Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[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."