Oh Wise and Worldy Ledgies

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

So then, by all means, so are some of you.

Oh really? How so? By clarifying exactly that we mean that people shouldn't be denied the right to a church wedding?

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

So you want to do away with all the ordained officiants, and just have "non religous" ones that can still marry people anywhere they want to?

yes. people can have a separate, private, private, religious (if they want) non-legally binding ceremony. they can even do it concurrently with the legal "ceremony" (although it wouldn't be so much a ceremony as just the signing/notarizing of paperwork). but the legal ceremony should not be overseen by a religious figure.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by Sarah

Oh really? How so? By clarifying exactly that we mean that people shouldn't be denied the right to a church wedding?

Well the topic i'm discussing is the officiant. Carrie seems to be under the impression that they are all "religious figures." This is not true, by a longshot. WHERE the officiant marries a couple has no bearing on the documents being official. Having everyone march down to the courthouse is ridiculous. It'll never go over; and that mindset is not fair, its hardly feasible, and probably less than favourable with most Americans.

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

HA! I love the northerners. I'm told I have Welsh heritage. I loved telling my buds that one. That always got the heartiest laugh. Then they'd say "dont go around broadcastin that one, mate!"

Hmm. Indeed. I do imagine God sounds like Peter O'Toole.

Northerners are okay, so long as they stay up north

And yeah.. like if you go to Wales, don't pretend you're English

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by carrie721

people can have a separate, private, private, religious (if they want) non-legally binding ceremony.

The point I made in the post above is in reference to this.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

Northerners are okay, so long as they stay up north

And yeah.. like if you go to Wales, don't pretend you're English

HAHA! Oh man I miss the Brits. God willing I'll be making a trip back to the UK next year. I never did get to see Swansea...

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

It'll never go over; and that mindset is not fair, its hardly feasible, and probably less than favourable with most Americans.

Only allowing heterosexual people to marry is not exactly fair, either, but most voting Americans seem to think it's good enough to go over.

I still say if you're too damn lazy to sign the documents at the courthouse, you don't have what it takes to be in a working relationship.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Well the topic i'm discussing is the officiant. Carrie seems to be under the impression that they are all "religious figures." This is not true, by a longshot. WHERE the officiant marries a couple has no bearing on the documents being official. Having everyone march down to the courthouse is ridiculous. It'll never go over; and that mindset is not fair, its hardly feasible, and probably less than favourable with most Americans.

you are completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding my stance.

i am not under the impression that they are all religious figures.

and no ****, WHERE the couple gets married has no bearing on its legality.

and why is it ridiculous? there are legal hoops you have to jump through to get married in a church anyway - blood tests and, yes, trips to the courthouse. maybe you should look into that since you're getting married soon.

am i being clear enough now?

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by Sarah

Only allowing heterosexual people to marry is not exactly fair, either, but most voting Americans seem to think it's good enough to go over.

I still say if you're too damn lazy to sign the documents at the courthouse, you don't have what it takes to be in a working relationship.

That comment about the courthouse "lines" was tongue in cheek. Laugh a little. Its a lovely day.

[DrummerDeanna]

You know...I was thinking...even though it's NOT the point Carrie was trying to make AT ALL.

WHERE people can get married is even a bitch for the gays. Two of my lesbian friends recently got hitched and they had a bitch of a time simply finding a nice place to do so.

Fair? Don't even try to bring "fair" into this argument....there is no fairness. Everything is clouded by religious values that people are trying to impose upon everyone else.

If someone can give me one. Just one valid, rational, NON RELIGIOUS reason as to why gay people should not be given the right to marry then my ears are open.

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

HAHA! Oh man I miss the Brits. God willing I'll be making a trip back to the UK next year. I never did get to see Swansea...

Swansea? omg... stick to Cardiff

Cymru am byth

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by carrie721

you are completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding my stance.

i am not under the impression that they are all religious figures.

and no ****, WHERE the couple gets married has no bearing on its legality.

and why is it ridiculous? there are legal hoops you have to jump through to get married in a church anyway - blood tests and, yes, trips to the courthouse. maybe you should look into that since you're getting married soon.

am i being clear enough now?

No I GET what you are saying. an officiant, religious or no, comes into conflict by marrying someone in a church because of the seperation of church and state. Where you are missing the point is that it isnt a conflict according to current (or "modern") definitions. The state would neither be funding, or endorsing marriage by allowing its officiant to perform the ceremony (the officiant is getting paid after all)...and the church is neither endorsing the state institution by something as nutty as, say, having a religious wedding in a courthouse.

I'm getting married at a big house downtown by Lake Lucerne...By a longtime friend who happens to be an officiant, and a Christian, but he's not a minster. Go figure.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

If someone can give me one. Just one valid, rational, NON RELIGIOUS reason as to why gay people should not be given the right to marry then my ears are open.

Cuz them monkies brought the aids on and the jerry fallwell types'll just have a conniption fit. (in my best backwoods country preacher voice)

I dont think giving you a valid reason to deny gay people marriage is the point of the conversation. It wasnt my reason for this discussion. I cant, after all, give you one.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

Swansea? omg... stick to Cardiff

Cymru am byth

HA! Thought you'd get a chuckle out of that. I'd like to go to Cork over in the land of peat...and maybe visit Liverpool too, just for fun. I hear the girls...are...nice?

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

No I GET what you are saying. an officiant, religious or no, comes into conflict by marrying someone in a church because of the seperation of church and state. Where you are missing the point is that it isnt a conflict according to current (or "modern") definitions. The state would neither be funding, or endorsing marriage by allowing its officiant to perform the ceremony (the officiant is getting paid after all)...and the church is neither endorsing the state institution by something as nutty as, say, having a religious wedding in a courthouse.

i'm not concerned with your interpretation of the definition of church and state separation. if you don't see that having a religious figure officiate a legal ceremony is a conflict of that separation, then i don't know what to say to you.

I'm getting married at a big house downtown by Lake Lucerne...By a longtime friend who happens to be an officiant, and a Christian, but he's not a minster. Go figure.

i don't give a ****.