| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2004 05:40:15 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this? Heck, notary publics stamp all sorts
of documents, but they can't validate a marriage license. IMHO, the
government cannot accept a document's validation only because its validator
happened to be a member of the clergy.
I really don't see anything problematic about a 72-hour waiting period
between the issuance of a license to marry and the actual marriage. It
would preclude antics of the sort that one Ms. Spears engaged in recently.
I mean, honestly, if you want to marry today but don't still want to marry
three days from now, you really shouldn't marry. And such people are the
only ones excluded by those regulations. And the same thing applies to
the
license expiring in 30 days. I really don't see a problem here.
Here in Dallas, if you're a member of the military, you can get around the
waiting period. But while I personally think the waiting period is a good
idea, the Libertarian in me says it's not up to the gov't to decide what's a
good idea for people who want to get married. But that's another ball of
wax I'll melt at another time . . . one mess at a time, as my dear sweet
departed grandmother used to say . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 05:48:15 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zorSb.11381$cA.5364@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The
latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this? Heck, notary publics stamp all
sorts
of documents, but they can't validate a marriage license.
He can in my town. One of our Notary Publics is also the Justice of the
Peace.
IMHO, the
government cannot accept a document's validation only because its
validator
happened to be a member of the clergy.
I really don't see anything problematic about a 72-hour waiting period
between the issuance of a license to marry and the actual marriage. It
would preclude antics of the sort that one Ms. Spears engaged in
recently.
I mean, honestly, if you want to marry today but don't still want to
marry
three days from now, you really shouldn't marry. And such people are
the
only ones excluded by those regulations. And the same thing applies to
the
license expiring in 30 days. I really don't see a problem here.
Here in Dallas, if you're a member of the military, you can get around the
waiting period. But while I personally think the waiting period is a
good
idea, the Libertarian in me says it's not up to the gov't to decide what's
a
good idea for people who want to get married. But that's another ball of
wax I'll melt at another time . . . one mess at a time, as my dear sweet
departed grandmother used to say . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 11:34:51 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zorSb.11381$cA.5364@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The
latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
It's merely a convenience for those opting for a church marriage.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 01:24:51 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:bve4pn$revpi$2@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
It's merely a convenience for those opting for a church marriage.
Again, since the 1st Amendment sez the gov't "shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion," wouldn't you rather suspect that preachers
should be barred from taking an official and legally binding role in
determining the legal status of a couple?
Sure, it may be intended to be a convenience for the church marriage
crowd, and I have nothing against church marriages, but it seems to me that
if the state wishes to make things easier for a couple seeking to get
married, the government clerk who receives the original application could
put an offical stamp on the document, and for all legal purposes, they would
be considered a couple in the eyes of the law. It seems silly to assume a
clergyman's signature would have a more profound effect on the couple's
relationship than, perhaps, a psychologist, or even an electrician.
Actually, there is no secular purpose served by requiring the couple to
endure a ritual of solemnization, and to require such a ritual or ceremony
itself is a sort of "establishment of religion" and is itself
unconstitutional. Hah.
But . . . should a couple, having submitted to the state's secular
requirements for legal recognition of their relationship, desire a ceremony,
they would certainly be free to have one . . . or several, if they wished.
But whether or not a couple had or chose not to have a ceremony, their
relationship in the eyes of the law would be identical . . . as it should
be.
So . . . it's not a issue of "let 'em do it 'cause it's simpler," it's an
issue of "what the hell is the government authorizing clergymen to sign
secular government documents at all?"
--Tock
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 02:35:23 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7cySb.11800$ys2.10024@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:bve4pn$revpi$2@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
It's merely a convenience for those opting for a church marriage.
Again, since the 1st Amendment sez the gov't "shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion," wouldn't you rather suspect that preachers
should be barred from taking an official and legally binding role in
determining the legal status of a couple?
I think there's other issues that are far more important.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 03:01:34 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote
I think there's other issues that are far more important.
Perhaps . . . perhaps not . . .
It seems that some folks are so upset with a perceived "attack on marriage"
that they feel a need to preserve it with an amendment to the Constitution
saying that gays can't be married. IMHO, silly, and, as you say, there are
other issues that are far more important. However . . . it is not a good
indication that there are so many people willing to mess with the
Constitution over what should really be a trivial matter.
If the issue of "Marriage" was left entirely up to churches, and if the
legal status of couples were left entirely up to the officials in secular
government, perhaps the folks proposing to mutilate the Constitution would
feel that their divinely-recognized marriage was not in danger, and would
then be less likely to proceed with their threatened carnage upon the
foundation of American government. And then, citizens of the US would
recognize that the government's "marriage license" had nothing to do with
the Will of God, but only established legal recognition of human
relationships, then perhaps it would make recognizing gay and lesbian
relationships simple . . . or at least, simpler . . .
So . . . perhaps, perhaps not . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 07:46:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:01:34 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote
I think there's other issues that are far more important.
Perhaps . . . perhaps not . . .
It seems that some folks are so upset with a perceived "attack on marriage"
that they feel a need to preserve it with an amendment to the Constitution
saying that gays can't be married. IMHO, silly, and, as you say, there are
other issues that are far more important. However . . . it is not a good
indication that there are so many people willing to mess with the
Constitution over what should really be a trivial matter.
If the issue of "Marriage" was left entirely up to churches, and if the
legal status of couples were left entirely up to the officials in secular
government, perhaps the folks proposing to mutilate the Constitution would
feel that their divinely-recognized marriage was not in danger, and would
then be less likely to proceed with their threatened carnage upon the
foundation of American government. And then, citizens of the US would
recognize that the government's "marriage license" had nothing to do with
the Will of God, but only established legal recognition of human
relationships, then perhaps it would make recognizing gay and lesbian
relationships simple . . . or at least, simpler . . .
So . . . perhaps, perhaps not . . .
--Tock
IT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"The fact is that the GOP is still the only place
where a klansman can feel at home."
--David Duke, 2002
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 08:42:10 PM |
|
|
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dk2m101qvu113b7uivf9lten2a85lb653r@4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:01:34 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote
I think there's other issues that are far more important.
Perhaps . . . perhaps not . . .
It seems that some folks are so upset with a perceived "attack on
marriage"
that they feel a need to preserve it with an amendment to the
Constitution
saying that gays can't be married. IMHO, silly, and, as you say, there
are
other issues that are far more important. However . . . it is not a
good
indication that there are so many people willing to mess with the
Constitution over what should really be a trivial matter.
If the issue of "Marriage" was left entirely up to churches, and if
the
legal status of couples were left entirely up to the officials in secular
government, perhaps the folks proposing to mutilate the Constitution
would
feel that their divinely-recognized marriage was not in danger, and would
then be less likely to proceed with their threatened carnage upon the
foundation of American government. And then, citizens of the US would
recognize that the government's "marriage license" had nothing to do with
the Will of God, but only established legal recognition of human
relationships, then perhaps it would make recognizing gay and lesbian
relationships simple . . . or at least, simpler . . .
So . . . perhaps, perhaps not . . .
--Tock
IT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!
Hey, if 'tock' wants to fight that battle, I say, 'Let him!'
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 07:31:47 PM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:bve4pn$revpi$2@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
It's merely a convenience for those opting for a church marriage.
Again, since the 1st Amendment sez the gov't "shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion," wouldn't you rather suspect that preachers
should be barred from taking an official and legally binding role in
determining the legal status of a couple?
Barring preachers from things which other citizens can do would be
discrimination AGAINST religion.
Actually, there is no secular purpose served by requiring the couple to
endure a ritual of solemnization, and to require such a ritual or ceremony
itself is a sort of "establishment of religion" and is itself
unconstitutional. Hah.
No, since the ceremony need not be religious. Requiring the jumping
through of "unnecessary" hoops is not inherently a religious activity.
The state interest in the ceremony is that the couple make a public
commitment to each other in front of witnesses, some period of time
after the license has been obtained.
So . . . it's not a issue of "let 'em do it 'cause it's simpler," it's an
issue of "what the hell is the government authorizing clergymen to sign
secular government documents at all?"
The government is authorizing citizens to sign certain secular
government documents, the citizens having previously filed with the
government for the power to do so.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 06:27:30 AM |
|
|
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
They don't.
Heck, notary publics stamp all sorts
of documents, but they can't validate a marriage license.
Notary publics do not validate anything except signatures.
IMHO, the
government cannot accept a document's validation only because its validator
happened to be a member of the clergy.
In every jurisdiction there are civil alternatives for performance of
a marriage ceremony.
Here are some non-religious alternatives in Dallas:
http://www.dallascounty.org/html/departments/jp_courts/3-1/weddings.html
http://phonebook.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Justices+Of+The+Peace/S-TX/T-Dallas/
http://dfwx.com/officiant.html
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 07:26:52 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:5lik10h1h1s4ohjfv7ch73rl8ittt604m7@4ax.com...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The
latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to
temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to
perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
They don't.
Heck, notary publics stamp all sorts
of documents, but they can't validate a marriage license.
Notary publics do not validate anything except signatures.
IMHO, the
government cannot accept a document's validation only because its
validator
happened to be a member of the clergy.
In every jurisdiction there are civil alternatives for performance of
a marriage ceremony.
Here are some non-religious alternatives in Dallas:
http://www.dallascounty.org/html/departments/jp_courts/3-1/weddings.html
http://phonebook.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Justices+Of+The+Peace/S-TX/T-D
allas/
http://dfwx.com/officiant.html
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
==========================
Ya, well, my point is that the gov't has no business inviting religious
leaders to share its authority to validate government documents.
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 04:49:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:26:52 GMT, <tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:5lik10h1h1s4ohjfv7ch73rl8ittt604m7@4ax.com...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The
latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to
temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to
perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this?
They don't.
Heck, notary publics stamp all sorts
of documents, but they can't validate a marriage license.
Notary publics do not validate anything except signatures.
IMHO, the
government cannot accept a document's validation only because its
validator
happened to be a member of the clergy.
In every jurisdiction there are civil alternatives for performance of
a marriage ceremony.
Here are some non-religious alternatives in Dallas:
http://www.dallascounty.org/html/departments/jp_courts/3-1/weddings.html
http://phonebook.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Justices+Of+The+Peace/S-TX/T-D
allas/
http://dfwx.com/officiant.html
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
==========================
Ya, well, my point is that the gov't has no business inviting religious
leaders to share its authority to validate government documents.
-Tock
Aloha Tock -- Give up on this one -- be reminded that it is the
PARTICIPANT who has the choice of clergy or not -- not the government.
This is known as freedom of choice.
You are riding a dead horse -- persistency of error is a striking
quality in the KKKlansmen a fascists and right wing-nuts -- try not to
join them in their obstinate folly.
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"The fact is that the GOP is still the only place
where a klansman can feel at home."
--David Duke, 2002
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unconstitutional requirement for a marriage license? |
30 Jan 2004 10:50:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns948037DF227C5ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
< > wrote in
news:OkoSb.12441$N72.9273@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
What do y'all think?
I don't see any implications of religion in the requirements that you
posted. Marriage in the contemporary Western world is generally a
two-step
process: first you get a license to marry, and then you marry. The latter
step has to be formally "performed" and a reasonably large class of
persons, including but my no means limited to clergymen (just a
convenience
to the people who want a religious recognition of marriage to temporally
coincide with a civil recognition of marriage) are authorized to perform
that step.
Yah, they are authorized . . . but why should the government authorize
clergymen and no one else to do this? Heck, notary publics stamp all sorts
of documents, but they can't validate a marriage license. IMHO, the
government cannot accept a document's validation only because its validator
happened to be a member of the clergy.
In Canada, JPs, judges, captains of commercial vessels and "marriage
officiators" are authorised to solemnise marriage as well as clergy.
There are plenty of secular authorities available to those who do not
wish a religious ceremony. Couples can write their own marriage vows
thus these secular authorities may or may not mention a deity in
accordance with the wishes of the couple. In the USA, YMMV.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
