Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   Internet-ordained ministers can no longer legally marry anyone. The judge opined: "It makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system," forgetting that everything makes a mockery of the marriage system   (philly.com) divider line 219
    More: Silly  
•       •       •

9116 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:57 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-12 01:00:31 PM  
I wonder if the judge realizes that the issuance of licensing for preachers to marry people who have to have a separate license to even be married when the legal system says that the marriage license IS the marriage is a duplicity of taxation that also aggregates to TAXATION OF A CHURCH.
 
2007-09-12 01:04:08 PM  
FTA: The Pennsylvania House is considering legislation that would exclude churches or congregations that offer ordinations by mail or through electronic means.

I wonder how this might also affect other certificates offered by mail or electronic means, such as diplomas for various academic degrees. I know that the law would specifically be aimed at churches or congregations, but would that not create a double standard that could be easily challenged. Any legal scholars care to chime in?
 
2007-09-12 01:10:28 PM  
Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in who marries who, and by whom.
 
2007-09-12 01:12:32 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in who marries who, and by whom.

Taxes, custody, ownership, visitation rights, power of attorney.
 
2007-09-12 01:18:14 PM  
EvilEgg: Taxes, custody, ownership, visitation rights, power of attorney.

I know you think you answered the question, but you didn't.

The question you answered was: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in knowing who is married to whom.
 
2007-09-12 01:28:21 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in who marries who, and by whom.

Ok, I'll try again.

Who marries who: well it should be assured that they are qualified to enter in to the contract. ie. Of legal age, not already married, etc. Other than that no good reason.

By whom: The person who performs the marriage should be authorized to legally register it with the government. Anyone can become a J.P.
 
2007-09-12 01:29:11 PM  
Heyer said she agreed such a ceremony did not have legal standing. "It makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system," she said.

Personally, I think a stupid kid that decides to get married when they're not ready (which is clear since they split up 7 months later) makes a mockery of the whole system.
 
2007-09-12 01:30:17 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: I know you think you answered the question, but you didn't.

That is a good answer, unless you are going to wax philosophic about the government's role in the private lives of citizens.

Marriage is a legally recognized union that carries rights, protections, responsibilities, and obligations that are administered, determined, established and enforced by the legal system, which is a branch of the government, and many of thes laws are specific to married people. The government has an interest in knowing who enjoys and is subject to laws specific to them.
 
2007-09-12 01:30:26 PM  
Like someone who is guessing about the invisible man in the sky over the internet knows any less than the guy who is guessing about the invisible man in the sky in person. That judge is making a mockery out of our legal system.
 
2007-09-12 01:32:25 PM  
Ummmm, Notaries can marry people in many states. How is that NOT a mockery, if this is?
 
2007-09-12 01:34:00 PM  
If I ever get married again, I want the ceremony to be performed by a ship's captain.
 
2007-09-12 01:37:17 PM  
Inaditch: If I ever get married again, I want the ceremony to be performed by a ship's captain.

My second marriage was in Vegas. Best thing ever. It was quick cheap and fun.
 
2007-09-12 01:43:23 PM  
This will never hold, it's a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.

By saying religious groups that ordain via mail/internet can't marry people, they are in effect saying they are "less real" than "regular" religious groups. And in the United States, we're supposed to give each religion equal weight and protection under the law.
 
2007-09-12 01:43:43 PM  
Take THAT, Tori Spelling.
 
2007-09-12 01:46:13 PM  
Inaditch: If I ever get married again, I want the ceremony to be performed by a ship's captain.

Unfortunately, unless you can find a captain that's also a minister or judge, it won't be recognised.
 
2007-09-12 01:47:32 PM  
And if the devil'd take her I'd thank him for his pain
I swear to God I'll hang me self If I get married again


That's all I have to say about that.
 
2007-09-12 01:48:37 PM  
I am a minister. Well, I thought I was a minister. Now I'm not sure. Let me check with the State and get back to you.
 
2007-09-12 01:55:38 PM  
Oh, and I am an ordained minister, so replies, kicks, and whatnot.
 
2007-09-12 01:56:45 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: I know you think you answered the question, but you didn't.

The question you answered was: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in knowing who is married to whom.


Marriage was originally a secular institution, enacted for those reasons.

The religious aspect is very much tagged on after the fact. Marrage is, and always has been, far more about taxation, ownership of property, and custody of children than anything else.
 
2007-09-12 01:59:21 PM  
I wonder how this might also affect other certificates offered by mail or electronic means, such as diplomas for various academic degrees. I know that the law would specifically be aimed at churches or congregations, but would that not create a double standard that could be easily challenged. Any legal scholars care to chime in?

It's been a long time since I took Con Law, but talking out of my ass, here goes:

I don't think it affects diplomas, etc. issued by online universities, since the proposed legislation would only regulate who could or could not preside over a wedding. It doesn't seem to me that that would impact, say, someone who got an MBA online.

With regards to the decision, it's not clear which way the appellate court would go. One the one hand, the State is regulating the issuance of marriage licenses, which historically has been squarely within its perogotive to do. On the other hand, the existing law discriminates against members of religions that do not have a "regularly established church or congregation." This implicates the First Amendment, and the Court would apply strict scrutiny to its review. It's not enough for Pennsylvania to simply say that they are trying to prevent fraud; instead, they must jump through a whole bunch of hoops to essentially prove that this is the only way they can prevent fraud. This is a very high burden for the state to overcome.
 
2007-09-12 02:00:02 PM  
So Joey can't ride the subway for free?
 
2007-09-12 02:00:05 PM  
Heyer said she agreed such a ceremony did not have legal standing. "It makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system," she said.

The funny thing about this is that people can skip the marriage ceremony and just get the marriage certificate from the county/state. So in a way that is also making a mockery of the whole marriage system.
 
2007-09-12 02:00:22 PM  
I gotta raise an issue with the headline. How does one county-level judge declaring one marriage void in Pennsylvania equal "Internet-ordained ministers can no longer legally marry anyone" ?
 
2007-09-12 02:00:41 PM  
who farted?
 
2007-09-12 02:00:50 PM  
Damn, there goes that ten bucks I spent to become a minister...
 
2007-09-12 02:01:19 PM  
submitter: The judge opined: "It makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system,"

FAIL. The Judge said no such thing. One of the participants in the phoney baloney ceremony said it.
 
2007-09-12 02:01:45 PM  
I make a mockery of marriage every time I go home after work, so I'm getting a kickout of these replies.
 
2007-09-12 02:02:44 PM  
but my friend from college, who spent a few hours to become a notary public (because he was bored), can still marry people, and charge up to (i think it was) $20 for this service.
 
2007-09-12 02:02:47 PM  
A 50% divorce rate is a mockery of the marriage system.
 
2007-09-12 02:02:53 PM  
Not allowing internet preachas make a mockery of marriage is a violation of my constitutional rights. Can I get an Amen Ya'll?
 
2007-09-12 02:03:04 PM  
What about red light tickets you get in the mail by electronic means?
 
2007-09-12 02:03:11 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in who marries who, and by whom.

The government is very much involved in the issue via the legal system (deciding custody, child support, etc.), so having some regulation of who can make the determination of who can marry who, and a registry of who gets married to who, is a reasonable function of government.
 
2007-09-12 02:03:24 PM  
Gwendolyn: Inaditch: If I ever get married again, I want the ceremony to be performed by a ship's captain.

My second marriage was in Vegas. Best thing ever. It was quick cheap and fun.


This.

Did a formal wedding, lasted 2 years
Did one on the bridge of the Enterprise, we past Anniv #2, have a child and a house
 
2007-09-12 02:04:00 PM  
Internet-ordained ministers can no longer legally marry anyone.

Makes for a great excuse if the SO is pressuring you to get married. Can't, honey, I'm an internet-ordained minister. I can't marry anyone.

/Wait, what?
 
2007-09-12 02:04:02 PM  
I'd say a roughly 50% divorce rate makes a mockery of the whole marriage system.
 
2007-09-12 02:04:29 PM  
Gwendolyn:

My second marriage was in Vegas. Best thing ever. It was quick cheap and fun.


ummm... you know that what happens in vegas, stays in vegas?

in other words, you are not married.
 
2007-09-12 02:05:47 PM  
TFA: State law says those qualified to officiate at marriages are judges, mayors, and the ministers, priests or rabbis of a "regularly established church or congregation."
...
Heyer said she agreed such a ceremony did not have legal standing. "It makes a mockery out of the whole marriage system," she said.
...
Freeman said the decision to accept some ministers but not others was arbitrary and would violate the constitutional separation of church and state.


Yeah, that.

Basically, the state is dictating which religious organizations are licensed to conduct marriage ceremonies. That's a clear violation of the establishment clause, given how Xtian-biased the current regulations are. You don't get much more cut-and-dry than that... the judge should be removed from office for making such a ruling.
 
2007-09-12 02:05:56 PM  
PsyLord: A 50% divorce rate is a mockery of the marriage system.

lets face it

the marriage system mocks itself
 
2007-09-12 02:06:01 PM  
fishrockcarving: Marriage is a legally recognized union that carries rights, protections, responsibilities, and obligations that are administered, determined, established and enforced by the legal system, which is a branch of the government, and many of thes laws are specific to married people. The government has an interest in knowing who enjoys and is subject to laws specific to them.

I agree that the Government needs to know that Bob and Jane (or Neil) *are* married, but I fail to see why the Government needs to know that Bob and Jane *plan* to get married. Nor do I see why the person performing the ceremony needs to be approved by the State. Why does it matter if Father O'Callahan or Jim sign the marriage certificate under, "I'm the guy who said, 'I now pronounce you man and wife.'"

EvilEgg: Who marries who: well it should be assured that they are qualified to enter in to the contract. ie. Of legal age, not already married, etc. Other than that no good reason.

I see no problem with polygamy, as long as all parties directly involved are aware beforehand. I'd never agree to it, but I don't see how my personal moral convictions should become entangled in a law that effects no one other than the people involved. You've got a bit of a point with the age thing, but only if one party is very young and there is a large disparity in ages. A fifteen and sixteen year old want to get married? Well, part of living in a free society is being free to make stupid decisions. I see no real problem with a thirty-five year old and a seventeen year old getting married, provided none of those involved are forced. Now, if a twenty year old wants to marry a ten year old, then I don't think the lack of a license will stop him from following up on his real intentions.


By whom: The person who performs the marriage should be authorized to legally register it with the government. Anyone can become a J.P.

OK, but WHY? That's like saying that driving at 70mph is illegal because the speed limit is 55mph.
 
2007-09-12 02:06:45 PM  
Belltower: The government is very much involved in the issue via the legal system (deciding custody, child support, etc.), so having some regulation of who can make the determination of who can marry who, and a registry of who gets married to who, is a reasonable function of government.

Okay, that explains why we need marriage licenses. Why do we need special people to be ordained to do the ceremony?
 
2007-09-12 02:06:46 PM  
It was my dream to see in the computer's screen the personal and heartwarming Times New Roman 12 saying I was married!


Nah, really, you ought to live life however you want as long as you don't harm. If the internetsss does it for you, that's fine, if you believe in marriage, that's fine. If the government wants to know how many people do that, they just need to make an administrative system that will count the internet weddings.

/doesn't believe in marriage
 
2007-09-12 02:06:55 PM  
so stupid kids decide to get married and instead of being mature about it and getting a divorce they cry "wah it wasn't real!" and fark up everyone else's religious freedom?

We went to great lengths to have a long time family friend marry us. He's a "commissaire" which is sort of a judge, but for tribunals and not court, so he technically had no right to marry us. We had to file an inordinate amount of paperwork to make it all kosher, but it was very worth it.

*Anyone* should be able to serve as an officiant once you get the license.

Not gonna get into whether or not the state should be licensing marriage to begin with.
 
2007-09-12 02:08:03 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: Why does it matter if Father O'Callahan or Jim sign the marriage certificate under, "I'm the guy who said, 'I now pronounce you man and wife.'"

Well, I should hope we'd have a notary public sign it. I don't see why it has to be any more romantic than changing the title on a car. It's a legal agreement that the government needs to know about.
 
2007-09-12 02:08:14 PM  
Belltower: The government is very much involved in the issue via the legal system (deciding custody, child support, etc.), so having some regulation of who can make the determination of who can marry who, and a registry of who gets married to who, is a reasonable function of government.

I will agree that having a registry of who gets married to who is an important function of government, but in most other ways (not dealing with teh ghey) the government stays the fark out.

The government can't legally bar felons from marrying
The government can't legally bar races or religions from marrying
The government can't legally bar the retarded from marrying (as long as they're competent to make a contract)

All of these thing seem like they would have far greater public policy bearing on the state than simply who officiates the marriage. So why does the state care who does the officiating?

/This is a big deal for me because my wedding is coming up and I'm not going to go begging some worshiper of a mythical sky-zombie who may or may not be his own father to officiate for us. That's what friends and family are for.
 
2007-09-12 02:08:54 PM  
Pro Zack: in other words, you are not married.

Except when they are in Vegas.
 
2007-09-12 02:09:17 PM  
I hate Chevy: I'd say a roughly 50% divorce rate makes a mockery of the whole marriage system.

Fo' sho'. And how many of those redneck 'tards who lobby so very hard against teh gheys getting married have been divorced? A large percentage, I'd reckon. And probably more than once.
 
2007-09-12 02:09:32 PM  
5000_gallons_of_toothpaste: Like someone who is guessing about the invisible man in the sky over the internet knows any less than the guy who is guessing about the invisible man in the sky in person. That judge is making a mockery out of our legal system.

i'm the invisible man in the sky people guess about so i'm really getting a kick out of some of these replies
 
2007-09-12 02:10:04 PM  
Gecko Gingrich: Can someone explain to me what interest the Government has in who marries who, and by whom.

Well, you see it's like this. Who's on first, What's on second and I Don't Know is on third ...
 
2007-09-12 02:10:54 PM  
Internet-ordained ministers can no longer legally marry anyone IN PENNSYLVANIA

FTFY Subby.

And I say who cares, let the Amish be Amish.
heh heh heh
 
2007-09-12 02:10:58 PM  
Gwendolyn: Inaditch: If I ever get married again, I want the ceremony to be performed by a ship's captain.

My second marriage was in Vegas. Best thing ever. It was quick cheap and fun.


My first marriage was in Vegas. Best thing ever. It was quick, cheap and fun.

/only marriage
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report