| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2004 05:20:52 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc1ka1g.1p0.eighner@pearl.io.com...
In our last episode,
<OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
the lovely and talented <tock@sbcglobal.net>
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
Why oh why oh why does the City of Dallas (or any governmental agency
for
that matter) require a "marriage ceremony" beyond the official
governmental-issued marriage license? It would be one thing if they
required everyone to appear before a civil Judge (or Justice of the
Peace)
to make things official and final . . . BUT--here, the government says
things are not final until a religious group says it is. It seems to
me
that it is unconstitutional for the City of Dallas to involve religion
in
validating a government document in this way . . .
What do y'all think?
Where does it say the marriage ceremony has to be religious? JPs
and other magistrates can - and very often do - perform perform
perfectly secular ceremonies.
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the government's
business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship. I could see how the
state could issue the marriage license, then require them to swear something
legal-ish in front of a JP, but why should a common preacher be empowered by
the gov't to serve this purpose?
IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No way should the
state empower a clergyman to make an application for a government license
valid.
Hah . . .
You know, if someone was to make an issue of this and run it through the
courts, it could invalidate millions of marriages that were validated by
clergymen, and technically make their children "bastards" lol . . . It
would also require states to make all joinings between two people legal (I
suppose it could be called either a "Civil Union" or a "marriage") with only
civil proceedures . . . and put the church in its rightful place.
Of course, if people wanted to have a religious ritual after the
government paperwork was done, they still could, no problem there. I would
expect it would still be a popular option. But again, there's no way
whether or not a religious ritual was performed should concern the secular
government.
Whatcha think about that?
--Tock
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Bohlman" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 07:36:23 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:o6rSb.11376$4m.7050@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the
government's business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship.
I could see how the state could issue the marriage license, then
require them to swear something legal-ish in front of a JP, but why
should a common preacher be empowered by the gov't to serve this
purpose? IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No
way should the state empower a clergyman to make an application for a
government license valid.
As long as the clergymen are subject to the same legal requirements as
anybody else who's empowered to solemnize a marriage, I don't see any
problems.
Hah . . .
You know, if someone was to make an issue of this and run it through
the courts, it could invalidate millions of marriages that were
validated by clergymen, and technically make their children "bastards"
lol . . . It would also require states to make all joinings between
two people legal (I suppose it could be called either a "Civil Union"
or a "marriage") with only civil proceedures . . . and put the church
in its rightful place.
Of course, if people wanted to have a religious ritual after the
government paperwork was done, they still could, no problem there. I
would expect it would still be a popular option. But again, there's
no way whether or not a religious ritual was performed should concern
the secular government.
Whatcha think about that?
It's a very popular opinion among a lot of gay men, but I think it's a
purely symbolic gesture that would engender a lot of resentment among
straight people by making them go through an extra step in the marriage
process. I hate to use the term "political correctness" since it's so
poorly defined, but I can't think of any other term for it. Right now a
couple who wants to marry in a religious ceremony and a couple who want to
marry without a religious ceremony have to go through exactly the same
number of steps. Your proposal would have the former couples going through
three steps while the latter would have two. I can see some camp value to
such a proposal, but then camp is a form of frivolity and I don't see
marriage as something frivolous.
I'd prefer to see an expansion, rather than a restriction, of the range of
people who are entitled to solemnize a marriage. For example, I'd like to
see any official of an organization that regards marriage as important
being able to solemnize a marriage, subject to the same requirements as
anybody else. Ideally I'd like to see anyone able to apply for the
authority to do so, probably subject to passing a simple test covering the
legal requirements involved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 12:29:09 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns948050689291Debohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>, Eric
Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote:
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:o6rSb.11376$4m.7050@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the
government's business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship.
I could see how the state could issue the marriage license, then
require them to swear something legal-ish in front of a JP, but why
should a common preacher be empowered by the gov't to serve this
purpose? IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No
way should the state empower a clergyman to make an application for a
government license valid.
As long as the clergymen are subject to the same legal requirements as
anybody else who's empowered to solemnize a marriage, I don't see any
problems.
True - I know several couples who's ceremony was presided over by a
purely secular friend with zero religious inclinations at all (that was
in fact why they did it that way).
Anyone can perform the ceremony they just require one to 'finalize' the
contract application.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 01:04:47 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:o6rSb.11376$4m.7050@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc1ka1g.1p0.eighner@pearl.io.com...
In our last episode,
<OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
the lovely and talented <tock@sbcglobal.net>
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
Why oh why oh why does the City of Dallas (or any governmental agency
for
that matter) require a "marriage ceremony" beyond the official
governmental-issued marriage license? It would be one thing if they
required everyone to appear before a civil Judge (or Justice of the
Peace)
to make things official and final . . . BUT--here, the government says
things are not final until a religious group says it is. It seems to
me
that it is unconstitutional for the City of Dallas to involve religion
in
validating a government document in this way . . .
What do y'all think?
Where does it say the marriage ceremony has to be religious? JPs
and other magistrates can - and very often do - perform perform
perfectly secular ceremonies.
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the government's
business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship. I could see how
the
state could issue the marriage license, then require them to swear
something
legal-ish in front of a JP, but why should a common preacher be empowered
by
the gov't to serve this purpose?
IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No way should the
state empower a clergyman to make an application for a government license
valid.
Hah . . .
You know, if someone was to make an issue of this and run it through the
courts, it could invalidate millions of marriages that were validated by
clergymen, and technically make their children "bastards" lol . . . It
would also require states to make all joinings between two people legal (I
suppose it could be called either a "Civil Union" or a "marriage") with
only
civil proceedures . . . and put the church in its rightful place.
Of course, if people wanted to have a religious ritual after the
government paperwork was done, they still could, no problem there. I
would
expect it would still be a popular option. But again, there's no way
whether or not a religious ritual was performed should concern the secular
government.
Whatcha think about that?
--Tock
try again. there is NO requirement for a religious figure to perform a
ceremony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 01:32:49 PM |
|
|
"Daniel" <sabot120mm@diespammersdie.com> wrote in message
news:jVxSb.8484$2J1.7446@fe1.texas.rr.com...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:o6rSb.11376$4m.7050@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc1ka1g.1p0.eighner@pearl.io.com...
In our last episode,
<OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
the lovely and talented <tock@sbcglobal.net>
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
Why oh why oh why does the City of Dallas (or any governmental
agency
for
that matter) require a "marriage ceremony" beyond the official
governmental-issued marriage license? It would be one thing if
they
required everyone to appear before a civil Judge (or Justice of the
Peace)
to make things official and final . . . BUT--here, the government
says
things are not final until a religious group says it is. It seems
to
me
that it is unconstitutional for the City of Dallas to involve
religion
in
validating a government document in this way . . .
What do y'all think?
Where does it say the marriage ceremony has to be religious? JPs
and other magistrates can - and very often do - perform perform
perfectly secular ceremonies.
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the government's
business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship. I could see how
the
state could issue the marriage license, then require them to swear
something
legal-ish in front of a JP, but why should a common preacher be
empowered
by
the gov't to serve this purpose?
IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No way should
the
state empower a clergyman to make an application for a government
license
valid.
Hah . . .
You know, if someone was to make an issue of this and run it through the
courts, it could invalidate millions of marriages that were validated by
clergymen, and technically make their children "bastards" lol . . . It
would also require states to make all joinings between two people legal
(I
suppose it could be called either a "Civil Union" or a "marriage") with
only
civil proceedures . . . and put the church in its rightful place.
Of course, if people wanted to have a religious ritual after the
government paperwork was done, they still could, no problem there. I
would
expect it would still be a popular option. But again, there's no way
whether or not a religious ritual was performed should concern the
secular
government.
Whatcha think about that?
--Tock
try again. there is NO requirement for a religious figure to perform a
ceremony.
The clergy really only act in the official capacity as a witness and signs
the marriage license where the JP would. The clergy really isn't empowered
with anything more than ceremonial duties as far as the state is concerned.
That they are given such a role is really just makes it so that someone who
gets a religious ceremony also does not have to visit a JP.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 01:58:42 PM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote
The clergy really only act in the official capacity as a witness and signs
the marriage license where the JP would. The clergy really isn't empowered
with anything more than ceremonial duties as far as the state is
concerned.
That they are given such a role is really just makes it so that someone
who
gets a religious ceremony also does not have to visit a JP.
But . . . as soon as a clergyman's signature/ceremony completes a secular
requirement that affects the legal standing of two people, you have an
impermissable establishment of religion, contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Really and truly, if it is the state's intention to make the process simpler
for the couple involved, there is no reason why their legal standing cannot
be completed while they submit the application to the government official in
charge of marriage forms. I suppose the current system is a holdback from
the days when two people weren't considered married until the preacher did
the "magic" ceremony and said some religious words over them, and the
government's concern was simply to keep track of who did what. Nowadays,
as you pointed out, it doesn't take any magic words or supernatural ceremony
to bind two people together; all it really takes is a government form, and a
few words from a JP or a ship captain (who may or may not be an atheist).
I think it's time to eliminate the role of the clergy completely from the
legal requirements involving marriage.
--Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 04:22:28 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SHySb.11814$Rv2.539@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote
The clergy really only act in the official capacity as a witness and
signs
the marriage license where the JP would. The clergy really isn't
empowered
with anything more than ceremonial duties as far as the state is
concerned.
That they are given such a role is really just makes it so that someone
who
gets a religious ceremony also does not have to visit a JP.
But . . . as soon as a clergyman's signature/ceremony completes a secular
requirement that affects the legal standing of two people, you have an
impermissable establishment of religion, contrary to the 1st Amendment.
So are you saying that clergy can't act as a witness, nor can they be a
Notary?
Look, I'm a non-believer and a strict seperationist, but this is a
non-issue. I've been married both in church and by a JP and there's no
difference in what either does wrt the marriage license. Since the clergy
does not share any other legal functions that a JP would I'd say they have
no real power at all. Heck, I can marry people, all you have to do is fill
out a form.
Really and truly, if it is the state's intention to make the process
simpler
for the couple involved, there is no reason why their legal standing
cannot
be completed while they submit the application to the government official
in
charge of marriage forms.
I couldn't do it either. I had to go to a JP after I got the license and be
"married" by him.
I suppose the current system is a holdback from
the days when two people weren't considered married until the preacher did
the "magic" ceremony and said some religious words over them, and the
government's concern was simply to keep track of who did what. Nowadays,
as you pointed out, it doesn't take any magic words or supernatural
ceremony
to bind two people together; all it really takes is a government form, and
a
few words from a JP or a ship captain (who may or may not be an atheist).
I think it's time to eliminate the role of the clergy completely from
the
legal requirements involving marriage.
I'd agree with you to a degree, but you are taking on the wrong problem.
Take a look at it this way. The state considers you married without having
to go through a religious ceremony, but it does not consider you married if
you just have a religious wedding. What needs to be changed is the state
deciding which adults can be married by using a religious view of marriage.
Marriage on a state level is a contract like any other contract. The state
should not tell two men, two women, or a man and two women that they can't
be married because the bible says it's wrong. If they are consenting adults
the state should not have a say. If a church doesn't want to marry such
people it's fine by me, but that church shouldn't tell the state that it's
wrong and they can't enter into a contract together.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 07:45:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:58:42 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote
The clergy really only act in the official capacity as a witness and signs
the marriage license where the JP would. The clergy really isn't empowered
with anything more than ceremonial duties as far as the state is
concerned.
That they are given such a role is really just makes it so that someone
who
gets a religious ceremony also does not have to visit a JP.
But . . . as soon as a clergyman's signature/ceremony completes a secular
requirement that affects the legal standing of two people, you have an
impermissable establishment of religion, contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Really and truly, if it is the state's intention to make the process simpler
for the couple involved, there is no reason why their legal standing cannot
be completed while they submit the application to the government official in
charge of marriage forms. I suppose the current system is a holdback from
the days when two people weren't considered married until the preacher did
the "magic" ceremony and said some religious words over them, and the
government's concern was simply to keep track of who did what. Nowadays,
as you pointed out, it doesn't take any magic words or supernatural ceremony
to bind two people together; all it really takes is a government form, and a
few words from a JP or a ship captain (who may or may not be an atheist).
I think it's time to eliminate the role of the clergy completely from the
legal requirements involving marriage.
--Tock
You stick with this one beyond al reason -- the government DOES NOT
PLACE ANY SORT OF RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT -- they neither REQUIRE or
FORBID religious participation -- the citizens are then FREE to do as
they wish.
You are inventing a problem and making us all look foolish!
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"The fact is that the GOP is still the only place
where a klansman can feel at home."
--David Duke, 2002
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wild Bill Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 09:30:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:45:13 GMT, Ward Stewart
<wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
You are inventing a problem and making us all look foolish!
You ARE foolish to think that state recognized same sex marriage will
ever happen in the US. The upcoming decision by the legislature in
Massachusetts will further emphasize that FACT.
ward
--
Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:17:25 GMT, Ward Stewart <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote: We HAVE earned a status as worthy as Liza Minelli or the Gabor
whores. (In reference to himself and his canadian styled HUSBAND!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
01 Feb 2004 10:41:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:30:33 GMT, Wild Bill Taylor posted in
alt.atheism:
You ARE foolish to think that state recognized same sex marriage will
ever happen in the US. The upcoming decision by the legislature in
Massachusetts will further emphasize that FACT.
Hey, Bill, will you ever become intelligent?
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 10:39:21 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:o6rSb.11376$4m.7050@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
That is not what happens.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the government's
business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship. I could see how
the
state could issue the marriage license, then require them to swear
something
legal-ish in front of a JP, but why should a common preacher be empowered
by
the gov't to serve this purpose?
IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No way should the
state empower a clergyman to make an application for a government license
valid.
Hah . . .
You know, if someone was to make an issue of this and run it through the
courts, it could invalidate millions of marriages that were validated by
clergymen, and technically make their children "bastards" lol . . . It
would also require states to make all joinings between two people legal (I
suppose it could be called either a "Civil Union" or a "marriage") with
only
civil proceedures . . . and put the church in its rightful place.
Of course, if people wanted to have a religious ritual after the
government paperwork was done, they still could, no problem there. I
would
expect it would still be a popular option. But again, there's no way
whether or not a religious ritual was performed should concern the secular
government.
Whatcha think about that?
I think it is none of your business to worry about what other people may or
may not be doing.
Maybe the government should impose a state religion just to shut people like
you up.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--Tock
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 04:00:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:20:52 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc1ka1g.1p0.eighner@pearl.io.com...
In our last episode,
<OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
the lovely and talented <tock@sbcglobal.net>
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
Why oh why oh why does the City of Dallas (or any governmental agency
for
that matter) require a "marriage ceremony" beyond the official
governmental-issued marriage license? It would be one thing if they
required everyone to appear before a civil Judge (or Justice of the
Peace)
to make things official and final . . . BUT--here, the government says
things are not final until a religious group says it is. It seems to
me
that it is unconstitutional for the City of Dallas to involve religion
in
validating a government document in this way . . .
What do y'all think?
Where does it say the marriage ceremony has to be religious? JPs
and other magistrates can - and very often do - perform perform
perfectly secular ceremonies.
The issue, IMHO, is that the government empowers a clergyman/religious
ritual to validate a government document . . . at all.
Really and truly, preachers have no legitimate role in the government's
business of recognizing any sort of legal relationship. I could see how the
state could issue the marriage license, then require them to swear something
legal-ish in front of a JP, but why should a common preacher be empowered by
the gov't to serve this purpose?
IMHO, it's unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. No way should the
state empower a clergyman to make an application for a government license
valid.
Hah . . .
You know, if someone was to make an issue of this and run it through the
courts, it could invalidate millions of marriages that were validated by
clergymen, and technically make their children "bastards" lol . . . It
would also require states to make all joinings between two people legal (I
suppose it could be called either a "Civil Union" or a "marriage") with only
civil proceedures . . . and put the church in its rightful place.
Of course, if people wanted to have a religious ritual after the
government paperwork was done, they still could, no problem there. I would
expect it would still be a popular option. But again, there's no way
whether or not a religious ritual was performed should concern the secular
government.
Whatcha think about that?
--Tock
If a free choice is open to the participants I have no problem.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having your marriage performed
by a cleric. Indeed, in a better world he would be the cleric of your
own church and you would be known to him.
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
48 years together
and yet
Strangers before the law.
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
