Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.

Agreed.

But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there.

That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Agreed.



That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)

Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point
But otherwise, thanks for the discussion

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.

No. of course it didn't. What it did do was was determine that laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races violate the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree that an argument can be made that this case is different because it can be seen as redefining marriage. But I can also see how the current case is the direct descendant of Loving.

The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with apportioning 1 man/woman 1 vote. It overturned the Dred Scott decision. Again it does not address the claim for gay marriage unless one wants to cite the equal protection clause which I believe is more of an equal protection of a persons voting rights. Using due process is a huge stretch in my opinion.

I don't know of any court anywhere that would agree that the equal protection clause has to do only, or mainly, with voting rights. Aside from Loving, see Brown vs. Board of Education. Even Plessy v Furgeson (1896) held that the equal protection clause was designed to guarantee equality in civil rights. The idea that it has to only, or mainly, with voting rights is a dog that just won't hunt.

So yes, I believe that states rights were infringed by the Federal judge in this decision as the state simply defined their definition of marriage.

And I can see that point of view.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

^^ While that would be ideal, it will never happen because of all the legal aspects of marriage.

There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.

We have that as well. There is nothing saying you need to have a religious ceremony.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

We have that as well. There is nothing saying you need to have a religious ceremony.

*But*, in the USA a religious official can do it all. In certain other countries (France and I think Brazil), there *must* be a civil official performing the wedding. What else you have done is irrelevant to the Civil Government.

I'd love to see that in the USA.

Randy

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by naraht

*But*, in the USA a religious official can do it all. In certain other countries (France and I think Brazil), there *must* be a civil official performing the wedding. What else you have done is irrelevant to the Civil Government.

I'd love to see that in the USA.

Randy

I was under the impression that the religious aspect was purely ceremonial, and that a marriage wasn't official until it was performed in front of a JOP. Was I mistaken?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I was under the impression that the religious aspect was purely ceremonial, and that a marriage wasn't official until it was performed in front of a JOP. Was I mistaken?

Here? No, in the US any clergy member can be the officiant of a legal marriage. Hence the people who go online and get registered as a clergy member to perform their friends' marriages

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Here? No, in the US any clergy member can be the officiant of a legal marriage. Hence the people who go online and get registered as a clergy member to perform their friends' marriages

Interesting. I guess I've been lied to for all these years lol

ETA: If that's the case, I don't even see how the government wouldn't recognize same-sex marriages if they're done "officially" by a clergy member. I know of at least one church in my area that performs same-sex ceremonies.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by naraht

*But*, in the USA a religious official can do it all. In certain other countries (France and I think Brazil), there *must* be a civil official performing the wedding. What else you have done is irrelevant to the Civil Government.

Right. That's what I was talking about -- a system where the religious ceremony cannot create a legal civil union. I think you can add Spain, Germany, Argentina and Japan to your list.

And I know lots of clergy who'd like to see such a system here.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

ETA: If that's the case, I don't even see how the government wouldn't recognize same-sex marriages if they're done "officially" by a clergy member. I know of at least one church in my area that performs same-sex ceremonies.

Because the member of the clergy acts as both an agent of the church and an agent of the state (which is why many members of the clergy would love to see the system changed.) As agents of the state, they can only do what state law allows. If they're in Utah and officiate at a same-sex ceremony, their church may recognize the marriage but the minister/priest, as an agent of the state, cannot bind the state contrary to state law. In other words, state law doesn't give the minister/priest any authority to preside at a same-sex marriage on behalf of the state.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Because the member of the clergy acts as both an agent of the church and an agent of the state (which is why many members of the clergy would love to see the system changed.) As agents of the state, they can only do what state law allows. If they're in Utah and officiate at a same-sex ceremony, their church may recognize the marriage but the minister/priest, as an agent of the state, cannot bind the state contrary to state law. In other words, state law doesn't give the minister/priest any authority to preside at a same-sex marriage on behalf of the state.

Gracias.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Interesting. I guess I've been lied to for all these years lol

ETA: If that's the case, I don't even see how the government wouldn't recognize same-sex marriages if they're done "officially" by a clergy member. I know of at least one church in my area that performs same-sex ceremonies.

Wait, wait. You still have to get a marriage license from the government. That's what the JOP/clerk or clergy member signs and submits to enter you into the system as legally married.

This can be done with or without a ceremony.

ETA: Thanks MysticCat!

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Wait, wait. You still have to get a marriage license from the government. That's what the JOP/clerk or clergy member signs and submits to enter you into the system as legally married.

This can be done with or without a ceremony.

ETA: Thanks MysticCat!

That's probably what I was thinking about. I wasn't aware that religious officials were acting as agents of the state.

So, in essence, if you're married by a church, you'd just be informing the government that you're married, correct? I was thinking it was something along the lines of "this isn't real UNTIL you've been married by the JOP."

[agzg]

IIRC from my brother's wedding, they had obtained their marriage license, but it wasn't official until they signed it, the officiant (our pastor) signed it, and then they sent it or took it back in.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

That's probably what I was thinking about. I wasn't aware that religious officials were acting as agents of the state.

So, in essence, if you're married by a church, you'd just be informing the government that you're married, correct? I was thinking it was something along the lines of "this isn't real UNTIL you've been married by the JOP."

Gotcha. It's not necessarily the JOP. It's whatever agency/individual is responsible for vital records in your area. I was married by the "Town Clerk" in 2006. I got a marriage license and took it - and two witnesses - to the courthouse. The Town Clerk did his thing and then signed the license. A marriage certificate was mailed out some time later.

Then a few years after that, I had my church wedding. We had the marriage certificate edited by the Town Clerk to include the name of the Archbishop and diocese. Now, that part, I didn't understand. How do you retroactively do that?

[naraht]

OK. Let's see if I can boil it down.

In the USA,
Step 1 a marriage license is obtained from the Civil Authorities. Note, in some states this doesn't have to be done in person. If they fit the criteria in the law, it is issued, and the couple can proceed to step 2.
Step 2 *either*
A. A designated representative of the juristiction (Justice of the Peace, Town Clerk, Judge, Supreme Court Justice (yes they are allowed) etc) performs the marriage, signs the marriage certificate and files it. Congratulations.
*OR*
B. A Religious officiant who has been vested with the right to perform a marriage (that's where the phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of Iowa...") performs the marriage, signs the marriage certificate and arranges for it to be sent back to the juristiction that files it. Congratulations.

In France, 2B is not a choice. Whatever a Catholic Priest, Jewish Rabbi or whoeever else religious does in regards to a marriage is *completely* irrelevant in regards to French Law.

BTW, the rules in various states for getting the power vested in a person to perform marriages vary greatly. Some states you just have to ask and pay a small ($25ish) fee. Some states you have to at least come up with a Church name, that's where those advertisements for getting the right to marry. For *certain* states, you send the mail-order church a fee, they send a document saying you are a minister of that church and you can get the right to marry. Consult your local laws...