Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
![]()
Wait... so, who can officiate at weddings in the USA? And what are the legal requirements?
Since marriage brings with it a host of legal advantages and stuff, it is definitely the state's ball.
A permanent license, or for the specific marriage? Because if it's the latter, than yeah, that seems like enough government control and the rest's just ceremony...
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficTechnically all you need to be officially married is a license from the state. The wedding ceremony is just a formality.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Right. For what it's worth, there's virtually no support to the idea that churches should be forced to perform services they do not wish to.
There's been a few cases where churches have run public venues and have had to rent said venues for services they do not wish to, but that's a different story entirely. (The problem is the public nature of said venues)
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveQuick question. Since a church can refuse to marry someone on grounds of sexual preference can the drive though Elvis do the same? If so then it looks like from the states point of view there is no difference between the two. Which seems like the way to go.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSure, there's nothing stopping him from refusing services to people he doesn't like. Well, it's possible — likely even — that if he's not affiliated with a specific religious denomination, he's not protected by church-and-state separation rules and therefore is not allowed to discriminate.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The big thing about the Drive-thru Elvis is that it probably positions itself as a public business, that it, it openly deals with the public. This means that a list of anti-discrimination laws would apply. Churches generally are not public businesses and as such are not subject to the same rules.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveWell, as far as I know a public business can still refuse to serve particular persons for whatever reasons. I saw a study about this somewhere, that also pertained to gay people. Basically, a business (in this case an Elvis impersonator) can refuse to perform a service for something. The couple in question then has the option to sue for discrimination. Or just go find another Elvis impersonator to marry them, which is probably more convenient in Las Vegas. The people who can't refuse you is the government employee and whichever relevant office handles the paperwork. Legalize marriage there and they can't refuse you the service because it's a government service.
Here's the thing with that. For every one congregation that is against marriage for gays, there is another one who is. And if the homosexual couple is religious enough, $20 bucks says they already go to a congregation that is going to accept and embrace them regardless of the government's wishes.
Religious groups can make whatever rules they want to. Some do require counseling before the preacher would even think of a service. If the couple doesn't like it, they go to another preacher.
It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal. You can get married by two clowns on stills on the Brooklyn Bridge and if you suddenly fall off the edge, the state will treat the case as two individuals instead of a married couple just because they didn't have their licence yet. (Insurance, burial, etc.)
If I get to marry my girlfriend, since we're not religious, we'll have a civil servant or a Navy Chaplin marry us. (Military will give a secular service even if the particular official is a certain denomination.)
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
Brilliant insight. If only someone had thought of it first.
edited 4th Jan '12 9:39:05 PM by johnnyfog
I'm a skeptical squirrelI realize it's already been said. I merely don't see any real value in forcing churches to conform.
You gain more, from an anti-religion standpoint, by rendering them politically irrelevant anyhow. Like a troll; don't feed them, and strip their power to say things and be taken seriously, and fanatics go away.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."Church weddings are already symbolic, given that just about anyone can receive a license to officiate at a marriage and doesn't have to be any kind of priest to do so. It doesn't seem to have successfully taken any of the social influence of churches away. That is more a social, bottom up issue.
edited 4th Jan '12 10:10:46 PM by AceofSpades

The state will grant the ability to officiate a wedding to anyone. To the state, the priest officiating it is no different than the drive-thru Elvis in Las Vegas.
How does it violate the separation of church and state if the government sees no difference between the officiants? Who is overseeing the wedding is not important to state business - it's important to those who are being married. The only entity the officiant can influence is the married couple.
edited 4th Jan '12 10:15:26 AM by Completion