truth) are going in opposite directions when in fact they are working together, as one.
Government has always been who decides marriage. And I literally mean always. Early human tribes had primitive governments that would host ceremonies. Medieval Europe was a Christian theocracy and people were married by the church. You get the point.
The argument that marriage is strictly religious is in correct. It's always just been a social custom. Who decides what customs are worthy of celebration is based upon who has the authority, and it's always governments. In the cases of theocracies, the church is the government, and this is where the idea of religious marriage comes from. But even then, they were still government marriages.
That's not to say church marriages don't exist. They do, but they're purely symbolic. And I would agree that a church should not be forced to preform a ceremony with which it does not agree.
If a gay couple want to get married why don't they get the government to do it?
Why should gay couples make demands on the Church to marry them? What authority does the Church have to marry couples and what gives them that authority? Marriage is a thing of law not of religion. Is it not true that until the agreements and licences are signed the couples are not married anyway, even if they went through the process of ceremony in a church building?
A religious person should not be forced by the state to provide a ceremony of marriage for any couple who demands one.
The state is the authority in regards to licence and marriage and thus should provide options for those that religion does not want to perform ceremonies for.
What right has the state to make any organisation perform ceremonial duties in relation to how people demand to 'get'married'?
The state makes the laws and should provide alternate means of ceremony officiated by secular state personal.
There are obviously many different types of marriage officiants, not all necessarily 'clergy' and why can't gay communities have officiants rather than demand others to officiate when they know those others don't like the idea of same sex marriage...or if they so desperately want to be married in a 'church', why not find one which is happy to do so?
I think that the state needs to address the marriage laws it creates to make sure that they don't impinge upon the rights and choices of anyone, gay or whatever.
Making laws which don't allow for adjustments (such as expanding on WHO is able to officiate,) is just setting things up so that people will have opportunity to set others up and then go running to the state to sort it out.
The state benefits (thus judges lawyers etc get their $$) by not making adjustments which reflect law changes adequately. In this case the state has vested interests which in other areas would be regarded as conflict of interest.
What do you think?
eta
there is this part here regarding the church organisation in question
But the church is also registered as a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with state and federal regulations.
But this does not in itself mean that the state should not be making more effort to provide alternate officiators.
Perhaps the alternative is for religion to get out of the marriage business?
Quote:
In fact the story is the creation of fake news website NBC.com.co. This site is not affiliated with the NBC brand and publishes wholly fake stories. The name in the article – Paul Horner – is a popular pseudonym used by these fake news websites and does not describe a real person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
