|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:35:27 [Permalink]
|
A marriage license is obtained at city hall. It seems to me that anyone should be able to officiate a marriage after that. Or at least any citizen of the country should be allowed to officiate. Have the certificate notarized and send it back to city hall. The couple should be able to choose anyone they want to, to do the honors. Whoever they think will give the ceremony meaning to them. That could be a friend, a rabbi a priest a couples therapist, or, well, anyone. Who cares?
It's not as though, if the marriage dissolves, the law comes after the person who officiated with charges of incompetence.
Certification to officiate marriages is a crock….
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:41:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
A marriage license is obtained at city hall. It seems to me that anyone should be able to officiate a marriage after that. Or at least any citizen of the country should be allowed to officiate. Have the certificate notarized and send it back to city hall. The couple should be able to choose anyone they want to, to do the honors. Whoever they think will give the ceremony meaning to them. That could be a friend, a rabbi a priest a couples therapist, or, well, anyone. Who cares?
It's not as though, if the marriage dissolves, the law comes after the person who officiated with charges of incompetence.
Certification to officiate marriages is a crock….
|
Right on! |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: A marriage license is obtained at city hall. It seems to me that anyone should be able to officiate a marriage after that. Or at least any citizen of the country should be allowed to officiate. Have the certificate notarized and send it back to city hall. The couple should be able to choose anyone they want to, to do the honors. Whoever they think will give the ceremony meaning to them. That could be a friend, a rabbi a priest a couples therapist, or, well, anyone. Who cares?
It's not as though, if the marriage dissolves, the law comes after the person who officiated with charges of incompetence.
Certification to officiate marriages is a crock…. |
I ended my celebrancy with the more established Humanist Society for the ULC-style ordination of the Church of Spiritual Humanism for two reasons. First, the Humanist Society collects annual dues and application fees, but they never put out a financial report, nor do they actually provide any training or support for the clergy certified through them, and I thought that was bullshit.
The second reason is perfectly explained by Kil's statements above.
Every state should have a "self-uniting marriage license" such as PA's. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:50:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
In one story, priests are refusing to participate in weddings in which the father "gives away" the bride. They say it's too paternalistic, and the government's backing them up. |
How stupid is that? 
If the bride wants that kind of ceremony, why not give it to her?
In Sweden, the Parish Council is indirectly democratically elected. I think it's the Parish Councel who decides policy. This means that people who aren't active members of the Swedish Lutheran Church gets influence in them. The Swedish Lutheran Church used to be the official church of Sweden, and is still the largest church in Sweden.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 08:01:40 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and you are not a proper minister Gorgo. An Officiate you may be, but I highly doubt you've been giving sermons or any other non-wedding duties. |
Whether I have or haven't, you have no way of knowing, and is irrelevant to the issue. If the Universal Life Church considers me a minister, then I am. I can create my own church and be a minister of it. What constitutes a minister is no one's business but mine and those people who wish to consider me a minister.
Your saying that the ULC is a joke puts it beneath others, unless you consider them all a joke. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 08:05:44 [Permalink]
|
| I may sign up for this Spiritual Humanism thing, thanks. I had said years ago that I wasn't going to do more marriages, but couldn't turn the kids down. This would be more along the lines of my thinking. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 09:54:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
The mandate comes from the people being married. |
No, the mandate comes from society since we have decided to give married people rights that unmarried couples do not have, and so we feel that there should be some minimal vetting process overseen by someone assumed to have a responsible nature (a judge, a mayor, clergy). It's been my experience that clergy will ensure that a couple understands that marriage is a big commitment and shouldn't be entered into lightly before a ceremony (for example, the minister my wife's mom picked for our ceremony spent an hour with us on the phone before he even agreed to do it), and then during it he or she will ask for people to stand up and say why the couple shouldn't be married. Even with Pennsylvania's "self-marrying" law (section 1502), the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas has to authorize the couple to go ahead, and that's in addition to their getting the standard marriage license. Because the "contract" is between three parties (the two people getting married and the state), these minimal (and rather archaic, and far too unreliable) protections are already in place, and there is good reason to maintain some amount of protection.
It is the assumptions made by society which are the problem here, specifically the assumption that any/all clergy should be responsible enough to do the minimal vetting of a couple. That's where the religious discrimination comes into play. The solution is not to let just anyone perform legal marriages, as that reduces the protection to society from its already low levels to non-existant.
Were I to have my druthers... well, apparently it's "a crock." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 10:08:20 [Permalink]
|
| You've got the right to decide for yourself who and what (you think) is a "proper" minister or religion. But the state should not have that right. |
I have no issues with this.
All I know is if Ministers and Priests started calling themselves Skeptics and championing their version of Skepticism, most of us would be pretty damn pissed about it.
| Your saying that the ULC is a joke puts it beneath others, unless you consider them all a joke. |
No I only referenced ULC because it was the topic and I have knowledge of it. Please stop expanding my statments to include broad sweeping bullshit which I have not said.
EDITED TO ADD:I have no issues with anyone being able to officiate a wedding, as I have said and been ignored. This does not change the fact that I consider ULC to be sketchy. Any church or religion which would promote someone like me, who has a philosophy with no spiritual or religious characteristics, is an embarassment to churches the world over. Just as I would be outraged if a member of the Flat-Earth Society was allowed into the National Science Council. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 09/27/2007 10:41:11 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 12:34:45 [Permalink]
|
All I know is if Ministers and Priests started calling themselves Skeptics and championing their version of Skepticism, most of us would be pretty damn pissed about it.
|
Where were you in all the discussions about who can be a skeptic? Religious people do consider themselves skeptics.
No I only referenced ULC because it was the topic and I have knowledge of it. Please stop expanding my statments to include broad sweeping bullshit which I have not said.
|
You reference ULC by saying it was a joke. That implies that the others aren't, unless you say that they are. So what if religious people don't like the fact that ULC is just as legitimate as any other purveyor of nonsense, or even more legitimate because they purvey less nonsense? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 17:17:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | No, the mandate comes from society since we have decided to give married people rights that unmarried couples do not have, and so we feel that there should be some minimal vetting process overseen by someone assumed to have a responsible nature (a judge, a mayor, clergy). |
I doubt many Americans feel that the vetting process should be overseen by clergy. Most of the people I know who have got married didn't have to go through much rigmarole with the clergy to get married, and if a couple doesn't want to deal with the vetting, they can simply turn to clergy who don't do any screening.
| It's been my experience that clergy will ensure that a couple understands that marriage is a big commitment and shouldn't be entered into lightly before a ceremony (for example, the minister my wife's mom picked for our ceremony spent an hour with us on the phone before he even agreed to do it), and then during it he or she will ask for people to stand up and say why the couple shouldn't be married. |
Come on! An hour conversation on the phone and a standard line said in the ceremony? If the couple doesn't realize that marriage is a big deal by the time they say "I do", a phone conversation isn't going to do anything. Also, that one line in the ceremony about saying why they shouldn't get married – if someone is going to say something, they would do it before the friggin' ceremony unless they have an affinity for embarrassing theatrics.
This is hardly a practical or consistent vetting process. There are so many more practical and less complex and questionable ways of doing this. For instance, simply having a waiting period to get a marriage license would have more impact since it would weed out people acting out compulsively. Florida requires either a 3 day waiting period or having taken a state-sanctioned marriage course within the last year.
| Even with Pennsylvania's "self-marrying" law (section 1502), the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas has to authorize the couple to go ahead, and that's in addition to their getting the standard marriage license. |
That's not a vetting process, that's some dude signing a piece of paper because both people are present and have filled out the proper forms. And it is not in addition to getting the standard marriage license. Couples in PA get either the standard or self-united license when they go to City Hall.
| Because the "contract" is between three parties (the two people getting married and the state), these minimal (and rather archaic, and far too unreliable) protections are already in place, and there is good reason to maintain some amount of protection. |
So why bring in a fourth party? If the state is the third party in the contract and has such a huge interest, let the state provide a marriage course or counseling, or have the state hire officials who are specially trained to do this "vetting process". Putting it in private hands of clergy is inefficient because in order to not intrude on the rights of the officiates, their organizations, and the couple, the state would have to be so flexible and hands off that inconsistencies would be prevalent. Also, putting it in the hands of the private sector increases costs and thus puts a greater burden on the poor.
Divorces, particularly the messy ones, increase with other social ills. If society works on those problems, divorces, particularly messy and expensive ones, will decrease. That is where the focus should be when it comes to the state's interest in marriage.
| It is the assumptions made by society which are the problem here, specifically the assumption that any/all clergy should be responsible enough to do the minimal vetting of a couple. That's where the religious discrimination comes into play. |
I agree that's the problem. Society should not make that assumption. The reality is that some officiates have a vetting process, others don't, depending on the organization they associate with.
| The solution is not to let just anyone perform legal marriages, as that reduces the protection to society from its already low levels to non-existant. |
I disagree. Again, I don't think the clergy's vetting process contributes to stronger or weaker marriages at all. Couples that go through clergy who have a vetting process come out of a particular social tradition in the first place. It isn't that hour long phone call and one line in the ceremony that increases the changes of the marriage lasting. What keeps a marriage together is a loving and structured upbringing and the teaching of values throughout the couples' young lives, as well as economic security, education, other social influences, and a sense of commitment and loyalty in their individual personalities. I want to see evidence that marriages officiates by clergy who don't have a vetting process are more likely to end in divorce. Without it, the above claim is pure speculation, and I don't think it is fair to limit the rights and income of unconventional officiates and the couples they serve.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 17:20:07 [Permalink]
|
BPSmurf wrote: | I consider ULC to be sketchy. Any church or religion which would promote someone like me, who has a philosophy with no spiritual or religious characteristics, is an embarassment to churches the world over. Just as I would be outraged if a member of the Flat-Earth Society was allowed into the National Science Council. |
The analogy doesn't work since the National Science Council promotes ideas that are directly in conflict with the Flat-Earth Society. The Universal Life Church is overtly all-inclusive, so there is no conflict with an atheist joining and being ordained. Liberal Quaker Meetinghouses embrace Buddhist and atheist members. Unitarian Universalists include UU Humanists (who are atheists) into their churches. Buddhist groups have priests who don't hold any mystical beliefs. This isn't some radical, new concept. Some organizations which for the sake of limited legal purposes must serve as "religions" even though they do not exclude secular worldviews and sometimes even promote a secular worldview. The Humanist Society – whose clergy are recognized in all 50 states – explicitly serves atheists and agnostics, but for the sake of legal purposes it must identify as a "religious organization" and its officiates identify as "clergy".
It's just broader semantics. An organization which serves a social purpose which is traditionally filled by religion is , in some cases, called a religion. The semantics might be confusing, but how does that make those organizations themselves a "joke"?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 17:37:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Putting it in private hands of clergy... |
Good grief.
This is more of the same communications problem we were having in chat last night, marf.
I really don't understand how you've gotten it into your head that I am arguing that clergy should be doing anything, but it seems that you have.
I'm not arguing that the current system is a good way to do things, either.
Me describing the way things are doesn't mean that I think that's the way they ought to be.
But, since any system other than the couple getting married by whomever they choose has already been deemed "a crock" (including, I would guess, your state employee hypothetical), I guess we're all done here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 20:07:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Also, that one line in the ceremony about saying why they shouldn't get married – if someone is going to say something, they would do it before the friggin' ceremony unless they have an affinity for embarrassing theatrics. |
void SlightHijack(void)
{
Has anyone ever been to a wedding where someone has spoken up at this point?
I would hope that anyone who felt that the pending marriage was flawed would, as Marf suggested, do so before the weding day. This only leaves those implicitly excluded from the ceremony.
Which prompts me to ask, when the priest/whatever asks "Does anyone here today object blah blah" is he inviting people from among the wedding guests, or anyone who happens to find there way to the venue?
}
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 20:14:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: Good grief.
This is more of the same communications problem we were having in chat last night, marf.
I really don't understand how you've gotten it into your head that I am arguing that clergy should be doing anything, but it seems that you have.
I'm not arguing that the current system is a good way to do things, either.
Me describing the way things are doesn't mean that I think that's the way they ought to be. |
Okay, I accept that we're having miscommunication, but that doesn't mean I understand exactly what the miscommunication is. You did explicitely disagree with Mooner's stance, and I agree with Mooner, so presumably there is a disagreement we have, however subtle. I'm sorry if I fail to understand what you mean as objective description and what is an expression of your personal opinion on the matter, but it isn't as if I'm not trying!
What I'm saying is that in an ideal system, the clergy wouldn't be involved in the legal process of marriage at all; it really would be a matter between the couple and the state. However, since our current system does involve clergy in the legal marriage process, for the sake of religious pluralism, the state can't put restrictions on any clergy that they don't put on other clergy. And whether someone is clergy or not is decided by private religious organizations. I don't see how PA can invalidate the authority of ULC ministers without it being religious discrimination. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/27/2007 20:14:55 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 20:39:45 [Permalink]
|
| However, since our current system does involve clergy in the legal marriage process, for the sake of religious pluralism, the state can't put restrictions on any clergy that they don't put on other clergy. And whether someone is clergy or not is decided by private religious organizations. I don't see how PA can invalidate the authority of ULC ministers without it being religious discrimination. |
If the state only grants the power to marry to religions or religious organizations which meet certain standards, then no, refusing the power to organizations which fail to meet those standards would not be religious discrimination.
If an organization will accept anyone of any qualifications with no training involved as a member, then I would say that organization has no standards. That's not the same as saying everyone who joins that organization has no standards. As individuals, they may have very high personal standards. But if I'm a state government considered investing members of such an organization with the power to marry, I must judge their competency by the lowest common denominator, and it is in the state's interest to not invest the power to marry in any joker who can fill out a form and spare $5.
Notice how nothing here deals with religion or the clergy. It is simply about evaluating an organization's screening and training processes and deciding whether or not they meet the state minimum requirement.
Now, you might argue that there should be no minimum requirement at all, as Half has done. But that's a separate question, and one totally divorced of the topic of religion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/27/2007 20:40:36 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Discrimination Against Alternative Ministers in PA
