SCOTAL Itch

[Dingfod]

It's okay. I'm so not against gay marriage because I might want to get gay married someday, or try polygamy, polyamory, or marry my cousin or brother.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would love for the government to only offer civil unions to everyone, and leave marriage to the churches...

This!

[ChuckF]

As long as I can make arrangements at private contract to force clergy to perform same-sex/polygamous/bestial weddings at gunpoint, I am ok with that.

[Angakuk]

Arguments made at gunpoint are very often quite persuasive.

[erimir]

On the one hand, I understand the appeal of "government civil unions, church marriages" as a way to please both sides but...

At the same time, I think having it be called marriage is a better choice. Changing it supports the erroneous notion that "marriage" is a specifically religious term or something. It is not. It's not like baptism or bar/bat mitzvah or what have you. Just because the church considers it a religious ceremony or a sacrament doesn't mean that's all it is. Most cultures have something like marriage, and we call it that regardless of whether they're Christian and regardless of whether there's a significant religious component to it. The fact that many or most religions have something to say about marriage is not that important either - they have things to say about family and friendship as well, that doesn't make those specifically religious either.

And we'd all know the reason for the terminology switch. And people would use the terminology of marriage anyway, regardless of what the government paperwork says. My parents are atheists, and they've been married for 40 years, and nobody would have any intention of telling them they're only civil unioned just because they're atheists. They'd still be "husband and wife", "spouses", "married". So the only purpose is just to give the churches a consolation prize. So when a gay couple says they're married, they can say "Technically you're only civil unioned, my church doesn't recognize your marriage/you didn't have a religious ceremony/whatever." And you know that kind of talk would be pretty much limited to gay couples. It's indulging some petty-ass motivations.

So I'm not inclined to let them get their way on this. Churches can just get used to the fact that just because they declare something sacred doesn't mean that anyone outside their religion has to do anything in response. Nobody's trying to force them to recognize gay marriage as religiously sanctioned, or perform them in their churches, and that's all they properly are owed on this subject, IMO.

If legal marriages they had always been called "civil unions" or some other, distinct term, then it would be different and perhaps better. But that's not the case (and probably it was inevitable that it wouldn't be, given the marriage between church and state in the past, pun intended).

[Dingfod]

Henceforth, marriages sealed in religious wedding ceremonies shall be called mawwiage.

[Ari]

Agreed.
Everything should be called Marriage, but if you are religious you can get a child molester to officiate your Marriage (or if you're not religious but want a molester to over see the proceedings, you can contact Dawkins).

[Dingfod]

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Ari

(or if you're not religious but want a molester to over see the proceedings, you can contact Dawkins).

[Stephen Maturin]

So then, to sum up, our little diversion regarding marriage began with ol' Gorsh 'n' Golly advocating that we get government "out of the mix" with regard to marriage. That morphed in a spectacularly small number of poasts to marriage ought to be a contract with attendant/supporting laws and regulations.

Structurally speaking, G'n'G's latest position is exactly what we have now.

show spoiler

What's left is the propriety of the individual attendant laws and regs (see Dingfod's critique of how marriage is treated in the Internal Revenue Code, for instance), discussion of which ol' Gorsh is free to pursue in his own goddamn thread.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Supreme Court is turning marriage equality into chaotic lawlessness.

Jesus, what a train wreck that was. In a decision that by now came as no surprise to anyone, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday in consolidated cases that same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional. Idaho -- but not Nevada -- went running to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the circuit justice for the 9th, requesting a stay of the Ninth Circuit ruling so that Idaho could continue enforcing its same-sex marriage ban pending disposition of the state's cert petition.

Kennedy's first order on Wednesday stayed the Ninth Circuit's rulings as to both states. By midday someone in Kennedy's chambers actually read the pertinent filings, realized that no one was even asking for a stay as to the Nevada ruling, facepalmed, and wrote a second order (1) vacating the earlier order and (2) staying the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Idaho cases only.

In addition to ruling on the stay application, Kennedy apparently referred it to the whole Court as well. This afternoon the full Court denied the stay request and vacated all of Kennedy's prior orders.

Just to be clear, today's order is not the functional equivalent of the Court telling Kennedy, "Okay grandpa, you go sit in the corner and play with your food now." However, it's sure as shit going to look that way, and that makes me lol a little.

[Angakuk]

I have no objection to "civil unions" being called marriages. My position is that all such legal unions ought to be contracted in the context of a purely civil process. Those same civil unions/marriages may or may not be subsequently consecrated by some religious ritual. Those same religious rituals may also be used to consecrate unions that do not have the force of law. Practically speaking, that would mean that I would no longer need to be bothered with filling out and signing marriage licenses, an act by which I am, in a minor way, acting as a government functionary without being financially compensated for my work by that same government. This has nothing to do with my opinions regarding same-sex marriage and everything to do with my objection to being an unpaid agent of the goverment.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Practically speaking, that would mean that I would no longer need to be bothered with filling out and signing marriage licenses, an act by which I am, in a minor way, acting as a government functionary without being financially compensated for my work by that same government. This has nothing to do with my opinions regarding same-sex marriage and everything to do with my objection to being an unpaid agent of the goverment.

What? Who makes you fill out marriage licenses?

[Angakuk]

Nobody makes me do it. I could just decline to perform weddings or I could insist that if the couple wants to be legally married they should first get it done at the court house and then come to me to have the union consecrated. I could do that. I could also start looking for a different line of work. Unfortunately, for me, that would mean that I would no longer be in a position to do the many other things that are a part of my job and that I find both enjoyable and fulfilling. Fortunately, for me, I don't get called upon to do very many weddings as most of my church members are olds and already married.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Nobody makes me do it. I could just decline to perform weddings or I could insist that if the couple wants to be legally married they should first get it done at the court house and then come to me to have the union consecrated. I could do that.

It sounds kinda like you're acting as an agent for the couple who wants to get married. You get paid for that, right?

[Angakuk]

Sometimes I get paid, sometimes I don't. It depends on the situation. In either case, though I may be acting as an agent of the couple I am also, in my non-lawyerly opinion, acting as an agent of the state. I would just as soon limit my role, with regard to weddings, to the strictly religious/spiritual aspects of the rite and dispense with the legal aspects.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In either case, though I may be acting as an agent of the couple I am also, in my non-lawyerly opinion, acting as an agent of the state.

So like the state calls you up and says "Hey, Angakuk, fill out these marriage licenses for me?"

I would just as soon limit my role, with regard to weddings, to the strictly religious/spiritual aspects of the rite and dispense with the legal aspects.

Why can't you do that again?

[Angakuk]

No, the state provides a copy of the marriage license along with instructions on how to fill it out and and a deadline for returning it.

The couple, obviously, has an interest in insuring that the marriage is properly recorded. Since the state (i.e. the county) provides me with the requisite form and instructions on how to properly fill it out it would appear to me that the state also has an interest in insuring that the marriage is properly recorded. That being the case, when I fill out and return the form I am acting on behalf of the interests of both parties. If I am acting on behalf of the interests of both parties am I not acting as an agent of both parties? It sure feels like I am.

[erimir]

It sounds like the real problem is whatever social pressures make you feel like you can't tell your parishioners that you don't want to do their paperwork, or that they'll have to pay you to do it.

There might be a good argument for separating religious marriage ceremonies from the legal paperwork though. At the very least it would help make clear the distinction between religious and civil marriage, something that many people seem to be confused about.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, the state provides a copy of the marriage license along with instructions on how to fill it out and and a deadline for returning it.

Filling out a form according to instructions makes you an agent of the state? When you fill out a loan application, are you an agent of the bank?

The couple, obviously, has an interest in insuring that the marriage is properly recorded. Since the state (i.e. the county) provides me with the requisite form and instructions on how to properly fill it out it would appear to me that the state also has an interest in insuring that the marriage is properly recorded. That being the case, when I fill out and return the form I am acting on behalf of the interests of both parties. If I am acting on behalf of the interests of both parties am I not acting as an agent of both parties? It sure feels like I am.

I changed my voter registration a couple of months ago. The state (i.e. the county) provided me with the requisite form and instructions on how to properly fill it out. It would appear to me that the state also has an interest in ensuring that the voter rolls are properly updated. I am acting in the interest of both parties - am I an agent of the state?

Or is it more like the state gives you statutory authority to solemnize marriages and you choose to use that authority in your profession by filling out marriage licenses for people, because it's convenient for them?

I guess if you get annoyed over not getting paid by the state for exercising your statutory authority in furtherance of your profession, the most obvious solution would be to stop exercising it. I don't think the state would care very much at all. I'm not able to officiate marriages, and hardly anybody has hassled me about it ever.

This is just a weird way of thinking about it that I have never encountered before. The state entrusts all kinds of ministerial functions to private individuals, who are well positioned to incorporate those functions into their profession. Things like being a notary public, or signing death certificates, or solemnizing marriages. It serves a public interest and is efficient for everybody involved. I am allowed by statute to practice law in my state. It really never occurred to me to think that using that statutory privilege granted to me in order to earn a living would (i) make me an agent of the state or (ii) entitle me to a state paycheck.

[Angakuk]

I don't think that either the loan application or the voting registration are strictly analogous, since you are acting on your own behalf and there is no third party involved.

The notary public is probably a better analogy and I will have to give it some thought.

An anectdote that might be of some interest. When I was a pastor in Alaska it happened that on a couple of occasions I received a form from the state that asked for verification of a death and final disposition. After filling out the form and returning it to the state I received a check from the state for having done so. Likewise, since in the bush home births had not always been properly recorded I received several forms from the state requesting verification of baptisms for the purpose of establishing the ages of individuals applying for the native resident benefits from the oil pipleline fund. I was also compensated for filling out and returning those forms. In both of those cases I was acting as a sort of ad hoc registrar of vital statistics on behalf of the state.

I had a similar request some years ago from the Office of Social Security to provide the same sort of information for someone who was applying for Social Security benefits and whose birth certificate had been lost when the records in the court house had been destroyed by a fire. In that case I did not receive any compensation.

Seriously though, it is not the money that is the real issue for me with regard to the marriage license. My comment about being an unpaid agent of the state was mostly tongue-in-cheek. My priniciple objection to the entanglement of the civil and religious aspects of marriage is, as I stated previously, that I would just as soon limit my role, with regard to weddings, to the strictly religious/spiritual aspects of the rite and dispense with the legal aspects.

[erimir]

I don't think Angakuk was being very serious. That would be uncharacteristic anyhow.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

My comment about being an unpaid agent of the state was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

I know. I am just fucking with you. I drank coffee at like 6:30 and now I'm up late and punchy.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by erimir

There might be a good argument for separating religious marriage ceremonies from the legal paperwork though. At the very least it would help make clear the distinction between religious and civil marriage, something that many people seem to be confused about.

You stated it much better and much more succinctly than I did.

[beyelzu]

Chuck isn't this a little different?

I mean if you practiced shariah law it would be the same.

But notaries are for official documents and often there is a charge. You don't get stuff notarized for fun or because of your religion.

Here, there is a religious ceremony which could be separate from the civil paperwork but is combined.

[beyelzu]

Sneaky inbetween posters, the fucking lot of you.