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.

(The Raw Story)   Pastor: "Yer violating my religious freedom...by not allowing me to officiate at same-sex weddings." Bonus: North Carolina pastor. UltraFark Bonus: Supported by Baptist ministers   (rawstory.com) divider line 270
    More: Spiffy, North Carolina, opponents of same-sex marriage, religious freedom, United Church of Christ, Unitarians  
•       •       •

6334 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 3:52 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 06:05:18 PM  

sprgrss: Rent Party: PunGent: Rent Party: Teiritzamna: Welp looks like the rest of the fark lawyers brigade has this bad-boy well handled.  I love it when all you guys are in one thread.

/Now i can go back to working on my Supreme Court Brief.
//in 26 minutes?

Fark Lawyers (including yourself) all have a specific favorite band, for exactly this reason.

Ooh, what color are we?

Chartreuse!

Although you're not a member of the club yet.    Are you a certified law talker, or holder of a JD from a Real College(tm)?

Why are we Chartreuse?


Because I like Chartreuse.

More seriously, because I considered law school for a long time (you lot overwhelmingly talked me out of it) and I find the topic interesting.  When threads like this come up, I like to consider the legal ramifications by myself, and see if my conclusions line up with the professional opinion.

It's entertaining, and I usually learn something new and interesting that way.
 
2014-04-28 06:05:30 PM  

sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?


I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?
 
2014-04-28 06:07:50 PM  

Rincewind53: Rent Party: Chartreuse!

Although you're not a member of the club yet.    Are you a certified law talker, or holder of a JD from a Real College(tm)?

I'll be in the latter category in.... 20 days, and the former category in.... well, presuming I don't fail, sometime next year when the New York Bar releases its results.


You'll get your chartreuse favorite when you get your sheepskin.  In the mean time, get back to the books, kid!
 
2014-04-28 06:07:58 PM  

Rincewind53: sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?

I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?


No clue how they do it in NY.  Here you have to pass a character and fitness board before you can even sit for the exam.
 
2014-04-28 06:08:41 PM  

Rent Party: Because I like Chartreuse.

More seriously, because I considered law school for a long time (you lot overwhelmingly talked me out of it) and I find the topic interesting.  When threads like this come up, I like to consider the legal ramifications by myself, and see if my conclusions line up with the professional opinion.

It's entertaining, and I usually learn something new and interesting that way.


I wish someone had successfully talked me out of it.
 
2014-04-28 06:11:42 PM  

Rincewind53: sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?

I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?


Especially when we send a list of your Fark posts. ;)
 
2014-04-28 06:11:43 PM  

sprgrss: Rincewind53: sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?

I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?

No clue how they do it in NY.  Here you have to pass a character and fitness board before you can even sit for the exam.


I will admit, I'm somewhat behind-the-schedule on actually bothering about the Bar. I got a job a couple weeks ago, so until that happened I wasn't even sure what  state was going to be in.
 
2014-04-28 06:11:44 PM  

sprgrss: Rent Party: Because I like Chartreuse.

More seriously, because I considered law school for a long time (you lot overwhelmingly talked me out of it) and I find the topic interesting.  When threads like this come up, I like to consider the legal ramifications by myself, and see if my conclusions line up with the professional opinion.

It's entertaining, and I usually learn something new and interesting that way.

I wish someone had successfully talked me out of it.


It is precisely that sentiment from damn near every practicing attorney I talked to that talked me out of it.  I've never seen a field where everyone wishes they were doing something else.

So it stayed a hobby, and I still write my own contracts.
 
2014-04-28 06:13:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?

I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?

Especially when we send a list of your Fark posts. ;)


See, I'm actually proud to say that I don't think there's any particular Fark post out there that would cause any real damage. I'm not like the local judge who was posting on a sports forum talking about how he believes all women who are filing for divorces are in the wrong, and who posted confidential details about Charlize Theron's adoption anonymously.

The worst I've done is call out people for being assholes.
 
2014-04-28 06:14:05 PM  

Theaetetus: AmbassadorBooze: It should be replaced with contracts, eg. two people have a contract to support each other money wise, or that lets them visit each other in the hospital.

Hospital Administrator: "Who are you? GTFO, noob."
AmbassadorBooze: "But I have a contract that lets me visit my significant other, who is in your emergency room!"
Hospital Administrator: "WTF are you talking about? I never signed any such contract."
AmbassadorBooze: "No, but my significant other and I did..."
Hospital Administrator: "And WTF should I care? If I didn't sign any contract with you, then why are you coming to me to enforce your contract? Get out of here before I call security."

And  scene.

Or, if you disagree and think that contracts can be used to bind third parties, in the absence of any statute granting particular rights or placing obligations on the third parties, then I just signed this contract with my spouse giving me your car. So, I'll need your- er,  my keys, thank you very much.


I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.

Same law that says "hospitals have to blah blah blah valid marriage certificate" should instead say "hospitals have to blah blah blah Form 139.27.a: 'Acknowledgement of Consent to Delegate Blah Blah Ptivileges'.
 
2014-04-28 06:14:44 PM  

TheSelphie: Merely a spiffy tag? More like a HERO tag.


I wouldn't say so, unless you count the regular abuse of the hero tag. While this law is obviously dumb if it is struck down it doesn't actually change the status of gay marriage in NC. It just means that religious groups can hold purely symbolic marriage ceremonies that don't confer any legal rights.
 
2014-04-28 06:15:05 PM  

megarian: C'mere.

I'll violate you religiously.


 Every Sunday while on my knees? A ruler across the back of my hands?

Kinkyyy....
 
2014-04-28 06:16:07 PM  

serial_crusher: I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.

Same law that says "hospitals have to blah blah blah valid marriage certificate" should instead say "hospitals have to blah blah blah Form 139.27.a: 'Acknowledgement of Consent to Delegate Blah Blah Ptivileges'.


Who the hell would want to carry a contract like that around with them at all times?
 
2014-04-28 06:17:29 PM  

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: AmbassadorBooze: It should be replaced with contracts, eg. two people have a contract to support each other money wise, or that lets them visit each other in the hospital.

Hospital Administrator: "Who are you? GTFO, noob."
AmbassadorBooze: "But I have a contract that lets me visit my significant other, who is in your emergency room!"
Hospital Administrator: "WTF are you talking about? I never signed any such contract."
AmbassadorBooze: "No, but my significant other and I did..."
Hospital Administrator: "And WTF should I care? If I didn't sign any contract with you, then why are you coming to me to enforce your contract? Get out of here before I call security."

And  scene.

Or, if you disagree and think that contracts can be used to bind third parties, in the absence of any statute granting particular rights or placing obligations on the third parties, then I just signed this contract with my spouse giving me your car. So, I'll need your- er,  my keys, thank you very much.

I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.

Same law that says "hospitals have to blah blah blah valid marriage certificate" should instead say "hospitals have to blah blah blah Form 139.27.a: 'Acknowledgement of Consent to Delegate Blah Blah Ptivileges'.


On the contrary, I think it's  explicit that there would be no such law: AmbassadorBooze's proposal rested on the premise that "Government should be out of the marriage business anyways.  It should be replaced with contracts..."
To read that as "Government should pass lots of statutes to regulate this institution" would be to undermine his entire point.
 
2014-04-28 06:22:03 PM  

Rincewind53: sprgrss: Rincewind53: sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?

I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?

No clue how they do it in NY.  Here you have to pass a character and fitness board before you can even sit for the exam.

I will admit, I'm somewhat behind-the-schedule on actually bothering about the Bar. I got a job a couple weeks ago, so until that happened I wasn't even sure what  state was going to be in.


I don't think you'll have to worry about passing the bar so long as you went to an actual law school and do one of the bar prep courses like Barbri or Kaplan.
 
2014-04-28 06:23:07 PM  

Banned on the Run: megarian: C'mere.

I'll violate you religiously.

 Every Sunday while on my knees? A ruler across the back of my hands?

Kinkyyy....


That's oddly specific.

Sure!!!
 
2014-04-28 06:24:26 PM  

sprgrss: serial_crusher: I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.

Same law that says "hospitals have to blah blah blah valid marriage certificate" should instead say "hospitals have to blah blah blah Form 139.27.a: 'Acknowledgement of Consent to Delegate Blah Blah Ptivileges'.

Who the hell would want to carry a contract like that around with them at all times?


The same people who carry their official signed marriage certificates with them at all times, I guess.

Or, you could go get it when asked.
/ or, ideally, you'd be able to retrieve said information through your phone or whatever instead of being expected to carry around a sheet of paper or a stone tablet or some other obsolete technology, but yeah it'll be a while before the legal system lets go of paper.
 
2014-04-28 06:25:13 PM  

sprgrss: Rincewind53: sprgrss: Rincewind53: sprgrss: You aren't sitting for the July Bar exam?

I am. In retrospect, I meant to say when I actually get the license next year, since character and fitness results take longer, no?

No clue how they do it in NY.  Here you have to pass a character and fitness board before you can even sit for the exam.

I will admit, I'm somewhat behind-the-schedule on actually bothering about the Bar. I got a job a couple weeks ago, so until that happened I wasn't even sure what  state was going to be in.

I don't think you'll have to worry about passing the bar so long as you went to an actual law school and do one of the bar prep courses like Barbri or Kaplan.


Hence my nonchalance. I'm planning on studying enough to be confident about it, but definitely not going to do the "every day for 10 hours a day" craziness that some people do.
 
2014-04-28 06:31:35 PM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53:
I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

In a way, this whole article is a hypocrisy trap for liberals: these clergy are advocating for gay marriage, so we should go along with whatever means they use to get there, regardless of the fact that it may be directly opposite to our arguments elsewhere.



Bullshiat. How many liberals have demanded that conservative clergy be forced to perform gay marriages in violation of their religious beliefs? It's a right wing straw man and you know it.The lawsuit challenges a law which by its broad terms threatens to criminalize the performance of wedding rites in circumstances where the state won't issue marriage licenses, in conflict with religious rites which allow for solemnization of same-sex relationships.You know better.
 
2014-04-28 06:36:42 PM  

indylaw: Theaetetus: Rincewind53:
I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

In a way, this whole article is a hypocrisy trap for liberals: these clergy are advocating for gay marriage, so we should go along with whatever means they use to get there, regardless of the fact that it may be directly opposite to our arguments elsewhere.

Bullshiat. How many liberals have demanded that conservative clergy be forced to perform gay marriages in violation of their religious beliefs? It's a right wing straw man and you know it.


No, the hypocrisy would be liberals arguing that marriage is a secular institution in many other lawsuits, but agreeing here that banning gay marriage is an imposition on freedom of religion.

The lawsuit challenges a law which by its broad terms threatens to criminalize the performance of wedding rites in circumstances where the state won't issue marriage licenses, in conflict with religious rites which allow for solemnization of same-sex relationships.You know better.

Only in one count, and it's not really what we're talking about here. Everyone agrees that that law is facially unconstitutional, but it's also not an interesting question. The rest of the thread explains all of this. You should read it, before you start accusing people of not knowing what they're talking about.
 
2014-04-28 06:37:30 PM  

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: AmbassadorBooze: It should be replaced with contracts, eg. two people have a contract to support each other money wise, or that lets them visit each other in the hospital.

Hospital Administrator: "Who are you? GTFO, noob."
AmbassadorBooze: "But I have a contract that lets me visit my significant other, who is in your emergency room!"
Hospital Administrator: "WTF are you talking about? I never signed any such contract."
AmbassadorBooze: "No, but my significant other and I did..."
Hospital Administrator: "And WTF should I care? If I didn't sign any contract with you, then why are you coming to me to enforce your contract? Get out of here before I call security."

And  scene.

Or, if you disagree and think that contracts can be used to bind third parties, in the absence of any statute granting particular rights or placing obligations on the third parties, then I just signed this contract with my spouse giving me your car. So, I'll need your- er,  my keys, thank you very much.

I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.

Same law that says "hospitals have to blah blah blah valid marriage certificate" should instead say "hospitals have to blah blah blah Form 139.27.a: 'Acknowledgement of Consent to Delegate Blah Blah Ptivileges'.

On the contrary, I think it's  explicit that there would be no such law: AmbassadorBooze's proposal rested on the premise that "Government should be out of the marriage business anyways.  It should be replaced with contracts..."
To read that as "Government should pass lots of statutes to regulate this institution" would be to undermine his entire point.


Guess we'd have to hear from AmbassadorBooze to be certain. I'd like to know.

I've frequently used "government out of the marriage business" in contexts where I think they have no business (i.e. different tax filing statuses).

Delegating multiple services to multiple people is also where having it be a "marriage" falls short. I want to be able to talk to person X about all the crimes I committed and have it be inadmissible, but have person Y decide whether or not to pull the plug when I'm in a coma. The "marriage" framework makes those an all or nothing deal. Considering them as two separate contracts would satisfy the "government out of marriage" statement without going full on "government out of everything" libertardian.
 
2014-04-28 06:42:34 PM  
serial_crusher:Guess we'd have to hear from AmbassadorBooze to be certain. I'd like to know.

Oh, I doubt he'll be returning. If he was actually suggesting getting government out of the institution, then it's because he had no idea what that would actually entail, and having had it pointed out, I doubt he'll confess his own naivete.

I've frequently used "government out of the marriage business" in contexts where I think they have no business (i.e. different tax filing statuses).

Delegating multiple services to multiple people is also where having it be a "marriage" falls short. I want to be able to talk to person X about all the crimes I committed and have it be inadmissible, but have person Y decide whether or not to pull the plug when I'm in a coma. The "marriage" framework makes those an all or nothing deal. Considering them as two separate contracts would satisfy the "government out of marriage" statement without going full on "government out of everything" libertardian.


That actually requires  more involvement, since you're replacing a single regime with (at least) two. It's quite literally the exact opposite of "get the government out of ______".
 
2014-04-28 06:53:05 PM  

Theaetetus: That actually requires more involvement, since you're replacing a single regime with (at least) two. It's quite literally the exact opposite of "get the government out of ______".


Now we're just arguing technicalities (the best kind of arguing).  Maybe "get marriage out of the government" would be a better way to phrase it?
 
2014-04-28 06:54:09 PM  

Theaetetus: RyansPrivates: Why don't we just separate the idea from marriage from the governmentally recognized contract/tax shelter given to 2 consenting adults?

I think an argument can be made that it is in society's interest that two adults be allowed to enter into a probate/power of attorney/tax relationship that equates to what we call "marriage".  Two consenting adults, regardless of relation or gender, should be able to go to Justice of the Peace and sign the document in front of witnesses to enter into this contract.

Then, if a church wants to call it marriage, the church can.  If they want to call it 'asparagus' they can.  I don't give a flying fark, and neither should the government.

As I said, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for a simplified contract between 2 consenting adults.  Some might say "why just 2", but that is really a detail to be ironed out. My (non-legally informed) opinion is that you could say that the least complicated version of this contract and least burdensome for medical and legal authorities is just 2 people.  Like I said, the goal should be a simple form that you can go and get in 15 minutes.  Getting out of it should be just as easy, provided both partners consent to dissolution of the contract.  The messy divorce system would remain intact for those who want to fight it out in civil litigation.

So, exactly what exists now? Sounds good.


Not sure if you saw everything in my post or not.  Emboldened for clarity.  Right now, in many places this is limited to 2 adults of opposite gender.  In some places, same gender couples can.  I am not aware of any place where two widowed sisters, for example, could go into the JP and sign a single page contract granting these rights to each other.  My point is this contract, as it exists today, should be open to any 2 consenting adults.  It should not be called "marriage" by the state.  Maybe "civil union" or "civil beneficiary" or some other mumbo jumbo.  The church or other organization of your choice can then hold a ceremony and declare you married.  You sign up and register at Macy's for all the gifts, get too drunk and put up with your weird in-laws at the reception.

I realize, however, that as it stands, this probably wont' happen.  But it is what should happen.  Barring that, if the state is going to create marriage, then they have got to open it up to everyone regardless of gender.
 
2014-04-28 07:03:10 PM  

Theaetetus: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

Easy: marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one. These clergypeople have the right to perform same sex Weddings all they want, just as they have the right to give Communion, baptize people, perform exorcisms, etc. That doesn't mean that the government has to give any special privileges or immunities to people who have been baptized, exorcized, commune'd, or wed.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean the government has a rational reason to deny  marriage rights to a subset of the population, but that's a due process/equal protection argument, not a free exercise argument. This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.


This. However, if Amendment One does make it illegal for pastors or ministers or whatever, to even perform such ceremonies, then they have a good case. That would be an egregious 1st Amendment violation.

/1st Amendment versus Amendment One...
 
2014-04-28 07:04:23 PM  

RyansPrivates: Theaetetus: RyansPrivates: Why don't we just separate the idea from marriage from the governmentally recognized contract/tax shelter given to 2 consenting adults?

I think an argument can be made that it is in society's interest that two adults be allowed to enter into a probate/power of attorney/tax relationship that equates to what we call "marriage".  Two consenting adults, regardless of relation or gender, should be able to go to Justice of the Peace and sign the document in front of witnesses to enter into this contract.

Then, if a church wants to call it marriage, the church can.  If they want to call it 'asparagus' they can.  I don't give a flying fark, and neither should the government.

As I said, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for a simplified contract between 2 consenting adults.  Some might say "why just 2", but that is really a detail to be ironed out. My (non-legally informed) opinion is that you could say that the least complicated version of this contract and least burdensome for medical and legal authorities is just 2 people.  Like I said, the goal should be a simple form that you can go and get in 15 minutes.  Getting out of it should be just as easy, provided both partners consent to dissolution of the contract.  The messy divorce system would remain intact for those who want to fight it out in civil litigation.

So, exactly what exists now? Sounds good.

Not sure if you saw everything in my post or not.  Emboldened for clarity.  Right now, in many places this is limited to 2 adults of opposite gender.  In some places, same gender couples can.  I am not aware of any place where two widowed sisters, for example, could go into the JP and sign a single page contract granting these rights to each other.  My point is this contract, as it exists today, should be open to any 2 consenting adults.  It should not be called "marriage" by the state.  Maybe "civil union" or "civil beneficiary" or some other mumbo jumbo.  The church or other organization of your choice can then hold a ceremony and declare you married.  You sign up and register at Macy's for all the gifts, get too drunk and put up with your weird in-laws at the reception.

I realize, however, that as it stands, this probably wont' happen.  But it is what should happen.  Barring that, if the state is going to create marriage, then they have got to open it up to everyone regardless of gender.


Three things:
(1) What you're proposing is an institution with all the rights and privileges of marriage, but, for some reason, not called "marriage". Why? Marriage currently exists. Why abolish it and create something exactly identical (albeit open to more people), but with a different name? Why not just, say, open marriage to more people?
It's almost as if you're conceding the point that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get "married", just "civilly yoon'ed".

(2) Two widowed sisters already are next of kin. The government has a compelling interest in limiting the kind of relationships that can inherit tax free from each other, as it prevents establishing a hereditary aristocracy.

(3) See number 1 again. Why not just open marriage to everyone regardless of gender? Wouldn't that be both (a) simpler, and (b) not result in the abolishment of an institution for the sole reason of spitting on gay people?
 
2014-04-28 07:10:54 PM  
Plenty of rights being violated by marriage segregation, but not due to lack of state recognition of his religious ceremony.
 
2014-04-28 07:10:59 PM  

a particular individual: Theaetetus: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

Easy: marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one. These clergypeople have the right to perform same sex Weddings all they want, just as they have the right to give Communion, baptize people, perform exorcisms, etc. That doesn't mean that the government has to give any special privileges or immunities to people who have been baptized, exorcized, commune'd, or wed.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean the government has a rational reason to deny  marriage rights to a subset of the population, but that's a due process/equal protection argument, not a free exercise argument. This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.

This. However, if Amendment One does make it illegal for pastors or ministers or whatever, to even perform such ceremonies, then they have a good case. That would be an egregious 1st Amendment violation.

/1st Amendment versus Amendment One...


That statute in question has nothing to do with Amendment One.
 
2014-04-28 07:14:50 PM  

vudukungfu: there is no logical or rational or even legal precedent to have legal marriage for anyone.
It is slavery.


Maybe you'd be happier if you had learned to pick cotton instead.
 
2014-04-28 07:15:09 PM  

Serious Black: Yup. If a minister or any other individual wants to preside over a non-legal commitment ceremony between parties as bizarre as, say, a woman marrying a bridge, that should absolutely be their right to do so without risk of punishment by government


a bridge is not able to consent.
 
2014-04-28 07:20:16 PM  

Slartibartfaster: Serious Black: Yup. If a minister or any other individual wants to preside over a non-legal commitment ceremony between parties as bizarre as, say, a woman marrying a bridge, that should absolutely be their right to do so without risk of punishment by government

a bridge is not able to consent.


A wafer is not able to turn into flesh. What does that- or the ability of an inanimate object to consent- matter for a religious ceremony?
 
2014-04-28 07:26:19 PM  

EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

 If I was them I would just call the liberals hypocrites for wanting to defend this religious freedom, but not my bigoted kind. Then the argument would be about them defending themselves.


I've been calling for this tactic for years. I've been yelled at by other libs because of it, too. Still don't understand that.

When I told my dad(a pastor) about this aspect of the issue, he changed his stance.
 
2014-04-28 07:26:46 PM  

Theaetetus: Three things:
(1) What you're proposing is an institution with all the rights and privileges of marriage, but, for some reason, not called "marriage". Why? Marriage currently exists. Why abolish it and create something exactly identical (albeit open to more people), but with a different name? Why not just, say, open marriage to more people?
It's almost as if you're conceding the point that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get "married", just "civilly yoon'ed".


Hence my distinction between ideal and real.  Ideally, the whole concept of union called marriage wouldn't be on the books.  The word is loaded.  The institution should be open to any 2, as I said, but if not, I also said: "I realize, however, that as it stands, this probably wont' happen.  But it is what should happen.  Barring that, if the state is going to create marriage, then they have got to open it up to everyone regardless of gender. "

Theaetetus: (2) Two widowed sisters already are next of kin. The government has a compelling interest in limiting the kind of relationships that can inherit tax free from each other, as it prevents establishing a hereditary aristocracy.


Interesting thought about "hereditary aristocracy", but that seems like a tax code problem rather than a problem of this particular contract.  To the former part of the argument: what about two widowed best friends, without surviving family or other such situations?  I can think of several where the state has a compelling interest to simplify end-of life decisions, power of attorney, etc. that shouldn't require expensive legal counsel to establish and should be a boilerplate form that you fill out at the JP.  We do this for people who are getting married, (which in some states includes same gender couples).  In the real world, the institution, as it stands today, needs to be open to all, regardless of gender.  I just think that is too narrow.  But I should wouldn't let the be perfect get in the way of the good.

Theaetetus: (3) See number 1 again. Why not just open marriage to everyone regardless of gender? Wouldn't that be both (a) simpler, and (b) not result in the abolishment of an institution for the sole reason of spitting on gay people?


My response still stands: I am not "spitting on gay people".  I think the government is way too involved here in an institution that was primarily a religious one.  The better route is to extricate it entirely.  But as I said "if the state is going to create marriage, then they have got to open it up to everyone regardless of gender. "
 
2014-04-28 07:39:30 PM  

RyansPrivates: Theaetetus: Three things:
(1) What you're proposing is an institution with all the rights and privileges of marriage, but, for some reason, not called "marriage". Why? Marriage currently exists. Why abolish it and create something exactly identical (albeit open to more people), but with a different name? Why not just, say, open marriage to more people?
It's almost as if you're conceding the point that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get "married", just "civilly yoon'ed".

Hence my distinction between ideal and real.  Ideally, the whole concept of union called marriage wouldn't be on the books.  The word is loaded.


Yes, that's what I'm saying: you're proposing a new institution,  exactly 100% identical to marriage, but not called marriage, because some people get all in a tizzy if we say that gay people can get married.
Isn't that spitting on gay people?
"Hi, gay folks, we know we talk about equal rights and everything, but those bigots over there get really angry if we talk about letting you get married. And we don't want to piss them off, because they're more important than you are. Sure, your parents were married and your grandparents were married and your great-grandparents are married, and you always dreamed of having access to that institution, but we're literally going to abolish it. Just so that you can't get married. Oh, you'll have the same rights, but you won't be allowed to sully the glorious institution of 'marriage' by calling yourselves married."

Any way you look at it, it's a dick move.

Interesting thought about "hereditary aristocracy", but that seems like a tax code problem rather than a problem of this particular contract.  To the former part of the argument: what about two widowed best friends, without surviving family or other such situations?  I can think of several where the state has a compelling interest to simplify end-of life decisions, power of attorney, etc. that shouldn't require expensive legal counsel to establish and should be a boilerplate form that you fill out at the JP.  We do this for people who are getting married, (which in some states includes same gender couples).  In the real world, the institution, as it stands today, needs to be open to all, regardless of gender.  I just think that is too narrow.  But I should wouldn't let the be perfect get in the way of the good.

Two widowed best friends are currently able to get married, if they want (once the whole gender discrimination is fixed). Why do we need to create an entirely new institution that duplicates an existing one?

This is what it comes down to, though:
I think the government is way too involved here in an institution that was primarily a religious one.  The better route is to extricate it entirely.

This is entirely incorrect. The institution was and is a secular one. The religious ceremony that tends to be associated with marriage is called a "wedding". You do not need a wedding to be married - you know that atheists marry, right? You can get married by a judge, an Elvis impersonator, a town clerk, a ship's captain... you name it.  And similarly, you can have a wedding without ever getting married - look at that recent story of the 6 year old that was dying of cancer who had a wedding as her last wish because she always loved playing "wedding". No one is arguing that she was  actually married to her teddy bear.
 
2014-04-28 07:46:49 PM  

Theaetetus: A wafer is not able to turn into flesh. What does that- or the ability of an inanimate object to consent- matter for a religious ceremony?


None whatsoever - unless that ceremony has legal consequences (last I checked that wafer is not associated with any state or federal laws)
 
2014-04-28 07:49:02 PM  

Slartibartfaster: Theaetetus: A wafer is not able to turn into flesh. What does that- or the ability of an inanimate object to consent- matter for a religious ceremony?

None whatsoever - unless that ceremony has legal consequences (last I checked that wafer is not associated with any state or federal laws)


Religious ceremonies do not have legal consequences. In particular, remember that that was explicit in the post you were replying to:

Slartibartfaster: Serious Black: Yup. If a minister or any other individual wants to preside over a non-legal commitment ceremony between parties as bizarre as, say, a woman marrying a bridge, that should absolutely be their right to do so without risk of punishment by government

a bridge is not able to consent.


Hence, what importance does that fact have?

Slartibartfaster: None whatsoever

 
2014-04-28 07:51:23 PM  

Theaetetus: The religious ceremony that tends to be associated with marriage is called a "wedding". You do not need a wedding to be married - you know that atheists marry, right?


I had a ceremony (quite enjoyed it) - forests and trees

//agnostic atheist
/ where I married - priests have zero authority
 
2014-04-28 07:52:46 PM  

Theaetetus: Hence, what importance does that fact have?
Slartibartfaster: None whatsoever


I never claimed it pertained to your claim - dont weave my words dude
 
2014-04-28 08:06:09 PM  

Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.


Bingo.  To "show standing" or whatever, a clergyperson would have to perform a gay wedding and then get legally penalized by the state in some way.
 
2014-04-28 08:07:01 PM  

Theaetetus: RyansPrivates: Theaetetus: Three things:
(1) What you're proposing is an institution with all the rights and privileges of marriage, but, for some reason, not called "marriage". Why? Marriage currently exists. Why abolish it and create something exactly identical (albeit open to more people), but with a different name? Why not just, say, open marriage to more people?
It's almost as if you're conceding the point that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get "married", just "civilly yoon'ed".

Hence my distinction between ideal and real.  Ideally, the whole concept of union called marriage wouldn't be on the books.  The word is loaded.

Yes, that's what I'm saying: you're proposing a new institution,  exactly 100% identical to marriage, but not called marriage, because some people get all in a tizzy if we say that gay people can get married.
Isn't that spitting on gay people?
"Hi, gay folks, we know we talk about equal rights and everything, but those bigots over there get really angry if we talk about letting you get married. And we don't want to piss them off, because they're more important than you are. Sure, your parents were married and your grandparents were married and your great-grandparents are married, and you always dreamed of having access to that institution, but we're literally going to abolish it. Just so that you can't get married. Oh, you'll have the same rights, but you won't be allowed to sully the glorious institution of 'marriage' by calling yourselves married."

Any way you look at it, it's a dick move.


Dick move how?  I don't see it.  Everyone, gay or straight would have to go through the same process.  And marriage is a religious thing.  Always has been.  Just because the government was involved prior to now doesn't make it right. I would also throw the chaplain out of the congress on his / her ass.  No prayers at the supreme court etc.   Religion needs to be exorcised completely from the government.   And as I said: ideally.  Realistically, it won't be: so open the damn thing up.  Are you capable of seeing the distinction between what we should have versus what we do have?

Theaetetus: Two widowed best friends are currently able to get married, if they want (once the whole gender discrimination is fixed). Why do we need to create an entirely new institution that duplicates an existing one?


So just to get this clear: you are saying that marriage is just a civil contract?  If so, we have been arguing back and forth at each other around semantics.  Marriage, as I have always taken it, is the social institution (in our society, derived from a religious institution) +  the civil contract.     So the 2  widows wouldn't get married, they would be under civil contract.  And, as you said, plenty people have weddings (get married) without concern for a civil contract. Others do the opposite, get married (civil) without weddings. The civil contract is the portion that the government has. The social institution is the community/religion/cult/toastmasters/etc's business.
 
2014-04-28 08:07:10 PM  

Slartibartfaster: Theaetetus: Hence, what importance does that fact have?
Slartibartfaster: None whatsoever

I never claimed it pertained to your claim - dont weave my words dude


So, you were in complete agreement with Serious Black when you posted that a bridge is not able to consent? You had no disagreement with him saying, "If a minister or any other individual wants to preside over a non-legal commitment ceremony between parties as bizarre as, say, a woman marrying a bridge, that should absolutely be their right to do so without risk of punishment by government"?

If so, then what exactly was the point of your post?
 
2014-04-28 08:15:54 PM  

Theaetetus: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

Easy: marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one.


That's the point.  The easy and obvious answer is something that they can't admit, because their whole worldview requires them to pretend the opposite.  That's what makes this beautiful.
 
2014-04-28 08:20:18 PM  

RyansPrivates: Theaetetus: RyansPrivates: Theaetetus: Three things:
(1) What you're proposing is an institution with all the rights and privileges of marriage, but, for some reason, not called "marriage". Why? Marriage currently exists. Why abolish it and create something exactly identical (albeit open to more people), but with a different name? Why not just, say, open marriage to more people?
It's almost as if you're conceding the point that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get "married", just "civilly yoon'ed".

Hence my distinction between ideal and real.  Ideally, the whole concept of union called marriage wouldn't be on the books.  The word is loaded.

Yes, that's what I'm saying: you're proposing a new institution,  exactly 100% identical to marriage, but not called marriage, because some people get all in a tizzy if we say that gay people can get married.
Isn't that spitting on gay people?
"Hi, gay folks, we know we talk about equal rights and everything, but those bigots over there get really angry if we talk about letting you get married. And we don't want to piss them off, because they're more important than you are. Sure, your parents were married and your grandparents were married and your great-grandparents are married, and you always dreamed of having access to that institution, but we're literally going to abolish it. Just so that you can't get married. Oh, you'll have the same rights, but you won't be allowed to sully the glorious institution of 'marriage' by calling yourselves married."

Any way you look at it, it's a dick move.

Dick move how?  I don't see it.  Everyone, gay or straight would have to go through the same process.


You are abolishing an institution just so that gay people can't say "we're married". That's a dick move, even if you replace it with a new institution with a different name. It's also a dick move to straight people who have no problem with gay people calling themselves married. The only purpose for it is to placate bigots. And placating bigots is a dick move.

And marriage is a religious thing.  Always has been... Marriage, as I have always taken it, is the social institution (in our society, derived from a religious institution)  + the civil contract.

And I'm telling you that you've taken it wrong. Marriage wasn't even a sacrament for the first millennium and a half of Christianity. The church stayed out of marriage until the Council of Trent. You've been misinformed.

Just because the government was involved prior to now doesn't make it right.

For millennia, marriage has been about transfer of property between families and the legal replacement of kinship. Just because the church interceded so that they could exert more dominion over the home and enforce their religious dogma doesn't mean that the secular institution needs to be abolished.

Religion needs to be exorcised completely from the government.   And as I said: ideally.  Realistically, it won't be: so open the damn thing up.  Are you capable of seeing the distinction between what we should have versus what we do have?

Or, we can just open the secular institution of marriage to gay people. We did it in Massachusetts. It's not hard. The sky didn't fall.  We already have what you're saying won't happen.

So just to get this clear: you are saying that marriage is  justa civil contract?  If so, we have been arguing back and forth at each other around semantics.  Marriage, as I have always taken it, is the social institution (in our society, derived from a religious institution)  + the civil contract.

Or, more correctly, there is a social institution called wedlock and a civil contract called  marriage. You even acknowledge this, even though you aren't using the right words:
So the 2  widows wouldn't get married, they would be under civil contract.
i.e. they are married, but not wed.

And, as you said, plenty people have weddings (get married) without concern for a civil contract.
i.e. they are wed, but not married.
Others do the opposite, get married (civil) without weddings.
i.e. they are married, but not wed.

The civil contract is the portion that the government has.
i.e. the marriage.

The social institution is the community/religion/cult/toastmasters/etc's business.
 i.e. the wedding.

Seriously, what you're describing is  exactly what we have right now. However, for some reason, rather than using the proper terms - "wedding" and "marriage" - you're redefining 'marriage' to mean "wedding" and saying that we need a new word to describe marriage. And  why do we need a new word? So that gay people can't claim they're married. Hence why it's a dick move.
 
2014-04-28 08:22:37 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

Easy: marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one.

That's the point.  The easy and obvious answer is something that they can't admit, because their whole worldview requires them to pretend the opposite.  That's what makes this beautiful.


Hell, look at RyansPrivates here. Even while acknowledging that there's a religious ceremony on the one hand and a civil contract on the other, and at least appearing to be pro-marriage equality, he still insists on interchangeably using the terms "wedding" and "marriage" for the former.
 
2014-04-28 08:48:28 PM  

Theaetetus: For millennia, marriage has been about transfer of property between families and the legal replacement of kinship. Just because the church interceded so that they could exert more dominion over the home and enforce their religious dogma doesn't mean that the secular institution needs to be abolished.


Where did I say I want the secular institution abolished?  I never once said that.  I want a purely civil contract.  For everyone.  Open to any 2 consenting adults.  Which, for some reason you WON'T support.  You only want if for people who meet your criteria.  Not for anyone.  I.e. You would restrict it from adults who are related to each other.

Theaetetus: Or, we can just open the secular institution of marriage to gay people. We did it in Massachusetts. It's not hard. The sky didn't fall.  We already have what you're saying won't happen.


WHICH I SUPPORT! WTF? Have you no reading comprehension:  " if the state is going to create marriage, then they have got to open it up to everyone regardless of gender." My words. exact.  What part do you disagree with?

Theaetetus:
Hell, look at RyansPrivates here. Even while acknowledging that there's a religious ceremony on the one hand and a civil contract on the other, and at least appearing to be pro-marriage equality, he still insists on interchangeably using the terms "wedding" and "marriage" for the former.

We are talking past each other here.  You fail to recognize the distinction i have made between the two aspects of the institution.  As I have said repeatedly and emphatically " if the state is going to create marriage, then they have got to open it up to everyone regardless of gender"    But I actually think this NOT INCLUSIVE ENOUGH. The civil aspect should be open to any 2 consenting adults, related or not. However, to do so means we have to get away from the notion that our government needs to bless our our unions with the ones we love, regardless of whether we are straight or gay.  The government needs  to provide  a contract, nothing else.  A formality almost.
 
2014-04-28 08:55:40 PM  

rosekolodny: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Magorn: Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

Read again. the law makes it a criminal offense to officiate at any wedding for which a valid marriage license has not been obtained.    That is, in effect telling clergy when and how they may bestow religious sacraments .  Certainly NC has rights,(for now anyway) to refuse to civilly enroll any marriage it finds objectionable under its laws.  But to make it a crime to officiate at such a wedding stomps on the Free Exercise, Free speech and freedom of association clauses of Amendment 1 in a very big way

Out of curiosity, does NC have the right to refuse to recognize the marriage of a white woman to a blah man as well?

Sorry to break this to you, but many white women are married to blah men.  What you propose would effectively nullify most WASP unions.


Sure, yet interracial marriage was once illegal in the US. If the state has the right to define marriage by gender, why doesn't it have the right to define it by race?

Does this really go over American heads?
 
2014-04-28 08:55:51 PM  

Theaetetus: Hell, look at RyansPrivates here. Even while acknowledging that there's a religious ceremony on the one hand and a civil contract on the other, and at least appearing to be pro-marriage equality, he still insists on interchangeably using the terms "wedding" and "marriage" for the former.


I would also like to replace government sanctioned marriage with civil unions, which would be open to any combination of consenting adults.
 
2014-04-28 08:57:56 PM  

RyansPrivates: Open to any 2 consenting adults.


Why limit it to 2?
 
2014-04-28 09:01:44 PM  

BMFPitt: RyansPrivates: Open to any 2 consenting adults.

Why limit it to 2?


I don't inherently have a problem with more than 2.  But as some point a number needs to be settled on, for administrative purposes.  Here is what i said upthread:

RyansPrivates: As I said, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for a simplified contract between 2 consenting adults.  Some might say "why just 2", but that is really a detail to be ironed out. My (non-legally informed) opinion is that you could say that the least complicated version of this contract and least burdensome for medical and legal authorities is just 2 people.  Like I said, the goal should be a simple form that you can go and get in 15 minutes.  Getting out of it should be just as easy, provided both partners consent to dissolution of the contract.  The messy divorce system would remain intact for those who want to fight it out in civil litigation.

 
2014-04-28 09:01:55 PM  
I don't care who you are that right there is funny.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report