Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
shaka5

Ny votes against......

293 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

HerNibs

were you aware that if a state allows a church to issue a certificate they can stop allowing them to do so as well. oh i don't because they aren't following the law or the state constitution.

I don't understand what you are saying. The state and only the state may issue and legally accept a marriage certificate.

Some churches print up pretty little certificates but they have no legal standing.

I know of no state that allows churces to issue actual marriage certificates that are legally binding.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
danielost

I don't understand what you are saying. The state and only the state may issue and legally accept a marriage certificate.

Some churches print up pretty little certificates but they have no legal standing.

I know of no state that allows churces to issue actual marriage certificates that are legally binding.

Nibs

the few church weddings i have ever been to always ended with by the power visted in me by the state of ___________. i know pronounce you man and wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

But you fail to understand the statement. The power was vested in me by the state. That means it was given by the state and did not come from the church. Churches don't issue licenses. I can see you've never been married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

But you fail to understand the statement. The power was vested in me by the state. That means it was given by the state and did not come from the church. Churches don't issue licenses. I can see you've never been married.

Im married, and the preacher who performed the wedding had to sign my license. He might be on to something here. Its easy enough to settle though, they would have to provide a religous exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

But you fail to understand the statement. The power was vested in me by the state. That means it was given by the state and did not come from the church. Churches don't issue licenses. I can see you've never been married.

but you seem to fail to understand that what the state can give the state can take away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

The power is vested to them in the terms of the marriage contract. I've performed many marriage ceremonies. Usually the "official" is just signing the contract and that "official signature" is no more than a validation of a witness.

You tell me your state, I'll tell you what power the "official" has. In my state, even a JotP is no more than a witness.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

but you seem to fail to understand that what the state can give the state can take away.

Nobody is trying to take away the church's ability to perform marriage ceremonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Im married, and the preacher who performed the wedding had to sign my license. He might be on to something here. Its easy enough to settle though, they would have to provide a religous exemption.

Sure he did. The license PROVIDED BY THE STATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

but you seem to fail to understand that what the state can give the state can take away.

What has that non-sequiter have to do with your assertion that the church issues licenses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

The power is vested to them in the terms of the marriage contract. I've performed many marriage ceremonies. Usually the "official" is just signing the contract and that "official signature" is no more than a validation of a witness.

You tell me your state, I'll tell you what power the "official" has. In my state, even a JotP is no more than a witness.

Nibs

It makes little sense to me why someone has to go "whoever" to say a few words, usually pay them a fee and then they pronounce you married. When you go to the courthouse to get your license the clerk is a witness to both of you signing your marriage certificate. That should be the end of the official paperwork. When it comes down to it it's just about the money the state can make from you to become "licensed" to preform the ceremony.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

It makes little sense to me why someone has to go "whoever" to say a few words, usually pay them a fee and then they pronounce you married. When you go to the courthouse to get your license the clerk is a witness to both of you signing your marriage certificate. That should be the end of the official paperwork. When it comes down to it it's just about the money the state can make from you to become "licensed" to preform the ceremony.

:) I agree that it doesn't matter who says the few words. I was always amazed when some one requested that I "officiate" for them. In Colorado all it takes is two witnesses and then have the form returned to the Clerk's office and filed.

I didn't and couldn't accept any type of fee. Other "officials" did charge fees (churches/pastors) that they kept. The only fees the county received were the document/filing fees. $30 bucks I think.

You don't need to be licensed in Colorado to officiate because it is really an unnecessary action.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

I still think hand fasting should be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
HerNibs

I still think hand fasting should be used.

:D I think there should be a 30 day money back guarantee.

And a test before becoming parents.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

XD Lords yes.. a test before comeing parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

I still think hand fasting should be used.

I think marriage should have an expiration date on them with unlimited renewals. Evaluations will be made every 30 days for the first 90 days. After initial 90 days marriage can be renewed every 5 years. :D

Infractions or violations adds points to marriage record (eg. cheating, forgetting anniversary, etc)and will require counseling to correct infractions or violations.

In order to have children adults are require to have technological and psychological testing needing passing scores of 90% or higher. Testing will be required for each additional child. Continuing education will be required annually.

With too many infractions or violations, marriage will be revoke (annulled or divorce). :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Ya the law also helps pedophiles get out of jail the law helps banks steal from people the law helps corrupt politicians LOL ya the law against gay marriage. I can see your deep concern and how society would collapse if gay marriage is allowed LOL It amazes me how many people still have the mind set of there grand parents or great grandparents, shows how bigotry is handed down from generation to generation the same as religion is. Pathetic and if people still want to live in the 1950's go for it but don't try to hold back the future with bigotry. It will be legal I promise you that so why fight it. Oh the damn has another leak, stick another finger in it LOL

I'm honestly rather neutral on the gay marriage issue. My question though is this: If gay couples want equal protection under the law, and christians/muslims/mormons/catholics/7th day adventists want the traditional definition of marriage to be preserved, why can't we come up with some sort of a civil union which would grant complete legal equality to same sex couples while still respecting the traditional definition of marriage???? (grown-ups have to compromise from time to time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

I'm honestly rather neutral on the gay marriage issue. My question though is this: If gay couples want equal protection under the law, and christians/muslims/mormons/catholics/7th day adventists want the traditional definition of marriage to be preserved, why can't we come up with some sort of a civil union which would grant complete legal equality to same sex couples while still respecting the traditional definition of marriage???? (grown-ups have to compromise from time to time)

We can and that does happen in certain places. It is my opinion(and the opinion of many) that a 'civil union' is a second class marriage, segregation through words if you will. If it awards all the legal rights and standings and for all intents and purposes is the same thing why not call it what it is...a marriage. What you just said is akin to "why not just have a black drinking fountain and a white drinking fountain". Also even 'civil unions' are recognized by the state...the are not recognized on the federal level.

The religious definition is irrelevant when determining legal standing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"-First Amendment. Because this issue is about what the government recognizes and not the church an religious establishments will still be able to refuse to perform any wedding service they want there is no prohibition of free exercise of religion(and no breach of the 1st amendment)...respecting the definition, practices and dogma of a religion and incorporating it into law is a breach.

Marriage is a secular practice that is not exclusive to any religion. The various religious positions that are taken to be against homosexual marriage make no sense, it is simply people wishing to push unfounded irrational beliefs onto others for no real logical reasons whatsoever.

Grown-ups do not compromise on principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

I'm honestly rather neutral on the gay marriage issue. My question though is this: If gay couples want equal protection under the law, and christians/muslims/mormons/catholics/7th day adventists want the traditional definition of marriage to be preserved, why can't we come up with some sort of a civil union which would grant complete legal equality to same sex couples while still respecting the traditional definition of marriage???? (grown-ups have to compromise from time to time)

The traditional meaning of marrage? That would be the whole property arrangement and contract thing. Not the "modern" ever changeing to suit the views of people meaning. That meaning is currently the sappy happy true love man and woman who want to spend forever and ever (untill the man or woman finds a bit of side action.. or one of them becomes abusive... or some other reason to end this oh so stead fast cornerstone of some romantic cornerstone of an "institution" of marriage.)

ahh remember when men sought women with big doweries.. you know money the bride to be's family had to pay the guy to marry their daughter? That was once the "traditional" meaning of marriage.. Or oh oh! The arranged marrage! That was once a WONDERFUL traditional meaning.. Kinda like the whole "I'll give you 12 cows and 3 achers of lanf if you'll marry my daughter.." thing was once the traditional meaning.

My point.. thie meaning of marriage is no more. It changed. It will change again. If same sex lovers want in on this.. I support it. (and mind you, I don't like marriage at all. LOL)

Edited by SilverCougar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.