So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[TeresaNJ]

I use a Ouija board.




According to one survey. The same survey, done the year before, concluded that Papa John's was number one. I don't think much of that survey.

I only meant that obviously people enjoyed going to Chick-fil-a, enough so that they were just rated favorite FF restaurant, but two city officials were going to try to keep them out of their cities, because of the owner's religious belief regarding marriage, turning away jobs & revenue, because of the city officials' beliefs. Whether Chick-fil-a is number one or two is beside the point.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Total tangent here......

Well - a marriage ceremony is merely a ceremony - basically a means to legal status. One that every state allows to be performed by clergy, although the list of who else varies. And in the end it's just a ceremony. A state or the federal government don't really care other than that the state recognizes the marriage. They don't place a higher value on marriages officiated by clergy, or judges, civil marriage officiants, or politicians (that's actually a category in my state).

Of course many fixate on just that, while either deliberately or not so deliberately arguing about what it may mean for clergy if they're uncomfortable or refuse. It's a common reason cited for why SSM is wrong. In the meanwhile, no lawsuit has gone anywhere when a Catholic priest has declined to officiate an atheist's or protestant's wedding ceremony. It hasn't even gone anywhere in states where SSM has been legal. If anything, that's a pretty good freedom of religion exercise, whether it's about the clergy's right to decide who they will serve vs the potential married couple's "rights" to be served regardless of their religious background (or lack thereof).

I don't know if maybe we'd be better off going to the European model. Sure there can be a religious ceremony, but it's no more official to the government than having a wedding reception. The official stuff happens in front of a civil servant, and that's what makes the marriage legal in the eyes of the law.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...riage-licenses-met-20150702-story.html#page=1

I think this is a great idea. Have everyone get their marriage license signed by the state, & let clergy perform the ceremonies.

 

[Jennasis]

I only meant that obviously people enjoyed going to Chick-fil-a, enough so that they were just rated favorite FF restaurant, but two city officials were going to try to keep them out of their cities, because of the owner's religious belief regarding marriage, turning away jobs & revenue, because of the city officials' beliefs. Whether Chick-fil-a is number one or two is beside the point.

Well sure! Chick-Fil-A is delicious! Even if I don't agree with their practices. Those chicken minis?? Mmmmmmm.

 

[JaxDad]

What "practices?" As far as I know, CFA was never credibly shown to discriminate against gays in hiring or serving. The owner just expressed his personal beliefs, which are shared by many including the President at that time (I THINK that was all before his views "evolved," but I may be mistaken). Do I have to agree with the owner? No. Do I have to eat there? No. The campaign to "punish" CFA for the owner's beliefs seemed as intolerant to me as the beliefs themselves.

 

[Topper]

The campaign to "punish" CFA for the owner's beliefs seemed as intolerant to me as the beliefs themselves.

Reminds me of the Baptist boycott against Disney.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/

 

[JaxDad]

Yep. Two sides of the same coin. People are free to do as they please and even free to try to convince me to do the same. I usually respect their passion, whether I agree with them or not, but sometimes their message resonates with intolerance (and even hatred) in their effort to gain supporters.

 

[scoutie]

It's too bad she did not feel comfortable leaving it up (likely because there were only a handful of authors and it would be too easy for some crazy person from here to figure out who she is)--it was posted and it was good research which I found really interesting, but by the time I was done skimming it, that post on the thread read "duplicate post" or something like that and the link was gone.
Anyway, I will confirm its existence -- you can believe her on that point

You're right (and thank you)--I spent a lot of time yesterday digging up a draft of my paper (the final copy must be on a flashdrive in my classroom). I tried to upload my actual notes--rough as they were, which didn't work. I typed some of my APA citations, was about to leave for a BBQ, and then realized I didn't want snippets of my paper on a public message board. If anybody wants to message me, I can provide what I typed yesterday and deleted. Google Scholar is what a used for some of my paper to get my evidence. It's a great tool.

 

[ariel71]

Total tangent here......

Well - a marriage ceremony is merely a ceremony - basically a means to legal status. One that every state allows to be performed by clergy, although the list of who else varies. And in the end it's just a ceremony. A state or the federal government don't really care other than that the state recognizes the marriage. They don't place a higher value on marriages officiated by clergy, or judges, civil marriage officiants, or politicians (that's actually a category in my state).

I don't know if maybe we'd be better off going to the European model. Sure there can be a religious ceremony, but it's no more official to the government than having a wedding reception. The official stuff happens in front of a civil servant, and that's what makes the marriage legal in the eyes of the law.

Yes, I think what's been ignored by many is that a marriage ceremony is usually both a religious and civil event, even when performed by clergy. The state determines who has the legal right to officiate and sign the marriage certificate ("by the power vested in me by the state of x"), and it is usually someone at the church who arranges for the filing of the marriage certificate or license with the appropriate recording agency.

I don't really have a problem with the current method since I imagine the vast majority of people still have religious ceremonies of some sort and would like the official dates of both events to be the same. Many people leave for their honeymoon right away and wouldn't be legally married if a civil ceremony hadn't occurred ahead of time. I'd have to think about it. Despite my lack of religious beliefs, I'm a very practical person as long as there's parity.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Yep. Two sides of the same coin. People are free to do as they please and even free to try to convince me to do the same. I usually respect their passion, whether I agree with them or not, but sometimes their message resonates with intolerance (and even hatred) in their effort to gain supporters.

Tolerance and respect go a long way.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Yes, I think what's been ignored by many is that a marriage ceremony is usually both a religious and civil event, even when performed by clergy.

I don't really have a problem with the current method since I imagine the vast majority of people still have religious ceremonies of some sort and would like the official dates of both events to be the same. Many people leave for their honeymoon right away and wouldn't be legally married if a civil ceremony hadn't occurred ahead of time. I'd have to think about it. Despite my lack of religious beliefs, I'm a very practical person as long as there's parity.

I don't believe a ceremony should be required for the contract to be legal....for ANY marriage. Any ceremony should be a personal preference and completely separate. IMO

 

[bcla]

Yes, I think what's been ignored by many is that a marriage ceremony is usually both a religious and civil event, even when performed by clergy. The state determines who has the legal right to officiate and sign the marriage certificate ("by the power vested in me by the state of x"), and it is usually someone at the church who arranges for the filing of the marriage certificate or license with the appropriate recording agency.

A ceremony is an absolute requirement in California, and there are prescribed things to include. I got married in a civil ceremony, and we asked if the officiant could use my (now) wife's nickname and was told it had to be the legal name on the marriage license. And yeah - it has to be signed by the officiant, although I suppose who puts it in the envelope (or maybe hand drops it at the county clerk) is a clerical function.

Strangely enough, there is no licensing or registration requirement for clergy to perform a wedding in California.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

A ceremony is an absolute requirement in California, and there are prescribed things to include. I got married in a civil ceremony, and we asked if the officiant could use my (now) wife's nickname and was told it had to be the legal name on the marriage license. And yeah - it has to be signed by the officiant, although I suppose who puts it in the envelope (or maybe hand drops it at the county clerk) is a clerical function.

Strangely enough, there is no licensing or registration requirement for clergy to perform a wedding in California.

California is kind of well known for being a bit different than the rest of the legal community, so that really doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[dokey]

I never had a problem with it. To each his own.

 

[ariel71]

I don't believe a ceremony should be required for the contract to be legal....for ANY marriage. Any ceremony should be a personal preference and completely separate. IMO

The use of the term "ceremony" can be loosely defined - the legal proceeding where the participants state their intent, the officiant publically declares them wed in front of witnesses, marriage certificate is signed, etc. I would still consider going to a Justice of the Peace by yourselves to be a "civil ceremony". I don't mean having an Event (capital E).

 

[TLSnell1981]

Why can't the application process be sufficient?

 

[bcla]

The use of the term "ceremony" can be loosely defined - the legal proceeding where the participants state their intent, the officiant publically declares them wed in front of witnesses, marriage certificate is signed, etc. I would still consider going to a Justice of the Peace by yourselves to be a "civil ceremony". I don't mean having an Event (capital E).

It still comes with specific prescriptions for things that have to be done. I could have just tracked down a judge, have him read from a script, and have him and the witnesses sign the marriage license, and that would be legal. It doesn't have to be religious.

 

[rickybobby]

Reminds me of the Baptist boycott against Disney.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/

Not the same. Boycotting is a personal choice, refusing to allow a restaurant to exist is completely different, and intolerant.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

What "practices?" As far as I know, CFA was never credibly shown to discriminate against gays in hiring or serving. The owner just expressed his personal beliefs, which are shared by many including the President at that time (I THINK that was all before his views "evolved," but I may be mistaken). Do I have to agree with the owner? No. Do I have to eat there? No. The campaign to "punish" CFA for the owner's beliefs seemed as intolerant to me as the beliefs themselves.

He expressed his belief and then acknowledged he donated millions of CFA profits (via the CFA Foundation, WinShape, http://www.winshape.org/about ) to anti gay groups, which included deprogramming. The outcry was great and CFA stopped donating to those Family Research Council and Exodus International as of today as far as I know.

They ended donating to anti-gay groups.

 

[ariel71]

Why can't the application process be sufficient?

I don't know the rationale behind why states have the procedures they do, so I couldn't say one way or the other. There are probably reasonable pros and cons to either side. If there's no discrimination involved, changing each state's statutory requirements is a solution in search of a problem when it comes to the matter at hand. Someone might argue the process is inefficient, but that could be true of anything from building codes to the DMV.

 

[bcla]

I don't know the rationale behind why states have the procedures they do, so I couldn't say one way or the other. There are probably reasonable pros and cons to either side. If there's no discrimination involved, changing each state's statutory requirements is a solution in search of a problem when it comes to the matter at hand. Someone might argue the process is inefficient, but that could be true of anything from building codes to the DMV.

I don't get it, but an actual "ceremony" is almost always required.

I'm old enough to remember the miniseries The Winds of War. I don't remember that much about it, but there was a scene where two Americans were getting married in France. They were in front of a civil servant just signing papers - many of which they couldn't read. When they were done signing, they asked what else they needed to do to get married, and civil servant said to them, "You are married now."

There was also one episode of the NBC show Night Court, where Judge Stone conducts a wedding at the request of a couple where the groom just got off on some charge. He sort of makes up something on the spot, they look sort of puzzled, and at the end he says something like "The only thing that really matters is that I sign your license."