Stacia Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'd guess she's getting paid as usual. I figured that is probably the case since she is salaried. But, I'm wondering if she's having to at least eat up some of her accrued vacation days (or personal days or...???) while she's not in the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 At least where I live officiating marriage ceremonies or issuing licenses is not a stated duty of the position for judges. They have the authority to officiate but are not required to. And I don't think they are actually allowed to issue the license here. I would have to go look it up to be sure, but my understanding is that you still have to go through the clerk's office to get the license even if a judge is officiating here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 At least where I live officiating marriage ceremonies or issuing licenses is not a stated duty of the position for judges. They have the authority to officiate but are not required to. And I don't think they are actually allowed to issue the license here. I would have to go look it up to be sure, but my understanding is that you still have to go through the clerk's office to get the license even if a judge is officiating here. Correct. In most states it is an authority judges have but not something that is a standard part of their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I found the "release and rally" to be icky. So much enthusiasm for hate. It was awkward to see a woman championing a "cause" that is unkind and to see political hopefuls use her stand. It was an embarrassment, really. I see nothing edifying in terms of religion, spirituality, human rights, service, gratitude, work ethic. The Jesus I knew would rather see people fed, shelter provided, hugs given, medical help given. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Haven't researched this yet but someone posted an article this morning from back in 2012 where Judge Tony Parker refused to perform marriages for years yet no actions were brought against her. Does anyone know what makes the two cases different other than one being a Christian against SSM and the other a gay judge wanting equal rights to all? I foresee hearing lots about this in the coming days and thought some of you might be knowledgeable or at the very least have an opinion. Here is a direct quote from the article found here... http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me-10102160.html “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,†Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.†I read a couple articles about Judge Parker the other day, which contained a longer quote from her remarks. I'm not going to take the time to dig them up, but my impression was that she didn't do marriages in general (meaning, it wasn't an expected part of her job), even though theoretically she could because she's a judge. That is, it wasn't an expected part of her job, though she had the power to do a marriage if a couple specifically asked her to. She seemed to be describing a situation ,where sometimes people wandered into her office looking for the judge who routinely did marriages, in which case she would refer them to that judge. She was speaking to the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas - an LGBT group, and I assume her words were 1) taken out of context, and 2) would have been spoken differently if she had been speaking to a more general audience. It seemed very much "gotcha journalism", where half-truths are sensationalized to further the agenda of the reporter. I would add that in order for it to be an issue like the KY case, there would have to be couples who were harmed by her actions to bring suit, which does not seem to be the case. Mrs. Davis is having difficulties because 1) she refused to issue marriage licenses or allow her staff to do so, 2) several couples (same sex and opposite sex) applied for licenses and were refused, 3) those couples sued Mrs. Davis, 4) Mrs. Davis would not go along with a court order (issued as part of the legal proceedings regarding the suit) to issue licenses. Had Judge Parker been expected to preside over marriages as part of her job (rather than just having the power in a "sea captain" rhetorical "sea captain" kind of way), and had she refused to do so and refused to allow qualified co-workers to do so, then she would have been risking the same scenario that Mrs. Davis is now facing, and rightfully so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Haven't researched this yet but someone posted an article this morning from back in 2012 where Judge Tony Parker refused to perform marriages for years yet no actions were brought against her. Does anyone know what makes the two cases different other than one being a Christian against SSM and the other a gay judge wanting equal rights to all? I foresee hearing lots about this in the coming days and thought some of you might be knowledgeable or at the very least have an opinion. Here is a direct quote from the article found here... http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me-10102160.html “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,†Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.†This just became an issue in my state with a judge who is the former head of the state Republican Party opting out of performing marriages. He's actually being investigated for several other reasons right now to see if he is still fit to serve. My understanding from the little I've read is that performing marriages is not a requirement for his job, just something optional judges can do. So far no one has actually asked him to perform a marriage ceremony, so no couple has been turned away. Again, I haven't followed this closely, but it appears it may be a bit of a publicity stunt to move the focus away from his other problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Haven't researched this yet but someone posted an article this morning from back in 2012 where Judge Tony Parker refused to perform marriages for years yet no actions were brought against her. Does anyone know what makes the two cases different other than one being a Christian against SSM and the other a gay judge wanting equal rights to all? I foresee hearing lots about this in the coming days and thought some of you might be knowledgeable or at the very least have an opinion. Here is a direct quote from the article found here... http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me-10102160.html “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,†Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.†I looked this up the other night. It's apples and oranges. Judges do not ALL perform marriage ceremonies. Judges can choose to oversee certain things and not others, especially if there are other judges present to oversee them. Judges do not issue the licenses, but are presented with them. This judge simply chose not to take on marriages, instead sending people down the hall to another judge that does. In the meantime, she's focusing on more important cases and which takes a different load off of those other judges. Her training may have to do with gay marriage, but she is not leaving people in the county in a lurch and she is not REQUIRED to marry people. However, if she does, then she must follow the law and not discriminate The issue with Kim Davis is that she is the ONLY county clerk, her office is THE place that issues licenses, and she was preventing the deputy clerks from following through where she would not herself. She is not required to marry people either, and is not qualified to, but she is refusing to give marriage licenses when that is HER job and she's the one person in the county whose job it specifically is. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The difference between Tonya Parker not performing marriage ceremonies and Kim Davis not issuing marriage licenses is that performing marriages was never part of Parker's job. ETA: or, what mommaduck said with much more detail. I think we were posting at the same time. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Sorry, hadn't realised it'd been answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Sorry, hadn't realised it'd been answered. If you're referring to my comment, I don't think it had been answered, at least not with the details you posted. I was just saying I was trying to say the same thing you did, only you gave more detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahlanne Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Thanks for the answers. I didn't comment on fb because I didn't know if it was actually her job to do so or something that she could opt to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I read a couple articles about Judge Parker the other day, which contained a longer quote from her remarks. I'm not going to take the time to dig them up, but my impression was that she didn't do marriages in general (meaning, it wasn't an expected part of her job), even though theoretically she could because she's a judge. That is, it wasn't an expected part of her job, though she had the power to do a marriage if a couple specifically asked her to. She seemed to be describing a situation ,where sometimes people wandered into her office looking for the judge who routinely did marriages, in which case she would refer them to that judge. She was speaking to the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas - an LGBT group, and I assume her words were 1) taken out of context, and 2) would have been spoken differently if she had been speaking to a more general audience. It seemed very much "gotcha journalism", where half-truths are sensationalized to further the agenda of the reporter. I would add that in order for it to be an issue like the KY case, there would have to be couples who were harmed by her actions to bring suit, which does not seem to be the case. Mrs. Davis is having difficulties because 1) she refused to issue marriage licenses or allow her staff to do so, 2) several couples (same sex and opposite sex) applied for licenses and were refused, 3) those couples sued Mrs. Davis, 4) Mrs. Davis would not go along with a court order (issued as part of the legal proceedings regarding the suit) to issue licenses. Had Judge Parker been expected to preside over marriages as part of her job (rather than just having the power in a "sea captain" kind of way), and had she refused to do so and refused to allow qualified co-workers to do so, then she would have been risking the same scenario that Mrs. Davis is now facing, and rightfully so. An aside, but sea captains actually don't have that power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 An aside, but sea captains actually don't have that power. I wondered about that. I shall amend my post accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 An aside, but sea captains actually don't have that power. Well, now my mind is blown?? Are you sure?? Because, Love Boat taught me otherwise. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Had Judge Parker been expected to preside over marriages as part of her job (rather than just having the power in a "sea captain" rhetorical "sea captain" kind of way), and had she refused to do so and refused to allow qualified co-workers to do so, then she would have been risking the same scenario that Mrs. Davis is now facing, and rightfully so. I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Well, now my mind is blown?? Are you sure?? Because, Love Boat taught me otherwise. And Gilligan's Island! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renthead Mommy Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I found the "release and rally" to be icky. So much enthusiasm for hate. It was awkward to see a woman championing a "cause" that is unkind and to see political hopefuls use her stand. It was an embarrassment, really. I see nothing edifying in terms of religion, spirituality, human rights, service, gratitude, work ethic. The Jesus I knew would rather see people fed, shelter provided, hugs given, medical help given. And the "USA! USA" chanting toward the end of the video I saw going on was very bothersome as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Surprise! Survivor is suing. http://nbc.com.co/survivor-files-1-2-million-lawsuit-against-kim-davis-mike-huckabee/ 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Surprise! Survivor is suing. http://nbc.com.co/survivor-files-1-2-million-lawsuit-against-kim-davis-mike-huckabee/ "Did my time, took my chances" indeed. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Surprise! Survivor is suing. http://nbc.com.co/survivor-files-1-2-million-lawsuit-against-kim-davis-mike-huckabee/ Stayed tuned! Next week Kim Davis learns about copyright law. 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Who else has had flippin' "eye of the tiger" stuck in their head now, like, all afternoon? ARGH. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFaerie Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Who else has had flippin' "eye of the tiger" stuck in their head now, like, all afternoon? ARGH. It has become necessary.... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Who else has had flippin' "eye of the tiger" stuck in their head now, like, all afternoon? ARGH. I drove an 1 hr and 15 min to ds's college campus this afternoon to make a payment on his tuition and the whole darn way that song kept running through my head. I mean, I suppose it's better than say "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" or "She Put the Lime in the Coconut". But really, after 75 minutes, pretty soon you are desperately whaling "Puff the Magic Dragon" at the top of your lungs and wishing NPR would stop talking and play Mozart or something for goodness sake so that maybe your brain can find a distraction. It's not funny! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myfunnybunch Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 it's better than say "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" or "She Put the Lime in the Coconut". AAAUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks a lot. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 "She Put the Lime in the Coconut". (╯°□°)╯︵ â”»â”â”» Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 How is Kim Davis to blame for that one? Did she organize the rally from jail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 How is Kim Davis to blame for that one? Did she organize the rally from jail? Maybe it was her husband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I've read that Huckabee's people organized it, although they are now saying they have no idea who picked the music, lol. I thought it was hilarious that when Ted Cruz tried to get in on the action and speak at the rally he was physically blocked from getting to the mic by Huckabee's aides. It's like "Go find your own nutcase, this one's all ours!" 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Haven't researched this yet but someone posted an article this morning from back in 2012 where Judge Tony Parker refused to perform marriages for years yet no actions were brought against her. Does anyone know what makes the two cases different other than one being a Christian against SSM and the other a gay judge wanting equal rights to all? I foresee hearing lots about this in the coming days and thought some of you might be knowledgeable or at the very least have an opinion. Here is a direct quote from the article found here... http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me-10102160.html “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,†Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.†Performing marriages is one of the privileges of being a judge. It isn't one of the job duties. Judges who perform marriages are generally paid a fee for their time *that they keep*, it's not a fee that goes to the government. A judge choosing not to perform any marriage at all is not the same thing as issuing licenses by a clerk. Now judges, unlike clergy, might get in trouble for discriminating in who they will and will not marry, but they generally can't be required to perform weddings. When we set up our courthouse ceremony, we recieved a list of judges who performed weddings from the clerk. It was not a list of every judge who worked at the courthouse, only a list of the iudges who chose to offer that service. I called several judges, and picked the one who seemed friendly and who was available the day we wanted to get married. It was clear that it was a transaction between the judge and us, not between us and Spokane County. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivka Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The thing about Survivor suing is from a fake news site. nbc.com.co is not affiliated with NBC. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The thing about Survivor suing is from a fake news site. nbc.com.co is not affiliated with NBC. Well, darn. :p 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizzie in Ma Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Yes! I'm glad they spoke out! I looked it up because my immediate thought after "noooo! Not Eye of the Tiger!" was "did Survivor give permission for this?!" Now off to see if YouTube has the Eye of the Tiger outtake from Supernatural... lol, it surely does 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Well, a local church yesterday announced a decision that due to the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues in the US, and not wanting to be engaged in the political process over such issues, their clergy will no longer officiate over the legal proceedings. Any couple who wants to have a marriage blessing ceremony - a religious marriage - can do so if they meet the faith based requirements set forth by the eldership, but couples will first need to deal with their marriage license and whatever must be done to satisfy the state, ie. go before the magistrate or justice of the peace and do what must be done to be legally married. After that, they can present themselves for a religious ceremony if they meet the conditions. I think that this is really, really smart. The church has disengaged from the legal process which constitutionally, I do have to question the blurring of the prohibition against the establishment of a state sponsored religion by allowing clergy to perform the legal end of it anyway, and yet retains it's freedom to religiously marry only those that meet the faith requirements of the denomination or local church eldership. Now there is no conflict of interest, no angst. I wish all religious groups would follow suit. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Any couple who wants to have a marriage blessing ceremony - a religious marriage - can do so if they meet the faith based requirements set forth by the eldership, but couples will first need to deal with their marriage license and whatever must be done to satisfy the state, ie. go before the magistrate or justice of the peace and do what must be done to be legally married. After that, they can present themselves for a religious ceremony if they meet the conditions. I think this is already the way it's done in some (most?) European countries. I know in Germany, you have to have a civil ceremony officiated by a state official separate from any desired religious ceremony. I know my German relatives were hardly able to wrap their heads around there being a ceremony at a church that also 'counted' as being married in the eyes of the state. Ironic as there's much less more intertwining of church and state in most European countries. .. ETA to fix sentence to say what I meant... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I think this is already the way it's done in some (most?) European countries. I know in Germany, you have to have a civil ceremony officiated by a state official separate from any desired religious ceremony. I know my German relatives were hardly able to wrap their heads around there being a ceremony at a church that also 'counted' as being married in the eyes of the state. Ironic as there's much less intertwining of church and state in most European countries. .. This is the way of things in France as well. My sister is marrying her fiancé at the courthouse or whatever is the equivalent next month. If they had run down to the Lutheran church and been married there it would not be legal, and clergy can not sign the document. I like it this way. Clear lines and boundaries that do not infringe upon the right of the state or the right of the church. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam in CT Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I think this is already the way it's done in some (most?) European countries. I know in Germany, you have to have a civil ceremony officiated by a state official separate from any desired religious ceremony. I know my German relatives were hardly able to wrap their heads around there being a ceremony at a church that also 'counted' as being married in the eyes of the state. Ironic as there's much less intertwining of church and state in most European countries. .. My brother got married in Singapore and this is true there as well -- civil first, then you are free to go to a church/mosque/temple for a religious ceremony if you want, or not. Andrew Napolitano, former NJ judge of libertarian leanings who now writes on legal matters for Fox News, yesterday wrote a quite good summary of the legal issues around the KY case. His bottom line is: 1. Davis' right to free exercise does not extend to depriving others of rights deemed lawful by the SCOTUS decision; and 2. Judge's decision to jail her for contempt was in his opinion nonetheless wrong -- not because he didn't have the legal authority to do so, but because he had a better/less restrictive tool at hand, which was that (he says) the judge could have stripped her of the authority to issue (any/all) marriage licenses and invest that authority elsewhere. If that's true, perhaps that will be the next round. I've never managed to quote from outside sources, but his conclusion is: "The Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the lawful ability to practice their religion free from government interference. It does not permit those in government to use their offices to deny the rights of those who reject their beliefs. That is the lesson for Kim Davis." 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Well, now my mind is blown?? Are you sure?? Because, Love Boat taught me otherwise. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/fashion/weddings/a-marriage-at-sea-get-me-rewrite.html?referrer=&_r=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Well, a local church yesterday announced a decision that due to the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues in the US, and not wanting to be engaged in the political process over such issues, their clergy will no longer officiate over the legal proceedings. Any couple who wants to have a marriage blessing ceremony - a religious marriage - can do so if they meet the faith based requirements set forth by the eldership, but couples will first need to deal with their marriage license and whatever must be done to satisfy the state, ie. go before the magistrate or justice of the peace and do what must be done to be legally married. After that, they can present themselves for a religious ceremony if they meet the conditions. I think that this is really, really smart. The church has disengaged from the legal process which constitutionally, I do have to question the blurring of the prohibition against the establishment of a state sponsored religion by allowing clergy to perform the legal end of it anyway, and yet retains it's freedom to religiously marry only those that meet the faith requirements of the denomination or local church eldership. Now there is no conflict of interest, no angst. I wish all religious groups would follow suit. Now this is actually stupid. No church has ever been obligated to marry anyone at their discretion. Like the Catholic Church won't officiate marriage for divorced people or the LDS church for non-Mormons. That hasn't changed and behaving as though it has just feeds ignorance and hysteria. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Now this is actually stupid. No church has ever been obligated to marry anyone at their discretion. Like the Catholic Church won't officiate marriage for divorced people or the LDS church for non-Mormons. That hasn't changed and behaving as though it has just feeds ignorance and hysteria. It sounds to me like the church's move was done so the church could not be viewed as standing in the way of or devaluing SSM, or providing an extra benefit to heterosexual couples. In that sense it sounds to me like a pro-SSM move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Now this is actually stupid. No church has ever been obligated to marry anyone at their discretion. Like the Catholic Church won't officiate marriage for divorced people or the LDS church for non-Mormons. That hasn't changed and behaving as though it has just feeds ignorance and hysteria. It is not stupid. It is taking the clergy person out of being an agent of the state. I don't see how that is stupid. People are demanding separation and this church is saying they support this. They aren't claiming they've had problems in the past or expect to have problems in the future, they just do not want to be an agent of the state anymore which is of course their constitutional right to do as well. I wish it was this way across the board, just like France and Germany. I don't see how this feeds hysteria. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staceyobu Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 An aside, but sea captains actually don't have that power. I was sure you must have been wrongly informed. Then I looked it up. Then I might have spent an entire day mildly depressed that Jim and Pam's marriage was a sham. I had a lot invested in those fictional characters! Why did you do this to me! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 It sounds to me like the church's move was done so the church could not be viewed as standing in the way of or devaluing SSM, or providing an extra benefit to heterosexual couples. In that sense it sounds to me like a pro-SSM move. Yes, this church has taken the heat in the past for being pro equality under the law. While the denomination will continue to not religiously marry s.s. couples. this is a way for this church and pastor to not only take themselves out of the equation of being agents of the state but also a show of support for there being a clear line between religious law and secular law. I really don't understand why that is stupid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 It sounds to me like the church's move was done so the church could not be viewed as standing in the way of or devaluing SSM, or providing an extra benefit to heterosexual couples. In that sense it sounds to me like a pro-SSM move. I really don't think so. I think it's more: now that the gays can get married too, let's change everything, so you have to get married before you can have your wedding......... you can't have the magical wedding moment your mother, grandmother, great-grandmother enjoyed. Because gay people ruined marriage. Churches are not at risk of being forced to marry anyone. Pretending like that is the scary next step is fear mongering. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I really don't think so. I think it's more: now that the gays can get married too, let's change everything, so you have to get married before you can have your wedding......... you can't have the magical wedding moment your mother, grandmother, great-grandmother enjoyed. Because gay people ruined marriage. Churches are not at risk of being forced to marry anyone. Pretending like that is the scary next step is fear mongering. Interesting that two people can read so differently into the same action. While some churches will be nasty about this, many will not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I really don't think so. I think it's more: now that the gays can get married too, let's change everything, so you have to get married before you can have your wedding......... you can't have the magical wedding moment your mother, grandmother, great-grandmother enjoyed. Because gay people ruined marriage. Churches are not at risk of being forced to marry anyone. Pretending like that is the scary next step is fear mongering. They aren't pretending anything. Wow. So churches should not be involved in the secular business of being agents of the state which has been railed about time and time again on this board, and then when one decides to remove themselves from the legal process and not act as an agent of the state which is actually a VERY appropriate thing for a clergy person to do and is the norm in other European countries that have rich, religious heritages, this is also condemned. What do you suggest then if a clergy person is looking at this issue and realizes that the best thing for all concerned is for clergy to not be invested with the authority of the state to legalize a secular matter? As for magical wedding moments, I was married in a church and there was not one darn thing about it that was magical. Not one. It was actually a huge pain in the rear. Good grief. No one is owed a magical, wedding moment. Consenting adults ARE owed the right to be married. Magical fairytales have nothing to do with it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I really don't think so. I think it's more: now that the gays can get married too, let's change everything, so you have to get married before you can have your wedding......... you can't have the magical wedding moment your mother, grandmother, great-grandmother enjoyed. Because gay people ruined marriage. Churches are not at risk of being forced to marry anyone. Pretending like that is the scary next step is fear mongering. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense to me. If they are against SSM, they will never perform one in their church, nor should they (religious freedom). The only people inconvenienced by this action are people who WILL be married in their church, i.e., probably heterosexual couples. Now if they quit doing weddings all together, maybe that would indicate a "marriage is ruined now" stance, but I'm not seeing it here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam in CT Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Re: splicing off the legal/civil/rights associated with marriage from the sacramental/religious elements: Well, a local church yesterday announced a decision that due to the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues in the US, and not wanting to be engaged in the political process over such issues, their clergy will no longer officiate over the legal proceedings. Any couple who wants to have a marriage blessing ceremony - a religious marriage - can do so if they meet the faith based requirements set forth by the eldership, but couples will first need to deal with their marriage license and whatever must be done to satisfy the state, ie. go before the magistrate or justice of the peace and do what must be done to be legally married. After that, they can present themselves for a religious ceremony if they meet the conditions. I think that this is really, really smart. The church has disengaged from the legal process which constitutionally, I do have to question the blurring of the prohibition against the establishment of a state sponsored religion by allowing clergy to perform the legal end of it anyway, and yet retains it's freedom to religiously marry only those that meet the faith requirements of the denomination or local church eldership. Now there is no conflict of interest, no angst. I wish all religious groups would follow suit. *Many* other countries do exactly this -- split the civil rights/responsibilities from the religious aspects. This is the way of things in France as well. My sister is marrying her fiancé at the courthouse or whatever is the equivalent next month. If they had run down to the Lutheran church and been married there it would not be legal, and clergy can not sign the document. I like it this way. Clear lines and boundaries that do not infringe upon the right of the state or the right of the church. I really don't think so. I think it's more: now that the gays can get married too, let's change everything, so you have to get married before you can have your wedding......... you can't have the magical wedding moment your mother, grandmother, great-grandmother enjoyed. Because gay people ruined marriage. Churches are not at risk of being forced to marry anyone. Pretending like that is the scary next step is fear mongering. Interesting. I totally agree with your second point, that religious institutions are at no risk since the SCOTUS decision of being forced to marry anyone (and there is plenty of precedent: rabbis have never been forced to marry non-Jews, priests never forced to marry divorced individuals, LDS temples never forced to allow individuals who didn't hold a recommend, etc etc etc). But I can't quite see your first.... If a couple finds meaning and sanctification in the religious ceremony, why would a prior civil registration take the magic out? Wouldn't be a perfunctory dot-the-i's-and-cross-the-t's matter analogous to getting the license today? That is certainly what it was for my brother and sister-in-law in Singapore -- they considered their bells-and-whistles full-family-and-friends religious wedding to be the Magical Moment. The prior civil ceremony a few days prior, in front of a court official with just my parents and her mother, to be a formality. But they still had that Magical Moment.... It was just that the matters of state (rights, responsibility) were separated from the matters of church (sacrament/belief/ritual). I would think that would be a reasonable approach for people who care about rights and also for people who care about matters of faith? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 It is not stupid. It is taking the clergy person out of being an agent of the state. I don't see how that is stupid. People are demanding separation and this church is saying they support this. They aren't claiming they've had problems in the past or expect to have problems in the future, they just do not want to be an agent of the state anymore which is of course their constitutional right to do as well. I wish it was this way across the board, just like France and Germany. I don't see how this feeds hysteria. Let me clarify: the stated reasoning given for this particular church to stop officiating marriages is stupid. An across the board distinction actually does make sense, European style. But there is also nothing actually wrong with the status quo of a church wedding being the official union or not at the option of the marrying couple and officiating church. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I was sure you must have been wrongly informed. Then I looked it up. Then I might have spent an entire day mildly depressed that Jim and Pam's marriage was a sham. I had a lot invested in those fictional characters! Why did you do this to me! Law school warped my brain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Well Ravin, we will have to disagree on this point. I actually do think there is something VERY wrong with the status quo of allowing clergy to act as agents of the state. I don't think it's good for anyone and actually feeds the notion that religious institutions should have a say in the definition of legal marriage. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.