Clergy Issued Marriage Licenses

[NeekReevers]

I see the state House has approved the measure shifting the issuance of marriage licenses from the state to clergy. I haven't read the law but most of the comments I have seen from those that support gay marriage is that they are opposed to this bill which I don't understand. It seems to me that this bill would pretty much allow anyone to get married that wanted to as long as they could find a clergy member willing to do the marriage. What am I missing?

The other question I have is since marriage is a binding legal contract how does a clergy issued certificate hold up in court? Do you just file it with the county clerk just like you would a regular marriage license?

News 9 Story

 

[squeak]

Seems like a win-win to me.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[AC_Exotic]

Horrible idea.

The state legislature and county clerks are cowards.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[TPOKE]

Originally posted by ThePokewithNoName:
Horrible idea.

The state legislature and county clerks are cowards.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Politicians are the snakiest bastards on the face of the earth.

 

[Ostatedchi]

What about unaffiliated straight couples with no church? Seems like a horrible idea to me.

 

[NeekReevers]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
What about unaffiliated straight couples with no church? Seems like a horrible idea to me.

I thought I read a few months ago, and I'm not 100% sure this is the same bill, that if you are unaffiliated with a church you simply file an affidavit with the court clerk saying you are married. Seems simple, anyone can get married who wants to, and the politicians are out of it. What's not to like? Like I said maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Bitter Creek]

I like the idea.

Nobody has to get married. If you want to get married go to you spiritual leader. If you don't have a spiritual leader, get one of those guys with the mail-in licences. If you don't know anyone with a mail-in licence, get an atty to write up a "what to do with our stuff if we split up" contract, invite your friends over and have a part.

In short, I'm not sure why there is such a thing as a gov't licence to get married.

 

[squeak]

I'm trying to understand what is wrong with this bill?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[AC_Exotic]

Originally posted by squeak:
I'm trying to understand what is wrong with this bill?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Puts liability on ministers that they don't need.

Also would potentially open the door in the future for lawsuits from gay activist groups for refusal to offer a service. Before you say that won't happen, it's already happening to businesses that cater to weddings, photographers etc.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Originally posted by ThePokewithNoName:

Originally posted by squeak:
I'm trying to understand what is wrong with this bill?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Puts liability on ministers that they don't need.

Also would potentially open the door in the future for lawsuits from gay activist groups for refusal to offer a service. Before you say that won't happen, it's already happening to businesses that cater to weddings, photographers etc.

This part is true, but it shouldn't be happening. It is a separate issue that prevents private companies from acting under their own religeous and / or moral beliefs.

Hopefully this will quit happening before it becomes a trend.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Originally posted by Bitter Creek:

Originally posted by ThePokewithNoName:

Originally posted by squeak:
I'm trying to understand what is wrong with this bill?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Puts liability on ministers that they don't need.

Also would potentially open the door in the future for lawsuits from gay activist groups for refusal to offer a service. Before you say that won't happen, it's already happening to businesses that cater to weddings, photographers etc.

This part is true, but it shouldn't be happening. It is a separate issue that prevents private companies from acting under their own religeous and / or moral beliefs.

Hopefully this will quit happening before it becomes a trend.

The legal loophole they'll be able to jump thru and attack ministers is because most ministers receive a fee for doing weddings and therefore will be seen as a public service not that dissimilar to a wedding photographer, or someone who bakes wedding cakes.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Originally posted by ThePokewithNoName:

Originally posted by Bitter Creek:

Originally posted by ThePokewithNoName:

Originally posted by squeak:
I'm trying to understand what is wrong with this bill?


Posted from Rivals Mobile

Puts liability on ministers that they don't need.

Also would potentially open the door in the future for lawsuits from gay activist groups for refusal to offer a service. Before you say that won't happen, it's already happening to businesses that cater to weddings, photographers etc.

This part is true, but it shouldn't be happening. It is a separate issue that prevents private companies from acting under their own religeous and / or moral beliefs.

Hopefully this will quit happening before it becomes a trend.

The legal loophole they'll be able to jump thru and attack ministers is because most ministers receive a fee for doing weddings and therefore will be seen as a public service not that dissimilar to a wedding photographer, or someone who bakes wedding cakes.

What keeps this from happening now? Why could/would it only become an issue if they issued the license? Couldn't the same come from just refusing the ceremony service?

 

[MegaPoke]

As a wedding photographer, I've turned down clients I thought would be payment risks or even just too high maintenance to work with. I wouldn't turn down a gay couple but if I did there would be 20 other photographers who would take the gig. Would it be the same market scenario for preachers? Or would there be a legitimate lack of access for a gay couple in this state?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[davidallen]

Can someone tell me WHY we need this legislation? Is it because the process of issuing marriage licenses is a burden on local government? Is it because their is some liability aspect that government can't bear? Is it because legislatures want to pass the buck to someone else? Is it to make it harder for nontraditional couples (Atheists, interracial couples, same sex couples, etc) to get wedding licenses?

In my opinion, so long as an institution conveys state sanctioned benefits to or regulatory authority over the members of the agreement, you pretty much have to have some sort of regulatory oversight from the government including the issuance of permits, licenses or recording of agreements. Even a land sale has to be registered with the taxing authorities. I guess you could just let the realtors handle all the deed recording and such?

This post was edited on 3/20 9:09 AM by davidallen

 

[OSUDirt]

Originally posted by davidallen:
Can someone tell me WHY we need this legislation? Is it because the process of issuing marriage licenses is a burden on local government? Is it because their is some liability aspect that government can't bear? Is it because legislatures want to pass the buck to someone else? Is it to make it harder for nontraditional couples (Atheists, interracial couples, same sex couples, etc) to get wedding licenses?

In my opinion, so long as an institution conveys state sanctioned benefits to or regulatory authority over the members of the agreement, you pretty much have to have some sort of regulatory oversight from the government including the issuance of permits, licenses or recording of agreements. Even a land sale has to be registered with the taxing authorities. I guess you could just let the realtors handle all the deed recording and such?

This post was edited on 3/20 9:09 AM by davidallen

As far as I can tell the only "reason" for it is so county clerks (or whoever was issuing the marriage licenses) don't have to deal with the gays. Waste of time and resources trying to avoid gay marriage.

 

[Ostatedchi]

The more I think about this the less I like it.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's.

We should be further separating the religious marriage from the government sanctioned civil union of marriage - not further merging them. The government recognizing a union and calling it marriage has nothing to do with me standing before God and making a marriage vow. One is between me, my God, and my spouse. The other, isn't. And neither of them affect the other.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
The more I think about this the less I like it.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's.

We should be further separating the religious marriage from the government sanctioned civil union of marriage - not further merging them. The government recognizing a union and calling it marriage has nothing to do with me standing before God and making a marriage vow. One is between me, my God, and my spouse. The other, isn't. And neither of them affect the other.

This is correct. Otherwise, eventually churches will be forced to marry gay couples against their own beliefs (which still might be attempted eventually anyway).

 

[aix_xpert]

Question: So if the government relinquished this authority to the church, does poligamy become legal if you are a Mormon? That would be a church-sanctioned marriage, given that the CLDS is a valid and accepted practicing religion.

Justin

 

[OSUDirt]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
The more I think about this the less I like it.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's.

We should be further separating the religious marriage from the government sanctioned civil union of marriage - not further merging them. The government recognizing a union and calling it marriage has nothing to do with me standing before God and making a marriage vow. One is between me, my God, and my spouse. The other, isn't. And neither of them affect the other.

This is correct. Otherwise, eventually churches will be forced to marry gay couples against their own beliefs (which still might be attempted eventually anyway).

Didn't Presbyterians just okay gay marriage? Maybe churches are going to finally get on board, like they did with shrimp

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by OSUDirt:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
The more I think about this the less I like it.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's.

We should be further separating the religious marriage from the government sanctioned civil union of marriage - not further merging them. The government recognizing a union and calling it marriage has nothing to do with me standing before God and making a marriage vow. One is between me, my God, and my spouse. The other, isn't. And neither of them affect the other.

This is correct. Otherwise, eventually churches will be forced to marry gay couples against their own beliefs (which still might be attempted eventually anyway).

Didn't Presbyterians just okay gay marriage? Maybe churches are going to finally get on board, like they did with shrimp

MMMMMMmmmmmm Shrimp....

 

[MegaPoke]

I got a terrible intestinal infection from shrimp once. Gods vengeance or coincidence? I'm still unsure
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[OSUDirt]

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
I got a terrible intestinal infection from shrimp once. Gods vengeance or coincidence? I'm still unsure
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Definitely God's vengeance