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.

(Think Progress)   Nevada AG drops defense of gay marriage ban after realizing how many Las Vegas entertainers might decide to leave   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 50
    More: Spiffy, Las Vegas, gay marriage ban, Ninth Circuit, heightened scrutiny, Brian Sandoval, legal standing  
•       •       •

1057 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2014 at 2:35 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-11 02:15:35 PM
There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?
 
2014-02-11 02:20:35 PM

scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?


They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.
 
2014-02-11 02:27:10 PM

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.


Yeah... White supremacists tried to "redefine marriage" to be only between a white man and white woman. When homosexuals try to "redefine marriage" to be between any two consenting adults, they're doing the same thing, and are pretty much exactly the same as the KKK.

cdn.bilerico.net
 
2014-02-11 02:28:01 PM

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.


So. Going for the Pants On Head Retarded Defence of Marriage right out of the gate? That's gutsy...
 
2014-02-11 02:29:13 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-11 02:30:58 PM

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.


But shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think the equality bans are much more comparable to what white supremacists wanted than those who want marriage equality.
 
2014-02-11 02:35:18 PM

scottydoesntknow: I would think the equality bans are much more comparable to what white supremacists wanted than those who want marriage equality.


As I said above, they're saying that both groups were "redefining marriage". What they're redefining it to is apparently irrelevant, simply wanting to change it puts them both in the same camp. And therefore, homosexuals, the KKK, and the Anglican Church are all the same.
 
2014-02-11 02:36:42 PM

scottydoesntknow: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.

But shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think the equality bans are much more comparable to what white supremacists wanted than those who want marriage equality.


Bro, I don't pretend to understand the sanity of the argument. If anything, hubiestubert calling this defense pants-on-head retarded is underselling just how bonkers it is.
 
2014-02-11 02:37:09 PM

scottydoesntknow: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.

But shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think the equality bans are much more comparable to what white supremacists wanted than those who want marriage equality.


Shush, you. Never get in the way of someone shooting themselves in the foot. It can get messy, and it deprives the peanut gallery of their chance to point and laugh...
 
2014-02-11 02:38:39 PM
Gay righs advocates are trying to 'redefine marriage' in the same way that we 'redefined voting' when we allowed African Americans to vote.
 
2014-02-11 02:39:32 PM

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.

But shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think the equality bans are much more comparable to what white supremacists wanted than those who want marriage equality.

Bro, I don't pretend to understand the sanity of the argument. If anything, hubiestubert calling this defense pants-on-head retarded is underselling just how bonkers it is.


Ok good. I was just making sure it made absolutely no sense to everyone else too.
 
2014-02-11 02:41:00 PM

A Cave Geek: Gay righs advocates are trying to 'redefine marriage' in the same way that we 'redefined voting' when we allowed African Americans to vote.


And women - can't forget suffrage.
 
2014-02-11 02:43:00 PM
GO GO GAYROLLER 2000!
 
2014-02-11 02:43:40 PM
Ah the Freepers are loving it:

One choice one in particular:
"I know Nevada isn't the most conservative state...but there are limits to morality, aren't there?"

Yeah....somehow gay marriage is more immoral than prostitution (also legal in parts of NV)

But the best is from this guy:
That is precisely the complicating concern about Gay Marriage in Nevada.

Las Vegas will see hoards of gay couples flocking to the city and getting married at a rapid pace in the drive thru wedding chapels. It will become the Gay Marriage Capitol of America.

It will also complicate matters for straight couples who go to Vegas to get married as it may take them longer to actually get married as all the marriage chapels in the city will be booked solid with gay weddings.

And there will be mischief just as there is today with straight people who meet in Vegas, party for a night and then get married, only to regret it by brunch.

Worse if all, after these gays from Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and other pro family states get married in Vegas, they will return to their home states with all the privileges of a real married couple.


Yup, the harm is that real couples that want to get married at a drive-thru chapel will have to wait in line like you do at a McDonalds at lunch time, instead of being able to pull right up to the window and get married in a heartbeat. And, these are "real" straight couples, as opposed to those that regret their marriage by brunch the next day, as he explains in his following sentence.

Derp Hard Freepers.
 
2014-02-11 02:44:51 PM
So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?
 
2014-02-11 02:45:18 PM

DarwiOdrade: A Cave Geek: Gay righs advocates are trying to 'redefine marriage' in the same way that we 'redefined voting' when we allowed African Americans to vote.

And women - can't forget suffrage.


Definitely.  Same way we 're-defined' marriage when mixed race marriages were legalized.  Oh, and what about outlawing slavery?  Were we 'redefining' freedom?  Oh, and what about the Japanese, after WWII?  Perhaps we 'redefined' religious freedom when we recognized non-christian religions for the first time?
 
2014-02-11 02:46:06 PM

Serious Black: Bro, I don't pretend to understand the sanity of the argument.


DRINK MOAR

/it's GOT to be drunkard logic...I can't see it working any other way
 
2014-02-11 02:46:46 PM
Nevada is just to protect the sanctity of Traditional Marriage, which means one man and one woman... drunk, at 3:30 in the morning, at a drive-in chapel, officiated by Elvis.... like in The Bible
 
2014-02-11 02:47:02 PM

flondrix: So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?


I doubt those chapels actually care at all. If they are now able to marry more people, that's more money in the coffers. I think they are going to put up the least resistance of anyone.
 
2014-02-11 02:47:14 PM
its LAS VEGAS not VEGAS AND STEVE
 
2014-02-11 02:48:13 PM
Nevada AG drops defense of gay marriage ban after realizing how many Las Vegas entertainers might decide to leave "it's icky" is not a valid rationale.
 
2014-02-11 02:51:48 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Nevada is just to protect the sanctity of Traditional Marriage, which means one man and one woman... drunk, at 3:30 in the morning, at a drive-in chapel, officiated by Elvis.... like in The Bible


...and annulled 55 hours later cause it was just a joke.
 
2014-02-11 02:52:27 PM

scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?


people that compare marriage equality to white supremacy are racists

lelz

tasteslikehate.jpg
 
2014-02-11 02:52:42 PM

Lord_Baull: Nevada AG drops defense of gay marriage ban after realizing how many Las Vegas entertainers might decide to leave "it's icky" is not a valid rationale.


....after getting a good look at the nutjobs they were siding with.
 
2014-02-11 02:58:36 PM

sprawl15: its LAS VEGAS not VEGAS AND STEVE



Funny'd
 
2014-02-11 03:05:50 PM
noelleodesigns.com

We will just pack up and move to Boston where we can be a happily married couple.
 
2014-02-11 03:10:07 PM

flondrix: So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?


Probably depends on whether you're officiating under the auspices of being a religious minister (even Universal Life Church), or there's some other 'officiant' rule in Nevada. I'm guessing the latter.

I know that when I got married in British Columbia, there was an online list of non-religious officiants you could call up, a statutory amount they were allowed to charge, and they were all non-discriminatory by law (this was after Canada allowed SSM).
 
2014-02-11 03:13:54 PM

Lawnchair: I know that when I got married in British Columbia, there was an online list of non-religious officiants you could call up, a statutory amount they were allowed to charge, and they were all non-discriminatory by law (this was after Canada allowed SSM).


I also would like to add, just so that heads will explode, we had a Catholic PM when marriage equality was signed into law.
 
2014-02-11 03:14:09 PM

Lawnchair: flondrix: So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?

Probably depends on whether you're officiating under the auspices of being a religious minister (even Universal Life Church), or there's some other 'officiant' rule in Nevada. I'm guessing the latter.

I know that when I got married in British Columbia, there was an online list of non-religious officiants you could call up, a statutory amount they were allowed to charge, and they were all non-discriminatory by law (this was after Canada allowed SSM).



Of course, it varies from state to state, but my understanding is that generally if you "hold out your services to the public," you can't discriminate against the gheys. Churches don't hold out their services to the public, because they require classes, you might have to be a member, the priest can just decide not to, etc. In this case, I suspect for-profit marriage mills would fall more like banquet halls, restaurants, and bakeries do. Because they hold their services out to the public, they have to service all of it.
 
2014-02-11 03:14:22 PM

scottydoesntknow: Ok good. I was just making sure it made absolutely no sense to everyone else too.


\m/

nnnope. none.
 
2014-02-11 03:14:33 PM

Lawnchair: flondrix: So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?

Probably depends on whether you're officiating under the auspices of being a religious minister (even Universal Life Church), or there's some other 'officiant' rule in Nevada. I'm guessing the latter.

I know that when I got married in British Columbia, there was an online list of non-religious officiants you could call up, a statutory amount they were allowed to charge, and they were all non-discriminatory by law (this was after Canada allowed SSM).


Marriage is a legal contract.  Even a minister, priest or Shaman needs a license from the state to perform a valid marriage.
 
2014-02-11 03:18:20 PM

monoski: [noelleodesigns.com image 653x489]

We will just pack up and move to Boston where we can be a happily married couple.


bullshitnotincluded.com
/we need more tigers here
 
2014-02-11 03:26:12 PM
I think that the argument has to be against Elvis overload.  What will happen when you have an Elvis marrying an Elvis officiated by Elvis?  Elviseption?
 
2014-02-11 03:27:27 PM

flondrix: So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?


Yes.
 
2014-02-11 03:27:33 PM

A Cave Geek: DarwiOdrade: A Cave Geek: Gay righs advocates are trying to 'redefine marriage' in the same way that we 'redefined voting' when we allowed African Americans to vote.

And women - can't forget suffrage.

Definitely.  Same way we 're-defined' marriage when mixed race marriages were legalized.  Oh, and what about outlawing slavery?  Were we 'redefining' freedom?  Oh, and what about the Japanese, after WWII?  Perhaps we 'redefined' religious freedom when we recognized non-christian religions for the first time?


I'm wondering when the "NO MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE EVAR" bills start really making the rounds nationwide. I know that the more potatoey states have had bills proposed, but none made it out of committee.

Oh, and after MD passed marriage equality, I asked my folks if their marriage was destroyed. My dad's response: "Why, what happened?"

// even after I asked him to be serious, he couldn't be arsed to care - he's happy for the gays, but it's not like it farking matters to anyone else
 
2014-02-11 03:35:49 PM

Dr Dreidel: I'm wondering when the "NO MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE EVAR" bills start really making the rounds nationwide. I know that the more potatoey states have had bills proposed, but none made it out of committee.


I'm honestly surprised no Kansas legislator has proposed one. Though to be fair, they're currently focusing their energy on ending no-fault divorce in the state, so I suppose they're trying to end marriage in one sense.
 
2014-02-11 03:38:28 PM

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.


Wait. What? That's the most backward thing I've read today, and I've read several potato threads.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental basic civil right subsumed under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Right to Privacy. 
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
The Court has also repeatedly ruled that matters of reproduction fall under that same Clauses as well as Due Process. 
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
The Court has ruled that consensual sex, including homosexual sex, is also protected as a Due Process right under the 14th Amendment. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Again, reproductive rights, including the right to not reproduce, are constitutionally protected. Infertile married couples have the right to remain childless. They also have the right to adopt, seek fertility treatments including IVF, and use the services of surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to have offspring.
Separate is inherently not equal under the Equal Protection Clause. This is settled law. 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Marital rights accrue only to marriage. Domestic partnerships, in most states where they are allowed, include fewer rights than marriage. Federally, until DOMA was overturned, domestic partnerships and same-sex marriages were explicitly excluded from equal protection. In most jurisdictions, same-sex couples are still not allowed to marry.
In order to seek the protection of only a subset of the rights that automatically accrue to married couples, same-sex couples and domestic partners who live where same-sex marriages are banned have to engage the services of attorneys for wills, trusts, health care and parenting rights, and partnerships, structured like prenups, often at great monetary cost.
While those rights that automatically accrue to marriage are rarely if ever challenged in court, those instruments prepared by attorneys for domestic partners and prenups are routinely challenged, often successfully.
Same-sex couples are routinely denied the fundamental, basic civil right of marriage.
This violates the Equal Protection Clause. 
 
There is no fundamental right to impose religious beliefs via statute, as that would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There is no valid way to claim that marriage is purely a religious matter, since it is, by definition and statute, a civil matter.
 
2014-02-11 03:42:18 PM

DarwiOdrade: A Cave Geek: Gay righs advocates are trying to 'redefine marriage' in the same way that we 'redefined voting' when we allowed African Americans to vote.

And women - can't forget suffrage.



Arguments against women voting:

FAMILY:  "The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene."  --Madeline Dahlgren, 1871

MORMONS:  Can't let women vote because Mormon polygamist wives could carry an election.

BROWNS:  Letting immigrant women vote means immigrant men with wives in the old country will bring their women here just in time to vote, i.e. terror-voting-anchor babies.

BIOLOGY:  Women are too emotional, frivolous, unstable and thus too inferior to men to vote because men are never those things.  Women's interests are already safe in the hands of men.  Allowing women to vote undermines the male's role as authority and controller of all people, which is the natural order of things.  It would undermine the family and destroy the bedrock of society.  Women who want to vote are just too ugly to snag a husband.

And the most prophetically true of all:   Because it means women competing with men instead of 'cooperating' via silence under men.

How female suffrage destroyed Western Civilization

cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2014-02-11 03:50:03 PM

Serious Black: scottydoesntknow: There are also defendant-intervenors in the case, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who argued in their brief that marriage equality was comparable to white supremacy.

LOLWUT?!

I even tried reading the link and it doesn't make sense. How is it, in any way, comparable to white supremacy?

They basically argued that marriage has been naturally defined as a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation laws prevented some male-female couples from getting married in defiance of that natural law. Marriage equality laws are similarly in defiance of that natural law by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women.


Completely missing that whole word, "prevention", being the problem here. morons...
 
2014-02-11 03:51:47 PM

A Cave Geek: Marriage is a legal contract. Even a minister, priest or Shaman needs a license from the state to perform a valid marriage.


Hmmm, not quite.  In some states anyone with a congregation can call themselves a "minister" and perform marriages.  In Colorado (I am told) filling out the paperwork is what makes you married, and the details of the ceremony are entirely up to the people getting married.
 
2014-02-11 03:56:18 PM

A Cave Geek: Marriage is a legal contract.  Even a minister, priest or Shaman needs a license from the state to perform a valid marriage.


Yes and no.  My state (not a SSM state yet) allows really pretty much anyone to solemnize.  Member of the clergy which is intentionally ill-defined (i.e., Universal Life Church) and requires no pre-registration with the state. Judges or other peace officers. And you can also sign it yourself by stating that that's your religious custom (which, again, the state doesn't wade into).
 
2014-02-11 04:15:27 PM

flondrix: A Cave Geek: Marriage is a legal contract. Even a minister, priest or Shaman needs a license from the state to perform a valid marriage.

Hmmm, not quite.  In some states anyone with a congregation can call themselves a "minister" and perform marriages weddings.


FTFY. Weddings are religious ceremonies, and confer no legal rights. Marriages are civil contracts, and do not require a ceremony. This is why there's such a thing as the putative marriage doctrine: two people go to a minister and have a wedding and  believe that they are married; however, legally, they are not, and they do not get all of the rights and privileges of marriage. The putative marriage doctrine allows for  some rights, such that they don't lose in cases of fraud, but they do not get the rest.
 
2014-02-11 04:35:56 PM

flondrix: But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?


You know someone is already thinking of Gay marriage chapels by a Liberace impersonator.
 
2014-02-11 04:40:01 PM

OooShiny: DarwiOdrade: A Cave Geek: Gay righs advocates are trying to 'redefine marriage' in the same way that we 'redefined voting' when we allowed African Americans to vote.

And women - can't forget suffrage.


Arguments against women voting:

FAMILY:  "The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene."  --Madeline Dahlgren, 1871

MORMONS:  Can't let women vote because Mormon polygamist wives could carry an election.

BROWNS:  Letting immigrant women vote means immigrant men with wives in the old country will bring their women here just in time to vote, i.e. terror-voting-anchor babies.

BIOLOGY:  Women are too emotional, frivolous, unstable and thus too inferior to men to vote because men are never those things.  Women's interests are already safe in the hands of men.  Allowing women to vote undermines the male's role as authority and controller of all people, which is the natural order of things.  It would undermine the family and destroy the bedrock of society.  Women who want to vote are just too ugly to snag a husband.

And the most prophetically true of all:   Because it means women competing with men instead of 'cooperating' via silence under men.

How female suffrage destroyed Western Civilization

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 475x391]


"Because it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur."

Wow, the flyer distills every argument against social change ever into a single phrase. Bravo.
 
2014-02-11 04:56:47 PM

sprawl15: its LAS VEGAS not VEGAS AND STEVE


www.chris-place.com
 
2014-02-11 05:20:25 PM

flondrix: So, a church can refuse to marry same sex couples, or interracial couples, or people from another denomination, etc. on religious grounds.  But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?


Somehow I don't think many/any of them will care.  But if they did, probably yes.  One of the problems with the "I want to descriminate against gays/not provide birth control/whatever because Jesus" argument in general is that businesses don't have religious beliefs.  So, unless the business in question isn't incorporated at all and is just a guy with a shop under his own name without even an LLC, the argument fails.

Of course, the Surpemes frequently rule in very random ways, so who knows in the end.
 
2014-02-11 06:29:43 PM

Theaetetus: FTFY. Weddings are religious ceremonies, and confer no legal rights. Marriages are civil contracts, and do not require a ceremony. This is why there's such a thing as the putative marriage doctrine: two people go to a minister and have a wedding and believe that they are married; however, legally, they are not, and they do not get all of the rights and privileges of marriage. The putative marriage doctrine allows for some rights, such that they don't lose in cases of fraud, but they do not get the rest.


Some states require an officiant, who can be either clergy or a specific subset of public officials, to sign your marriage certificate and make you legally married.  You can skip the fancy wedding, but the officiant is non-negotiable in those states.  Colorado for one does not require an officiant, the two people sign and file the paperwork.  A witness of some sort may be required, not sure about that.
 
2014-02-11 07:41:05 PM

optikeye: flondrix: But those Vegas chapels where you can get married by an Elvis impersonator are businesses; will they be required to marry any couple who has the money to pay the fee?

You know someone is already thinking of Gay marriage chapels by a Liberace impersonator.


Yeah, but Scott Thorson's back in jail again.
 
2014-02-11 09:08:32 PM

UncomfortableSilence: I think that the argument has to be against Elvis overload.  What will happen when you have an Elvis marrying an Elvis officiated by Elvis?  Elviseption?


[Insert the BWHAMMMMMM! noise with an Elvis accent here]
 
2014-02-11 09:49:19 PM
You don't have to put your penis anywhere you don't want it to go.

/Just a reminder to those who think about it constantly.
//Especially when you're drunk.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report