NationStates Jolt Archive

Seemingly you cannot get a licence to perform weddings in Las Vegas if you are an atheist
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-121508-atheist-wedding-dec16,0,4028958.story

Not exactly a shining example of separation of church and state.


*Dammit 'discriminates' not dicriminates*

Seemingly you cannot get a licence to perform weddings in Las Vegas if you are an atheist
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-121508-atheist-wedding-dec16,0,4028958.story

Not exactly a shining example of separation of church and state.


*Dammit 'discriminates' not dicriminates*

Ah, Las Vegas, that gleaming bastion of Christian morals.

Oh no! Look at my new signature!

Oh no! Look at my new signature!

Well that is funny.

Oh no! Look at my new signature!

Twist the knife why don't you :D

Twist the knife why don't you :D

I do hope no one else does it!

I do hope no one else does it!

See, now I have to twist the knife.

Rambhutan, you fool, you mean discriminates. Dicriminates is a painful misspelling of decriminates, which isn't what you meant.

I suppose it is too late now to get a Mod to change it. Oh the shame...

I suppose it is too late now to get a Mod to change it. Oh the shame...

I know, you'll have to live with this for the rest of your life.

I think dicrimination of any kind is just wrong

What an odd dicussion here, how diconcerting...

What an odd dicussion here, how diconcerting...

You don't have to be a disck about it; he might come to depise you.

Okay, can we get back to the matter at hand? Ram just made a typo, it wasn't as if the error was at his dicretion.

I am digusted by how cruel you all are.

I suppose it is too late now to get a Mod to change it. Oh the shame...

No it isn't......

I am digusted by how cruel you all are.
im baffled as to why they decided to jump on this particular typo.

Okay, can we get back to the matter at hand? Ram just made a typo, it wasn't as if the error was at his dicretion.

Yes, we're disgressing a bit, I must conscur.

im baffled as to why they decided to jump on this particular typo.

Maybe bescause he intigated it himelf?

Let's not hisjack the thread.

Anyways. Vegas, of all places, discriminating like that?

Let's not hisjack the thread.

Anyways. Vegas, of all places, discriminating like that?

IMS there are some states which prohibit atheists from serving in public office.

Quite a few, actually. Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Maryland and Pennslyvania.


http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/481749

Wait...is this the same Las Vegas which is known as the City of Sin? This is increbidly odd!

Wait...is this the same Las Vegas which is known as the City of Sin? This is increbidly odd!

They're so sinful it loops back round to devout.

I suppose it is too late now to get a Mod to change it. Oh the shame...

Fixed. :)

Fixed. :)

Let it never be said that we have too many mods.

Fixed. :)

Thank you

im baffled as to why they decided to jump on this particular typo.

For my part, it's actually a mark of some respect, Rambhutan has a humourous nature.

Fixed. :)

Damn.

Help, moderators!
I can't find a thread I previously posted in!
I'm searching using the tell-tale word "dicriminates", but it seems to have dissappeared! Can you please change back the thread title, so I can find it again? :tongue:

Help, moderators!
I can't find a thread I previously posted in!
I'm searching using the tell-tale word "dicriminates", but it seems to have dissappeared! Can you please change back the thread title, so I can find it again? :tongue:

Seeing how you posted in the thread you sought, you obviously had no trouble finding it despite the change.

Now then, the rest of you, stop hijacking the thread and stay on topic please.

Form a "Church Of Atheism". Problem solved.

Or go to the Unitarians. They'll marry anyone.

Form a "Church Of Atheism". Problem solved.
"But I'm not going to do it by saying I belong to a religious organization," he said. "That's a sham because atheists are not religious."
And it's still discrimination.
Or go to the Unitarians. They'll marry anyone.

He's looking to marry other people, not get married himself.

And it's still discrimination.


He's looking to marry other people, not get married himself.

But discrimination isn't bad if it happens to nonreligious people!!!

But discrimination isn't bad if it happens to nonreligious people!!!

The little known 0th amendment.
"None of the below applies to
Atheists
People we call terrorists
Foreigners
Commies
Liberals
Yo momma"

Seemingly you cannot get a licence to perform weddings in Las Vegas if you are an atheist
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-121508-atheist-wedding-dec16,0,4028958.story

Not exactly a shining example of separation of church and state.


*Dammit 'discriminates' not dicriminates*

other than having some sort of position of leadership reconized by some form of Government (Mayor, Govenor, Justice of the Peace, Captain, Judge) who else can get a licence to perform a wedding without it having some sort of Religious connotation?

other than having some sort of position of leadership reconized by some form of Government (Mayor, Govenor, Justice of the Peace, Captain, Judge) who else can get a licence to perform a wedding without it having some sort of Religious connotation?

I would argue that religious leadership being sufficient to get a license to perform a wedding, if said license is otherwise limited to such government officials, would be blatantly unconstitutional on the grounds that it supports granting rights to the religious that it does not grant to the nonreligious.

But again, it's not as if anybody in this country cares about the rights of nonreligious people, except those who actually are nonreligious, and what few allies we have among religious people. The rest are all too glad to see our rights stripped from us, because, I guess, they think that we aren't actually people or something.

I would argue that religious leadership being sufficient to get a license to perform a wedding, if said license is otherwise limited to such government officials, would be blatantly unconstitutional on the grounds that it supports granting rights to the religious that it does not grant to the nonreligious.

But again, it's not as if anybody in this country cares about the rights of nonreligious people, except those who actually are nonreligious, and what few allies we have among religious people. The rest are all too glad to see our rights stripped from us, because, I guess, they think that we aren't actually people or something.

stripped? to be stripped of that right wouldn't they have to have that right first? Not all religous people can perform a legal wedding. so it's not just the Athiest who don't have that 'right'. which outside of Religious symbolism, grants those wedded, Legal status as well as has legal reprecussions, so again, who else beside those mentioned in my earlier post can perform a legal wedding outside of any religious ties?

stripped? to be stripped of that right wouldn't they have to have that right first? Not all religous people can perform a legal wedding. so it's not just the Athiest who don't have that 'right'. which outside of Religious symbolism, grants those wedded, Legal status as well as has legal reprecussions, so again, who else beside those mentioned in my earlier post can perform a legal wedding outside of any religious ties?

Okay, "denied" might be a better word than "stripped" in this case. But the point remains: if atheists cannot perform weddings, but religious leaders can, that's discrimination, even if religious lay people still can't.

other than having some sort of position of leadership reconized by some form of Government (Mayor, Govenor, Justice of the Peace, Captain, Judge) who else can get a licence to perform a wedding without it having some sort of Religious connotation?

Why can people with a religious connotation WITHOUT being a "leader" in the sense you used perform legal marriages in the first place ?

other than having some sort of position of leadership reconized by some form of Government (Mayor, Govenor, Justice of the Peace, Captain, Judge) who else can get a licence to perform a wedding without it having some sort of Religious connotation?

In the UK civil weddings performed by justices of the peace in an entirely non religious way are very common. I am fairly certain it is a myth popularised by films that the captain of a ship can marry people.

Why should marriage have to be a LEGAL institution, anyway? Wouldn't it just be easier if the government left it alone and didn't even bother keeping tabs on it? That way anyone can get married to whomever (or whatever) they please as long as their religious community supports it.

Why should marriage have to be a LEGAL institution, anyway? Wouldn't it just be easier if the government left it alone and didn't even bother keeping tabs on it. That way anyone can get married to whomever (or whatever) they please as long as their religious community supports it.

Well, there's a huge number of legal rights that go along with marriage that would be very expensive and difficult to deal with using ordinary contract law. Marriage is, legally, a premade "package deal' contract, so to speak, for a legal arrangement that people often desire.

Why should marriage have to be a LEGAL institution, anyway?

Why not ? How else can it grant the hundreds of legal benefits in a convenient package ?

Besides - do you really want all those wackjobs marrying ? 50 year old man with 9 year old girl. Man to rock. Boy to comic book character. Woman to 17 men and their dogs and so on and so on.

If one truly wishes to attack the "sanctity of marriage" making it a religious institution is the way to go.

Why can people with a religious connotation WITHOUT being a "leader" in the sense you used perform legal marriages in the first place ?

I'd like to go back to this general point, actually:

This is the entire problem. We give religious leaders special legal privilege in order to favor the religious above the nonreligious, and people accept it, because they don't care about nonreligious people, and also because that's the way that it is already. Defenders of discrimination, in order to preserve their system, point to the system as it is as its own defense.

"It's not discrimination, because it's not only atheists who can't officiate over weddings, religious lay people can't either," to use an example from this thread, points to the current system in an attempt to rebut criticism of the system. The thing is, yes, I know that, under the current system, the only people who are not state officials that are capable of presiding over a marriage are able to do so because of their status as religious leaders; indeed, that's the problem.

If religious leaders should be able to preside over (legally valid) weddings, so should the leaders of other clubs. The leader of my local SCA group, or of the chess club, maybe even my D&D group's DM!

Okay, "denied" might be a better word than "stripped" in this case. But the point remains: if atheists cannot perform weddings, but religious leaders can, that's discrimination, even if religious lay people still can't. an athiest judge, Justice of the Peace and such can perform a wedding.

Why can people with a religious connotation WITHOUT being a "leader" in the sense you used perform legal marriages in the first place ? like who? as far as I know, I cannot yet I am a religous person and nothing else. perhaps it's because outside of the religious symbolism, the status of married also carries a legal status and what it curtails.

In the UK civil weddings performed by justices of the peace in an entirely non religious way are very common. I am fairly certain it is a myth popularised by films that the captain of a ship can marry people.
I do mention Justice of the peace as one (non religous) way of getting married. but is there any one else outside of those I've mentioned and religous leader that can perform a marriage cerimony?

but alot of people forget commonlaw marriages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage). which is reconized in some areas.

The answer is tradition I think. Both of these were taken from wiki.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. [18][19] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[25] for recognition.

Make them go to Reno then?

Again from wiki.
It would appear it is an English carry over. In England and Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage.

Apparently some prisoners did some bad, bad things so we now have this requirement.

Apparently you only have 2 choice now religious or civil.

an athiest judge, Justice of the Peace and such can perform a wedding.

Yes, but atheists have to become a judge, or a Justice of the Peace, or whatever, in order to perform a wedding. Religious people don't have to do that.


like who? as far as I know, I cannot yet I am a religous person and nothing else. perhaps it's because outside of the religious symbolism, the status of married also carries a legal status and what it curtails.

As far as I understood, he meant without being a Judge or a JotP or whatever.


I do mention Justice of the peace as one (non religous) way of getting married.

but alot of people forget commonlaw marriages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage). which is reconized in some areas.

Irrelevant. So atheists have another route to marriage. That's not the point. The point is this: atheists, to perform a legally binding marriage, must work for the state in some that grants them this ability. Religious people are not required to do this. That is discrimination.

like who? as far as I know, I cannot yet I am a religous person and nothing else. perhaps it's because outside of the religious symbolism, the status of married also carries a legal status and what it curtails..

Eehm - your own posts state that such people exist. The only othr way to interpret them would mean they are completely irrelevant to this topic, since we talking about people being denied the right to perform a marriage if they are nonreligious.

The answer is tradition I think. Both of these were taken from wiki.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. [18][19] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[25] for recognition.

Of course, tradition is a stupid reason to have bad laws. If a law is a good one, then it should stand on its own merits. If it is a bad one (say, it is discriminatory), then it should be overturned. Tradition isn't a bad thing per se, of course, but should never be used as a justification for discrimination.

The answer is tradition I think. Both of these were taken from wiki.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. [18][19] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[25] for recognition.

You get an "F" for citing Wikipedia!
See me after class!

Yes, but atheists have to become a judge, or a Justice of the Peace, or whatever, in order to perform a wedding. Religious people don't have to do that. they have to be a leader of a reconized church. again, I as a religous person cannot perform a legally binding wedding cerimony.

As far as I understood, he meant without being a Judge or a JotP or whatever. and only a religous leader of a church can perform a wedding cerimony.

Irrelevant. So atheists have another route to marriage. That's not the point. The point is this: atheists, to perform a legally binding marriage, must work for the state in some that grants them this ability. Religious people are not required to do this. That is discrimination.
no, a Religious person has to form a church and lead that church. (and it must be a legally reconized church.)

Mostly the state wants their cut. With both the proper "documents" must be filled out. The state of course gets to charge you for the pleasure. If ordinary citizens were allow this they wouldn't get their cut.

Eehm - your own posts state that such people exist. The only othr way to interpret them would mean they are completely irrelevant to this topic, since we talking about people being denied the right to perform a marriage if they are nonreligious.

such people as what? outside of those I've mentioned (which doesn't require a religous person as far as I know) only leaders of legally reconized churches can perform weddings. not just any "religous person". how is that not being discriminatory as an athiest who has to become a judge, Justice of the peace or elected offical?

I think you have a point there are "Will Kits" that allow you to fill out the proper documents which are legal binding in most cases. Why shouldn't marriage be one of them?

One would think a lawyer would suffice. Why do we need to bother a judge?

Of course, tradition is a stupid reason to have bad laws. If a law is a good one, then it should stand on its own merits. If it is a bad one (say, it is discriminatory), then it should be overturned. Tradition isn't a bad thing per se, of course, but should never be used as a justification for discrimination.



Then again we'd have to go about the whole process of what is considered good or bad. Just because person or people group A say that one act is bad, doesn't mean that person or people group B would agree. So who's opinion should we trust to make a law regarding said issue?

they have to be a leader of a reconized church. again, I as a religous person cannot perform a legally binding wedding cerimony.

You come so close to the point, and then you miss it. I will set aside, for now, the inherent discrimination in having legally recognized and non legally recognized churches. But even giving churches such special favoritism over nonreligious organizations (such as the SCA, or the chess club, or my D&D group) is discriminatory; it prefers religion to nonreligion, and organized religion to religion that is not organized. That is discriminatory and a violation of the 1st Amendment.


and only a religous leader of a church can perform a wedding cerimony.

Yes, so the law says that religious people do not have the same legal requirements to perform a marriage that nonreligious people have. The nonreligious have slightly stricter requirements. Especially in the case in question, where you can form a church with a congregation of 2 and that's enough to get the license. So, effectively, yes, any religious person can perform marriages, if they want to. Whereas nonreligious people only can if they pretend to be religious.


no, a Religious person has to form a church and lead that church. (and it must be a legally reconized church.)

Getting back to this now, I don't understand how you can't see this is inherently discriminatory. Granting special legal privileges to some churches but not others is explicit approval of some churches over others. The very concept of recognized and non recognized churches is inherently discriminatory.

Hypothetical situation:
What if only, say, Hindu leaders could perform marriages? That wouldn't be discriminatory against Christians, according to your logic, because only Hindu leaders get that legal ability, not all Hindus!

Oh wait, that's different?
Oh right, because it's not those damned atheists being discriminated against, so it's not okay anymore.

Then again we'd have to go about the whole process of what is considered good or bad. Just because person or people group A say that one act is bad, doesn't mean that person or people group B would agree. So who's opinion should we trust to make a law regarding said issue?

Well, that's the inherent problem in trying to figure out law, isn't it? Typically, western legal systems, we put it to some sort of vote, be it by the general populace through referendum, or, for most matters, by elected representatives. My point is, it's silly to defend a bad law from being repealed for the sake of tradition. If you don't think it's a bad law, then make a case for said law, don't just say "well it's always been that way."

You come so close to the point, and then you miss it. I will set aside, for now, the inherent discrimination in having legally recognized and non legally recognized churches. But even giving churches such special favoritism over nonreligious organizations (such as the SCA, or the chess club, or my D&D group) is discriminatory; it prefers religion to nonreligion, and organized religion to religion that is not organized. That is discriminatory and a violation of the 1st Amendment. wrong on so many counts.
a club has no legal status when it comes to things like taxes and what not. A chuch does.

and the First Amendment is that the Government shall not favor one religion over the others. are you now arguing that Athiesm is a religion?

Yes, so the law says that religious people do not have the same legal requirements to perform a marriage that nonreligious people have. The nonreligious have slightly stricter requirements. Especially in the case in question, where you can form a church with a congregation of 2 and that's enough to get the license. So, effectively, yes, any religious person can perform marriages, if they want to. Whereas nonreligious people only can if they pretend to be religious. then go ahead and form your church. you can even (as an athiest) form a church to chess or D&D. go ahead and truely see how 'simple' it is.

Getting back to this now, I don't understand how you can't see this is inherently discriminatory. Granting special legal privileges to some churches but not others is explicit approval of some churches over others. The very concept of recognized and non recognized churches is inherently discriminatory. legal church. forming one 'out of the blue' won't cut it in a legal sense. but you can fight that in court if you want to.

Hypothetical situation:
What if only, say, Hindu leaders could perform marriages? That wouldn't be discriminatory against Christians, according to your logic, because only Hindu leaders get that legal ability, not all Hindus!

Oh wait, that's different?
Oh right, because it's not those damned atheists being discriminated against, so it's not okay anymore.Again, are you arguing that Athiesm is a Religion?

cut out the chaft and lets get to the point."It's not discrimination, because it's not only atheists who can't officiate over weddings, religious lay people can't either," to use an example from this thread, points to the current system in an attempt to rebut criticism of the system. The thing is, yes, I know that, under the current system, the only people who are not state officials that are capable of presiding over a marriage are able to do so because of their status as religious leaders; indeed, that's the problem.

any one else see the mistake?

let me correct it for you. "It's not discrimination, because it's not only atheist LAY PEOPLE who can't officiate over weddings, religious lay people can't either,"

wrong on so many counts.
a club has no legal status when it comes to things like taxes and what not. A chuch does.

Yes, that's a part of the problem. The government officially endorses religion.


and the First Amendment is that the Government shall not favor one religion over the others. are you now arguing that Athiesm is a religion?

It should not prefer one religion over the others; nor should it favor religion over nonreligion. You seem keen to leave that part out; this surprises me, I would never have thought, given your posting history, that you would favor legally placing religion over nonreligion.


then go ahead and form your church. you can even (as an athiest) form a church to chess or D&D. go ahead and truely see how 'simple' it is.

Yes, in the case presented in the OP, it would be that simple. The article explicitly mentioned that at least one such church-- with the power to marry-- had a congregation of 2.
But that's not the point. I shouldn't have to form my church of chess or D&D. Religious organizations being legally endorsed over secular ones is a government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional.


legal church. forming one 'out of the blue' won't cut it in a legal sense. but you can fight that in court if you want to.

Again, you point to discriminatory laws as their own defense. "Well, you might say it's wrong to discriminate against people who are not religious, or to say that some churches are valid but others are not, but the legal system, as currently enforced, disagrees with you, so you're wrong."
My entire point is that the way the law is currently interpreted and enforced is wrong, that it is discrimination. So pointing to the system as it stands to rebut my points is just silly.
It is discriminatory to say that some churches are valid churches and some churches are not. That's the government officially saying that specific churches are, essentially better than others.


Again, are you arguing that Athiesm is a Religion?

No, but it's just as wrong to discriminate against the non-religious as it is to discriminate against a specific type of religious person. You might disagree, but that would make you bigoted against non religious people.

Good luck getting that one through.

cut out the chaft and lets get to the point.

any one else see the mistake?

let me correct it for you. "It's not discrimination, because it's not only atheist LAY PEOPLE who can't officiate over weddings, religious lay people can't either,"

Of course, this serves to highlight a part of the issue:
The non-religious, and those who be long to disorganized religions, are discriminated against, because the requirements for conducting marriages are stricter for them than they are for those who belong to organized churches. That's why, ultimately, religious leaders should not automatically get the legal right to conduct legally binding marriages, or leaders of secular organizations should be able to as well.

I think it comes down to accountability. If any lay person could do you could marry your dog, 16 wives, pet rock. Whomever or whatever you please. Provided you could find someone like minded to do it for you. The other choice is common law marriage where you need not do anything other than live together for whatever period of time.

I think it comes down to accountability. If any lay person could do you could marry your dog, 16 wives, pet rock. Whomever or whatever you please. Provided you could find someone like minded to do it for you. The other choice is common law marriage where you need not do anything other than live together for whatever period of time.

Actually, no. Both parties still would need to be legally capable of being married, no matter who presides.

Of course, this serves to highlight a part of the issue:
The non-religious, and those who be long to disorganized religions, are discriminated against, because the requirements for conducting marriages are stricter for them than they are for those who belong to organized churches. That's why, ultimately, religious leaders should not automatically get the legal right to conduct legally binding marriages, or leaders of secular organizations should be able to as well.
Can't Justices of the Peace marry people? Sorry, I just don't think of this as an instance of the non-religious being discriminated against, and more a case of "discriminating" against people who aren't professional marriage-makers.

cut out the chaft and lets get to the point.

any one else see the mistake?

let me correct it for you. "It's not discrimination, because it's not only atheist LAY PEOPLE who can't officiate over weddings, religious lay people can't either,"

I'm pretty sure spending all of five minutes online does not qualify you to not be a layperson. (http://www.themonastery.org/)

Why should marriage have to be a LEGAL institution, anyway? Wouldn't it just be easier if the government left it alone and didn't even bother keeping tabs on it? That way anyone can get married to whomever (or whatever) they please as long as their religious community supports it.

A marriage is a type of relationship governed by a contract, and like all contracts, it has certain laws governing the execution of said contract and the discharge should it come to that. It's a private agreement between two people, witnessed by two others and conducted in front of an official with the legal capacity to solemnise the marriage.

Once one is married, they are into a legally binding contract with rights and obligations and those rights and obligations have to be upheld, such as the obligation to support your spouse; the right to have your own property in your own name within the marriage.

This contract becomes important in divorce because it is the only way to guarantee that you get a proportionate amount of the marital property as well as you get to retain ownership over your own that was either given in the form of inheritance or from before the union, or through other certain circumstances. This contract also enables a person to seek financial support upon separation.

The government remains involved because of the tax incentives and different ways of taking married couples.

The government's involvement also ensures that those who married are of legal capacity to marry; i.e.: they are not related through affinity or consanguinity; they are of age or have received consent, or they are mentally competent (not mentally ill, incompetent or intoxicated).

Can't Justices of the Peace marry people?

AFAIK... at least in Ontario, if not Canada, Justices of the Peace used to have the jurisdiction to do so, however that changed because they needed to free up the justice system to handle other cases. Now it's religious figures and those licensed by the government, such as unaffiliated officiants.

Can't Justices of the Peace marry people? Sorry, I just don't think of this as an instance of the non-religious being discriminated against, and more a case of "discriminating" against people who aren't professional marriage-makers.

Read the thread. I have addressed this:
Non religious people have to become a justice of the peace or a judge or whatever, fulfilling any requirements for those jobs, to conduct marriages. Religious people just have to meet whatever criteria their church sets, OR can meet the criteria for the JotP, etc.

You could say the same thing about doctors, dentists. What makes a dentist more qualified to pull out a tooth?

Same reason you need a license to be a doctor.

You can build your own house without a contractors license it is when you build someone else house I think that you run into problems.

Arguably you have the right to operate on yourself, it is when you claim you are qualified to operate on someone else.

I'm pretty sure spending all of five minutes online does not qualify you to not be a layperson. (http://www.themonastery.org/)

I'm so going to do this. :D

You could say the same thing about doctors, dentists. What makes a dentist more qualified to pull out a tooth?

Same reason you need a license to be a doctor.

You can build your own house without a contractors license it is when you build someone else house I think that you run into problems.

Arguably you have the right to operate on yourself, it is when you claim you are qualified to operate on someone else.

Because if you don't know what you're doing as a doctor, you might kill somebody.

Anyway, I don't think, necessarily, that there should be no requirements to be able to marry people, only that those requirements should not favor one religion over another, or over nonreligion.

EDIT:
In fact, to use your analogy-- what if religious leaders automatically got licenses to be doctors?

Read the thread. I have addressed this:
Non religious people have to become a justice of the peace or a judge or whatever, fulfilling any requirements for those jobs, to conduct marriages. Religious people just have to meet whatever criteria their church sets, OR can meet the criteria for the JotP, etc.
I agree that marriages performed in a church should not become automatically legal, but is it really that worse to become a justice than a minister? There is an inequality, here, yes, but it seems more nitpicky than anything else.

Who the cares if some guy marries his dog, anyway? The beautiful thing about this country is that the government stays the heck out of your religious life.

"State religion is when the government says, 'We know that we've destroyed the economy, failed to teach your kid anything at all, let crime spread rampant, pissed off every other country in the world, and completely destroyed the environment, but you really ought to trust us with your eternal soul.'"

I agree that marriages performed in a church should not become automatically legal, but is it really that worse to become a justice than a minister? There is an inequality, here, yes, but it seems more nitpicky than anything else.

All discrimination should be taken out of the law. Yes, there are worse problems for the non-religious people out there, and if I had to choose between this and those, I'd let this slide. But that doesn't mean, on an ideological level, I can't be against this small act of discrimination.

As far as how bad it is to become what, that depends, I'd guess, on the organization. The requirements are, doubtless, easier in some religions than in others.

They have to be an "ordained" minister not just any old religious person. Probably in this day and age it doesn't mean anything. The whole concept come from religion in the first place.

The question becomes what make this ordinary Atheist person qualified to marry anyone else?

They have to be an "ordained" minister not just any old religious person. Probably in this day and age it doesn't mean anything. The whole concept come from religion in the first place.

The question becomes what make this ordinary Atheist person qualified to marry anyone else?

Are you even reading the damn thread? I specifically said that there probably should be requirements on the ability to perform marriages, just not ones that are biased in favor of (organized) religion.

Who the cares if some guy marries his dog, anyway? The beautiful thing about this country is that the government stays the heck out of your religious life.

"State religion is when the government says, 'We know that we've destroyed the economy, failed to teach your kid anything at all, let crime spread rampant, pissed off every other country in the world, and completely destroyed the environment, but you really ought to trust us with your eternal soul.'"


If the person who marries a dog, dies without any family members, who then would own his property? Considering that animals are generally seen as property, who would own it? Its much more than just a simple "who cares, freedom is gud!!!11!" There are very deep circumstances at hand. Society would really spiral out of control if marriage was no governed in some way.

All discrimination should be taken out of the law. Yes, there are worse problems for the non-religious people out there, and if I had to choose between this and those, I'd let this slide. But that doesn't mean, on an ideological level, I can't be against this small act of discrimination.
That's fair enough. It doesn't seem to me like a fight worth fighting when there's so much else that needs to be done, but being ideologically opposed to it is reasonable.

As far as how bad it is to become what, that depends, I'd guess, on the organization. The requirements are, doubtless, easier in some religions than in others.
Would it have to be recognized by the government? (The church, not the marriage itself.) I wouldn't have much difficulty creating Gus's House o' God, and then appointing myself High Priest; it seems like there has to be some regulation somewhere.

You may also marry the wrong two people together and that would be a travesty. You see where this going don't you?


It would be like saying anyone should be able to perform a baptism assuming non-religious people would want one? I am quite sure John the Baptist had no license to perform said practice. His authority I guess was god given and seems to be recognized. I guess Atheists don't have any authority to appeal to...

If the person who marries a dog, dies without any family members, who then would own his property? Considering that animals are generally seen as property, who would own it? Its much more than just a simple "who cares, freedom is gud!!!11!" There are very deep circumstances at hand. Society would really spiral out of control if marriage was no governed in some way.

Well, some people have left fortunes to their pets, and what they typically do is set it up so some benefactor controls it on behalf of said pets, so that wouldn't be a huge issue...

the real problem would be consent.

That's fair enough. It doesn't seem to me like a fight worth fighting when there's so much else that needs to be done, but being ideologically opposed to it is reasonable.

And ideological opposition is all I am really doing here. I'm not about to run out and found the "Legalize Atheist-Performed Marriages" PAC, but I will debate about it, especially because it is indicative of a deeper, more serious problem. Namely, that it is societally acceptable to discriminate against atheists in a way that it is completely unacceptable to discriminate against religious people.


Would it have to be recognized by the government? (The church, not the marriage itself.) I wouldn't have much difficulty creating Gus's House o' God, and then appointing myself High Priest; it seems like there has to be some regulation somewhere.
Well, as I have said, I think the concept of "recognized" and "non-recognized' churches is inherently discriminatory anyway. But ideally, what I think it should be is that there should be a set of requirements to be able get a license to perform marriages, and then anybody can apply for said license, be they an atheist, or a member of a non organized religion, or a lay person in an organized religion, or a religious leader, or whatever. The license would be required to perform legally binding marriages, though, of course, anybody can perform ceremonial ones, and there no proviso that religious leaders automatically get it. The requirements wouldn't be too difficult, ideally. All marriages would still have to be legally valid, of course.


You may also marry the wrong two people together and that would be a travesty. You see where this going don't you?

Well, that kinda supports my point, actually-- why are religious leaders, then, automatically qualified to perform marriages? They aren't inherently better at matchmaking than anybody else. Further, it's not as if the person performing the marriage picks the couple, except in a few religions, so it's irrelevant. If two people decide to enter into a marriage that isn't a good one, it's on them, not on the person who performed the ceremony.


It would be like saying anyone should be able to perform a baptism assuming non-religious people would want one? I am quite sure John the Baptist had no license to perform said practice. His authority I guess was god given and seems to be recognized. I guess Atheists don't have any authority to appeal to...
A few problems:
Baptism is an entirely religious, or, at least, symbolic, practice. There is no such thing as a legally valid baptism. It exists separate from the law.
Also, in many religions, even in some denominations of Christianity (most protestant ones, I believe), anybody can baptize.
Lastly, atheists do have an authority to appeal to in the case of marriage-- the government. That's what this is about, legal marriage, marriage in the eyes of the law. Keep your religious recognition, we don't want it, nor do we want the ability to grant it to others.

Actually the document is accept as ID when applying for a passport. Fact is we discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people, who are not of age, not citizens. Have you ever looked at Eminent domain. There are thousands of places where we discriminate under the law.

You may also marry the wrong two people together and that would be a travesty. You see where this going don't you?


No, I dont. Whats your point?


If your arguement is that an atheist may marry two wrong people together, then thats a piss poor arguement, unless you want to pretend that people married in a Church never get divorced.

Actually the document is accept as ID when applying for a passport. Fact is we discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people, who are not of age, not citizens. Have you ever looked at Eminent domain. There are thousands of places where we discriminate under the law.

Yes, we discriminate when (and, in theory, only when) there is a legitimate legal reason to do so. We don't let young people do things because they are insufficiently developed to do certain things. We discriminate against stupid people when we tell them they can't be doctors.

However, we aren't supposed to discriminate on the basis of religion or race or sex, et cetera.

Actually the document is accept as ID when applying for a passport. Fact is we discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people, who are not of age, not citizens. Have you ever looked at Eminent domain. There are thousands of places where we discriminate under the law.

There is a total difference between not letting 5 year old by a bottle of Jack and not letting an atheist have a license to preform a wedding.

Actually the document is accept as ID when applying for a passport. Fact is we discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people, who are not of age, not citizens. Have you ever looked at Eminent domain. There are thousands of places where we discriminate under the law.

Sure. But in most cases people can provide valid reasoning as to *why* the discrimination is there. Spelling out why babies should not have the right to vote is hopefully not necessary - but it can be done.

But is there a valid reason for the specific discrimination this thread is about ?

No, I dont. Whats your point?


If your arguement is that an atheist may marry two wrong people together, then thats a piss poor arguement, unless you want to pretend that people married in a Church never get divorced.

I don't know how much you've been following the thread, but TB's arguments are all pretty damn bad. I suspect he might be a troll.

Here is another one just off the top of my head

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Here is another one just off the top of my head

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Yeah, that's a pretty shitty law. Hopefully it will be repealed once President-Elect Obama is in office.

Here is another one just off the top of my head

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Yeah, thats discrimination, and unless youve been under a rock for years, people have been trying to get that policey over turned.

Just because we have policies that discriminate doesnt make it legal or ethical...

Here is another one just off the top of my head

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Notice how they offer reasoning to support this discrimination. Pathetic reasoning of course, but reasoning nonetheless.

So.. what is the reasoning behind not letting atheists perform marriages or serve the government in other ways ?

At the end of the day it boils down to accountability. Just to be clear I think any 2 people should be able to marry with 2 witnesses. Providing they are both of age and of course are there of their own volition. Good luck getting it put through.

Here is another one just off the top of my head

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Yes, and I damn well oppose that too, thank you very much.

I am religious. This practice is discriminatory, and needs to be ended. Forget about religion for a bit. Marriage is a legal contract, signed between two people in the presence of witnesses and a third person who is officially licensed to perform marriages. It does not have to have anything to do with religion. Now, can you not see why it is wrong that religious people have it much easier when it comes to getting that license?

I oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", special recognition for Christianity, and many other discriminatory laws. I oppose this as well --- any person should be able to get a license to perform legal marriages, and their religion (or lack of it) should have no bearing on that. Simple, ain't it?

At the end of the day it boils down to accountability. Just to be clear I think any 2 people should be able to marry with 2 witnesses. Providing they are both of age and of course are there of their own volition. Good luck getting it put through.

This has what to do with the arguement at hand? Atheists arent accountable? Is that what your saying? Or are you just trolling?

The sanctity of marriage I am sure they will use against it. The fact is it is a religious institution more than civil one. If you wanted to you could open any old partnership agreement with the two people and get essentially the same rights. A piece of paper and a ring is all that is needed.

If you want it "authorize" then you have to go to an "authority". What make a notary any different from anyone else. I will tell you about 25$ and the stamp.

The sanctity of marriage I am sure they will use against it.

Is this that "atheists want to destroy the sanctity of marriage!" tripe? I can assure you, you religious folks hardly need our help.

The fact is it is a religious institution more than civil one.

This is false.

The sanctity of marriage I am sure they will use against it. The fact is it is a religious institution more than civil one. If you wanted to you could open any old partnership agreement with the two people and get essentially the same rights. A piece of paper and a ring is all that is needed.

If you want it "authorize" then you have to go to an "authority". What make a notary any different from anyone else. I will tell you about 25$ and the stamp.

...

I'm trying to decide if I should post a rebuttal or just laugh.

The fact is it is a religious institution more than civil one.

Of which religion ? I am quite certain that the religions that first sanctioned unions between people were polytheistic, very much in favour of polygamy and never heard of people like "Jesus". Should we therefor limit marriages to those only ?

If you wanted to you could open any old partnership agreement with the two people and get essentially the same rights. A piece of paper and a ring is all that is needed.

Afraid not. Marriage conveys an enormous amounts of legal benefits and rights to a couple - over 200 IIRC. The legal contracts needed to achieve the same thing would cost many times more than a marriage including the surrounding party (for most people. Not counting Hollywood marriages with 7000 guests and gold plated food).

What gives this atheist the right to marry anyone else?

I guess Atheists don't have any authority to appeal to...

They have ME. I officially authorize anyone, theist, atheist or agnostic, to perform marriages in my name. I further decree that they do not have to mention me in any way during the ceremony should they not wish to.

...

I'm trying to decide if I should post a rebuttal or just laugh.

I laugh as I post. It saves me from crying myself to sleep at night.

The sanctity of marriage I am sure they will use against it. The fact is it is a religious institution more than civil one. If you wanted to you could open any old partnership agreement with the two people and get essentially the same rights. A piece of paper and a ring is all that is needed.

If you want it "authorize" then you have to go to an "authority". What make a notary any different from anyone else. I will tell you about 25$ and the stamp.

Wrong. Marriage is a civil institution. There is also a religious institution that (confusingly) goes by the same name, but the two are distinct. And as far as anything legal is concerned, only the civil institution matters.

Now, as it stands in Las Vegas the government makes it easier for religious persons to carry out a civil ceremony, purely on the basis of their religion. This is forbidden by the constitution, discriminatory, and should be changed.

What gives this atheist the right to marry anyone else?

The same that gives theists the right to marry others. The law.

No matter what you believe, the law is all that matters on earth.

What gives this atheist the right to marry anyone else?

What gives this religious leader the right to marry anyone else?

Of which religion ? I am quite certain that the religions that first sanctioned unions between people were polytheistic and never heard of people like "Jesus". Should we therefor limit marriages to those only ?



Afraid not. Marriage conveys an enormous amounts of legal benefits and rights to a couple - over 200 IIRC. The legal contracts needed to achieve the same thing would cost many times more than a marriage including the surrounding party (for most people. Not counting Hollywood marriages with 7000 guests and gold plated food).


You nailed it, that is what I am trying to say. The couple in question are looking for the "authorization". You can be common law married without anything unless you happen to be the same sex then you are out of luck both civilly and religiously.

What gives this atheist the right to marry anyone else?

The being atheist in itself should not give that rights - just like being religious should not give that right.
However - it should also not *stop* them from being able to gain the right. And that is exactly the problem: it does stop them.

You nailed it, that is what I am trying to say. The couple in question are looking for the "authorization". You can be common law married without anything unless you happen to be the same sex then you are out of luck both civilly and religiously.

As I said:

They have ME to authorize them. I officially authorize anyone, theist, atheist or agnostic, to perform marriages in my name. I further decree that they do not have to mention me in any way during the ceremony should they not wish to.

Well you could say God gives him the right. There is a training process and the proper forms must be filled out, blah,blah,blah.

That religious "leader" is following both the religious code of conduct and the law.

As I said:

They have ME to authorize them. I officially authorize anyone, theist, atheist or agnostic, to perform marriages in my name. I further decree that they do not have to mention me in any way during the ceremony should they not wish to.

I personally mention Heikoku in all marriages I preform.

Well you could say God gives him the right. There is a training process and the proper forms must be filled out, blah,blah,blah.

That religious "leader" is following both the religious code of conduct and the law.

But his "right" doesnt come from God. His right comes from the law.

Non-religious people do have that right they can become a justice of the peace or a judge.

Well you could say God gives him the right. There is a training process and the proper forms must be filled out, blah,blah,blah.

That religious "leader" is following both the religious code of conduct and the law.

God can not grant legal rights. The law does not recognize God.

If the person who marries a dog, dies without any family members, who then would own his property? Considering that animals are generally seen as property, who would own it? Its much more than just a simple "who cares, freedom is gud!!!11!" There are very deep circumstances at hand. Society would really spiral out of control if marriage was no governed in some way.

Why not have the government take his possessions? That is what they normally do as it is. When a loved one dies the family often ends up paying up to 90% of the inheritance to Big Brother. Society isn't spiralling out of control right now, so you need a different agrument.

P.S. I'm a Christian who is interning for a carreer in ministry. I believe in the sanctity of marriage as much as (if not more than) the next person. I just think that it is kind of a joke in this country as it is and so why do we need to keep fooling ourselves.

I personally mention Heikoku in all marriages I preform.

So... zero?

Non-religious people do have that right they can become a justice of the peace or a judge.

RTFT. This has been addressed time and time again.

Well you could say God gives him the right. There is a training process and the proper forms must be filled out, blah,blah,blah.

That religious "leader" is following both the religious code of conduct and the law.

Told you already: I give them the right. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It STOPS with ME.

Justice of the peace / judge = Minister for lack of a better term

Justice of the peace + forms + 2 consenting adults = marriage
( assuming neither one is previously married )

Minister + forms + 2 consenting adults = marriage
( assuming neither one is previously married ) you have the added responsibility of being a member of that church, take whatever classes they make you take, agree to raise your kids in the faith etc.

Who the cares if some guy marries his dog, anyway? The beautiful thing about this country is that the government stays the heck out of your religious life.


Human-Dog marriage is OK as long as no one consummates it.

Once again, however, this thread is useless without pics.

The law does recognize God that why you can swear to him when you enter testimony.

P.S. I'm a Christian who is interning for a carreer in ministry. I believe in the sanctity of marriage as much as (if not more than) the next person. I just think that it is kind of a joke in this country as it is and so why do we need to keep fooling ourselves.

What sancticty are we talking about ? Surely you realise the the Christians stole marriage, just like they stole the Winter festival and renamed it Chistmas, the spring festival and renamed it easter and so on.

In fact - is there anything you did NOT steal ? Even most Bible stories are copies of earlier work with a few names changed.

"Sanctity" my arse.

Justice of the peace / judge = Minister for lack of a better term

Justice of the peace + forms + 2 consenting adults = marriage
( assuming neither one is previously married )

Minister + forms + 2 consenting adults = marriage
( assuming neither one is previously married ) you have the added responsibility of being a member of that church, take whatever classes they make you take, agree to raise your kids in the faith etc.

This isn't the way I intended.

The law does recognize God that why you can swear to him when you enter testimony.

You can swear to ANYTHING when you enter testimony. I could swear to Mystra, and my testimony would be valid. Does the law recognize Mystra?

In fact he is the only one who does not have to be present (visible) in court.

The law does recognize God that why you can swear to him when you enter testimony.

Tradition. And it doesnt give your testimony any special privlages.

Justice of the peace / judge = Minister for lack of a better term

Justice of the peace + forms + 2 consenting adults = marriage
( assuming neither one is previously married )

Minister + forms + 2 consenting adults = marriage
( assuming neither one is previously married ) you have the added responsibility of being a member of that church, take whatever classes they make you take, agree to raise your kids in the faith etc.
Fail.

The law does recognize God that why you can swear to him when you enter testimony.

But it doesn't make your testimony any more valid than somebody who does not swear to God, nor does it give you any more right to give that testimony.

In fact he is the only one who does not have to be present (visible) in court.

Thats because Gods irrelevent in court.

Try using God as a witness. Let me know how that works.

In fact he is the only one who does not have to be present (visible) in court.

I've never had to be present in court...

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the the truth so help me God? You can make an affirmation as well.

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the the truth so help me God? You can make an affirmation as well.

You dont have to say "so help me God". And your testimony isnt any more relevent or important because you swear to God.

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the the truth so help me God? You can make an affirmation as well.

Are you stupid, unwilling to read, or just a troll?

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the the truth so help me God? You can make an affirmation as well.

You're the one making the affirmation, not God.
That's like going back to puritanical times where it was possible to call upon ghostly witnesses at a trial to sustain your claim.:rolleyes:

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the the truth so help me God? You can make an affirmation as well.

The same goes for Mystra. You can substitute Mystra, or ANYTHING, by God in that statement WITHOUT IT LOSING ANY OF ITS VALIDITY. Mystra, Karl Marx, Winston Smith, Tymora, Burger King. ANYTHING.

The same goes for Mystra. You can substitute Mystra, or ANYTHING, by God in that statement WITHOUT IT LOSING ANY OF ITS VALIDITY. Mystra, Karl Marx, Winston Smith, Tymora, Burger King. ANYTHING.




I often say "so help me Heikoku".

I often say "so help me Heikoku".

Which doesn't bode well for your ability to stay out of a court of law. o_O

The question becomes again. What gives an unqualified atheist the right to marry anyone? Arguably the minister is qualified.

The question becomes again. What gives an unqualified atheist to marry anyone? Arguably the minister is qualified.

Again: I give them the right.

Which doesn't bode well for your ability to stay out of a court of law. o_O

It actually would keep poor KoL IN a court of law.:tongue:

The question becomes again. What gives an unqualified atheist the right to marry anyone? Arguably the minister is qualified.

By what argument?

It actually would keep poor KoL IN a court of law.:tongue:

Actually, if my understanding is correct, it wouldn't. People can swear on anything.

"So help me Yuuko". Has a nice ring to it.

(Yuuko Ichihara.)

Actually, if my understanding is correct, it wouldn't. People can swear on anything.

"So help me Yuuko". Has a nice ring to it.

(Yuuko Ichihara.)

So, I can swear by Heikoku 2 that I didn't do it and I would be safe?:eek2:

So, I can swear by Heikoku 2 that I didn't do it and I would be safe?:eek2:

They would take it as a legal testimony.

The question becomes again. What gives an unqualified atheist the right to marry anyone?

The law. Besides, what qualifications are needed to marry two people? You say the words, stamp the paper, move on.

Arguably the minister is qualified.

How? Believing in God doesnt make you more qualified than not believing in God.

They would take it as a legal testimony.

Oh my, I see.

Isn't that like... wrong, anyway?

Oh my, I see.

Isn't that like... wrong, anyway?

I swear by Orihime Inoue I don't think so! :D

The question becomes again. What gives an unqualified atheist the right to marry anyone? Arguably the minister is qualified.

By what argument?

Duh !!! Atheists are bad people!!! But ministers are men of JEEZUS!

I swear by Orihime Inoue I don't think so! :D

And by Daiba Tadashi I believe you.:wink:

What sancticty are we talking about ? Surely you realise the the Christians stole marriage, just like they stole the Winter festival and renamed it Chistmas, the spring festival and renamed it easter and so on.

In fact - is there anything you did NOT steal ? Even most Bible stories are copies of earlier work with a few names changed.

"Sanctity" my arse.

I truly appreciate your completely unbiased opinion. Thank you.

The question becomes again. What gives an unqualified atheist the right to marry anyone? Arguably the minister is qualified.

Qualified how?

Qualified how?

Perhaps this is all about being empowered by God Himself and all that jazz. Which again begets the question: isn't an atheist who knows the law also qualified to marry a couple?

I truly appreciate your completely unbiased opinion. Thank you.

Yes, and your opinion is so unbiased.

This is the entire problem. We give religious leaders special legal privilege in order to favor the religious above the nonreligious, and people accept it, because they don't care about nonreligious people, and also because that's the way that it is already. Defenders of discrimination, in order to preserve their system, point to the system as it is as its own defense.

I accept it as a matter of convenience. Many people want to get religiously married and civilly married. It's much more convenient, then, if they can get both officiated all at once.

That said, the same convenience should be supplied to the non-religious in some way. So, if this guy is in a position to perform marriages (ie. there are people who want him to), he should be able to get the same legal authority to do so that any religious leader gets.

This alone shows you how much this is about religion.

Clark County issues nearly 100,000 marriage licenses a year and boasts dozens of places to exchange vows —atop Harley-Davidsons, in Renaissance costumes, aboard gondolas —24 hours a day. The competition is so fierce that, in recent years, employees at rival chapels have accused each other of slashing tires and shouting death threats.

This alone shows you how much this is about religion.

Clark County issues nearly 100,000 marriage licenses a year and boasts dozens of places to exchange vows —atop Harley-Davidsons, in Renaissance costumes, aboard gondolas —24 hours a day. The competition is so fierce that, in recent years, employees at rival chapels have accused each other of slashing tires and shouting death threats.

How the hell did you jump from the latter to the former?

You will all kneel before Zod!

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/zodseal.gif

Yes, and your opinion is so unbiased.

I merely meant to highlight the fact that you make no effort whatsoever to mask your absolute disdain for all of those who harbor beliefs even remotely similar to my own.

Love and Kisses,
Dave

This alone shows you how much this is about religion.

Clark County issues nearly 100,000 marriage licenses a year and boasts dozens of places to exchange vows —atop Harley-Davidsons, in Renaissance costumes, aboard gondolas —24 hours a day. The competition is so fierce that, in recent years, employees at rival chapels have accused each other of slashing tires and shouting death threats.

How does that show us its about religion? It just shows that religious leaders are childish.


Are you even trying to make an arguement anymore?

What sancticty are we talking about ? Surely you realise the the Christians stole marriage, just like they stole the Winter festival and renamed it Chistmas, the spring festival and renamed it easter and so on.

In fact - is there anything you did NOT steal ? Even most Bible stories are copies of earlier work with a few names changed.

"Sanctity" my arse.
When did continuing or copying thousand year old traditions and ideas become equated with stealing? Is this a stolen language we're speaking? The Germans and French should be upset.

When did continuing or copying thousand year old traditions and ideas become equated with stealing? Is this a stolen language we're speaking? The Germans and French should be upset.English isn't a Romantic language. o_0;;;

I accept it as a matter of convenience. Many people want to get religiously married and civilly married. It's much more convenient, then, if they can get both officiated all at once.

That said, the same convenience should be supplied to the non-religious in some way. So, if this guy is in a position to perform marriages (ie. there are people who want him to), he should be able to get the same legal authority to do so that any religious leader gets.

Which is largely why I support licenses that are (fairly) easy to acquire to be able to perform weddings. If ministers want them, and I imagine most would, they can apply for and get them.

English isn't a Romantic language. o_0;;;
But it borrowed...excuse me, stole plenty of vocabulary from French.

But it borrowed...excuse me, stole plenty of vocabulary from French.

And Latin. English took a lot from Latin.

But it borrowed...excuse me, stole plenty of vocabulary from French.

...PLEASE tell me you're not trying to compare religious domination with ethymology...

And Latin. English took a lot from Latin.

And, to a lesser extent, Greek.

...please tell me you're not trying to compare religious domination with ethymology...

oh yeah! We went there baby!

They have that it is called justice of the peace.

Just one example. No religion required.

Justices of the peace are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Governor’s Council for a seven year term.
Justices of the peace are appointed in the city/town that they reside.

Each city/town is allowed one justice of the peace for every 5000 residents.

A justice of the peace may solemnize a marriage anywhere in Massachusetts.

The Secretary of State’s Office has a record of justices of the peace for every city/town.

Anyone interested in becoming a justice of the peace should check with the Secretary of State’s Office to see if there is a vacancy in their city/town.

If there is a vacancy, applications are available at the Secretary of State’s Office.

Candidates for justice of the peace should be active in community affairs and of good moral character.

The application must be signed by five prominent members of the community.

...PLEASE tell me you're not trying to compare religious domination with ethymology...
It's not religious domination. Religious domination would be forcing Christianity upon a populace, and that did and does happen. The complaint being made is that ideas were stolen and reintroduced as Christian, which is not true. No one denies that people were married before Christianity; the fact that the religion also has marriage says more about the universality of the concept and nothing about the laziness of the faith's founders.

...PLEASE tell me you're not trying to compare religious domination with ethymology...

I don't think that was the intention... no. No te preocupes, Heiko ni-san.;)

They have that it is called justice of the peace.

Just one example. No religion required.

Justices of the peace are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Governor’s Council for a seven year term.
Justices of the peace are appointed in the city/town that they reside.

Each city/town is allowed one justice of the peace for every 5000 residents.

A justice of the peace may solemnize a marriage anywhere in Massachusetts.

The Secretary of State’s Office has a record of justices of the peace for every city/town.

Anyone interested in becoming a justice of the peace should check with the Secretary of State’s Office to see if there is a vacancy in their city/town.

If there is a vacancy, applications are available at the Secretary of State’s Office.

Candidates for justice of the peace should be active in community affairs and of good moral character.

The application must be signed by five prominent members of the community.

Yes, a Justice of the Peace is appointed. There is a limited number.

Any jerk off can be a minister. And their are tons of them.

See the problem?

Actually just poking around. It is even worse than we thought.

As a minister ordained by Rose Ministries you can start your own church, officiate at weddings, or conduct any religious ceremony. Whether for a single ceremony or as a business, ordination grants you the full rights and privileges accorded ministers and priests of any major religion.

With the credentials granted as part of your Rose Ministries ordination, you can legally provide all manner of religious services, and form a church, as a full or part-time business. You can qualify for tax-free status, and even accept money for your services

It doesn't even say you have to believe in God or anyone...

Choose your own title: Minister, Reverend, Pastor, Cleric... you decide.

I think I will go with cleric has a nice ring to it

Apparently just move to NYC nobody cares out here. This website is hilarious.

wrong on so many counts.
a club has no legal status when it comes to things like taxes and what not. A chuch does.

Actually, this is not necessarily true. Many clubs do have legal status regarding taxes, although they also often fall under the legal classification in which they do not have to pay them.

and the First Amendment is that the Government shall not favor one religion over the others. are you now arguing that Athiesm is a religion?

The 1st Amendment is that the government shall not make a law establishing religion. If religion is preferred over non-religion, that pretty clearly establishes religion itself in society.

then go ahead and form your church. you can even (as an athiest) form a church to chess or D&D. go ahead and truely see how 'simple' it is.

Ever hear of the Church of the Subgenius? If not, look it up. It's legally recognized and its "reverends" can perform legally recognized marriages.

Choose your own title: Minister, Reverend, Pastor, Cleric... you decide.

I think I will go with cleric has a nice ring to it

Plus, you can turn undead. Very useful ability at lower levels.

Kansas has even less laws. Must be something about Nevada, likely all the chapels.

Check this out:

The two parties themselves, by mutual declarations that they take each other as husband and wife, in accordance with the customs, rules and regulations of any religious society, denomination or sect to which either of the parties belong, may be married without an authorized officiating person

Kansas has even less laws. Must be something about Nevada, likely all the chapels.

Check this out:

The two parties themselves, by mutual declarations that they take each other as husband and wife, in accordance with the customs, rules and regulations of any religious society, denomination or sect to which either of the parties belong, may be married without an authorized officiating person

I don't like it. It's discriminatory.

Don't try it in Michigan either they have even more statutes than Nevada.

It seems to me to be about money and who gets it.

This is from the website:

Through the expansion of our current and future membership we will share the beliefs of many forms of enlightenment. We invite not just Christians, but the Jewish, Islamic Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Catholics, Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, Wiccans, Pagans, Bahai, and all others to join us in our individual search for enlightenment.

OK, here’s the idea. The Left Behind series is about what happens after the Rapture, right, when all the righteous get taken up? And everyone who sticks around gets to have nifty adventures? Well, check this out. In my series, 10 volumes outlined already, all the righteous get taken up, and in their absence the rest of us enact fair tax laws, pass constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and craft a sane, non-apocalyptic Middle East policy. Plus we get, like, all their cars and stuff. I call it the Left Alone series.


Hehe... I laughed so much.

What gives this atheist the right to marry anyone else?

This is the wrong question.

The right question would be, "What gives a religious leader any more right to perform marriages than this atheist?"

OK, here’s the idea. The Left Behind series is about what happens after the Rapture, right, when all the righteous get taken up? And everyone who sticks around gets to have nifty adventures? Well, check this out. In my series, 10 volumes outlined already, all the righteous get taken up, and in their absence the rest of us enact fair tax laws, pass constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and craft a sane, non-apocalyptic Middle East policy. Plus we get, like, all their cars and stuff. I call it the Left Alone series.


Hehe... I laughed so much.

I wrote something similar early this year in a Daily Kos essay called "Towards a Christ-Based Foreign Policy." (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/30/152727/413/51/446406)

Finally, we must make all foreign policy decisions in view of the coming Apocalypse. A quarter of Americans believed that Jesus would return in 2007. Unless He is still using the Julian Calendar, this now appears highly unlikely. Five to ten years may be a more reasonable time frame. In truth, we cannot accurately forecast the Second Coming, so we must be fully prepared for its effects on American strategic and economic interests.

In the most extreme scenario, we could lose 85 percent of our population to the Rapture alone. The nation’s economy would be crippled. This assumes that Jesus would take anyone claiming to be Christian. On the other hand, Jesus might only Rapture truly hardcore Christians. In this case, we would lose about 60 million people, mostly from the South and Midwest. Viewership of NASCAR and professional wrestling would plummet.

OK, here’s the idea. The Left Behind series is about what happens after the Rapture, right, when all the righteous get taken up? And everyone who sticks around gets to have nifty adventures? Well, check this out. In my series, 10 volumes outlined already, all the righteous get taken up, and in their absence the rest of us enact fair tax laws, pass constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and craft a sane, non-apocalyptic Middle East policy. Plus we get, like, all their cars and stuff. I call it the Left Alone series.


Hehe... I laughed so much.

I'd read it.

This is the wrong question.

The right question would be, "What gives a religious leader any more right to perform marriages than this atheist?"

Indeed. I asked this a while back, but didn't really get a good answer.

The religion itself does. Excluding the the stuff we have seen online. The point was the being "ordained" part of it. Means you are qualified to speak for the church or at least your church.

Just being "married" and by that I mean going through the ceremony in the church is not enough there are civil documents you must fill out as well. Licenses you must apply for etc. It is more about the state wanting to get their cut.

When you talk about Catholic it is more of a "responsibility" than civil proceedings. You must be a member of that church for 6 months, go to classes, you must agree to raise your children as Catholics. You are not permitted to divorce.

As matter of law it appears that no two states are exactly the same each have different requirements.

Just being "married" and by that I mean going through the ceremony in the church
That's being "wedded".
there are civil documents you must fill out as well.
THAT is being "married".

Becomes even more complicated when your cross international boundaries. Libya it is legal to marry up to 4 wives with the consent of the first. Now what happens when said person moves the the USA?

I think the founding fathers were right to stay out of it.

Did you ever notice that everything they didn't want to touch with a 10ft pole the left to the states to decide?

OK, here’s the idea. The Left Behind series is about what happens after the Rapture, right, when all the righteous get taken up? And everyone who sticks around gets to have nifty adventures? Well, check this out. In my series, 10 volumes outlined already, all the righteous get taken up, and in their absence the rest of us enact fair tax laws, pass constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and craft a sane, non-apocalyptic Middle East policy. Plus we get, like, all their cars and stuff. I call it the Left Alone series.


Hehe... I laughed so much.

Its my fantasy!

Did you ever notice that everything they didn't want to touch with a 10ft pole the left to the states to decide?

Yes. On a slightly unrelated topic, I suggest that you put several sentences in one post. It makes it easier to read what you write.

The religion itself does. Excluding the the stuff we have seen online. The point was the being "ordained" part of it. Means you are qualified to speak for the church or at least your church.

This is irrelevant to whether or not you are qualified to speak for the government.

Just being "married" and by that I mean going through the ceremony in the church is not enough there are civil documents you must fill out as well. Licenses you must apply for etc. It is more about the state wanting to get their cut.

If you want the state to recognize your marriage, doesn't it make sense that you have to actually fill out civil documents?

The rapture proceeds the Apocalypse, careful what you wish for.

But it borrowed...excuse me, stole plenty of vocabulary from French.

No, French imposed parts of its vocabulary on English during the period where France ruled England.

The rapture proceeds the Apocalypse, careful what you wish for.

The Apocalypse? You mean the thing where 144,000 virgin Jewish men go to heaven, the Christians all die horribly, and everyone else parties for one thousand years? Or are you referring to something invented by people who have never actually read Revelation?

No, French imposed parts of its vocabulary on English during the period where France ruled England.
The actual method doesn't matter. The point is, there were words and phrases that the English did not think of independently, and then had the gall to include in English dictionaries and the like.

This is irrelevant to whether or not you are qualified to speak for the government.



If you want the state to recognize your marriage, doesn't it make sense that you have to actually fill out civil documents?

The question was what gives the minister the right to marry others. We have already pointed out that it is not required. Without the licenses no one is permitted to marry.

So really we are saying who can perform a "wedding". The answer is the church grants authority to "ordained" minsters of their church to perform weddings.

If you do not believe in God you have the choice of the Justice of The Peace or a Judge, or notory or a member of the bar in Maine.

Otherwise you are currently unqualified to perform weddings. It wasn't the fact that he was "religious" per say it was more that he had authority. If that were the case anyone who was let's say catholic could marry people which is not the case.

By the way I feel it makes it much longer when you do it in one post.

The actual method doesn't matter. The point is, there were words and phrases that the English did not think of independently, and then had the gall to include in English dictionaries and the like.

The method does matter. It's the difference between theft and a gift.

The question was what gives the minister the right to marry others. We have already pointed out that it is not required. Without the licenses no one is permitted to marry.

No one is permitted to legally marry without a license.

So really we are saying who can perform a "wedding". The answer is the church grants authority to "ordained" minsters of their church to perform weddings.

...which is completely irrelevant to whether or not that ceremony counts as a legal wedding. It is possible for a church-ordained minister to preside over a religious wedding that the state will not recognize. And the state often recognizes marriages that specific churches do not.

The church does not, under any circumstances, grant legal authority.

The Apocalypse? You mean the thing where 144,000 virgin Jewish men go to heaven, the Christians all die horribly, and everyone else parties for one thousand years? Or are you referring to something invented by people who have never actually read Revelation?

I have read it cover to cover. Yep that is the one. Actually some Christian go with the Rapture. The rest have to deal with Tribulation. Bad stuff I ahve posted before on it.

If you pass that, plus the Anti-Christ and his minions, then you get to judgment. At that point you better have your passport stamped.

I have read it cover to cover. Yep that is the one. Actually some Christian go with the Rapture. The rest have to deal with Tribulation. Bad stuff I ahve posted before on it.

If you pass that, plus the Anti-Christ and his minions, then you get to judgment. At that point you better have your passport stamped.

You clearly haven't read Revelation if you think any Christians are going to Heaven. It's 144,000 virgin Jewish men, and that's it.

No one is permitted to legally marry without a license.



...which is completely irrelevant to whether or not that ceremony counts as a legal wedding. It is possible for a church-ordained minister to preside over a religious wedding that the state will not recognize. And the state often recognizes marriages that specific churches do not.

The church does not, under any circumstances, grant legal authority.

You are absolutely correct! When you get married in the church you are asking God to come into your life and bless your marriage it in no way is solely legally binding.

I have to catch a train (upstate New York) it has been great speaking with you all.

144,000 Jews, so many from each tribe, it didn't mention Christians.

other than having some sort of position of leadership reconized by some form of Government (Mayor, Govenor, Justice of the Peace, Captain, Judge) who else can get a licence to perform a wedding without it having some sort of Religious connotation?

Notary Publics in Maine, South Carolina, Florida, and the West Feliciana Parish of Louisiana.

Well, there's a huge number of legal rights that go along with marriage that would be very expensive and difficult to deal with using ordinary contract law. Marriage is, legally, a premade "package deal' contract, so to speak, for a legal arrangement that people often desire.

Just ask any gay couple in the vast majority of the US.

I'd like to go back to this general point, actually:

This is the entire problem. We give religious leaders special legal privilege in order to favor the religious above the nonreligious, and people accept it, because they don't care about nonreligious people, and also because that's the way that it is already. Defenders of discrimination, in order to preserve their system, point to the system as it is as its own defense.

"It's not discrimination, because it's not only atheists who can't officiate over weddings, religious lay people can't either," to use an example from this thread, points to the current system in an attempt to rebut criticism of the system. The thing is, yes, I know that, under the current system, the only people who are not state officials that are capable of presiding over a marriage are able to do so because of their status as religious leaders; indeed, that's the problem.

If religious leaders should be able to preside over (legally valid) weddings, so should the leaders of other clubs. The leader of my local SCA group, or of the chess club, maybe even my D&D group's DM!

Perhaps your state is like Washington. My mother is an ordained minister of her own "church", which she did for the sole purpose of officiating at weddings. She's not a religious leader, she was ordained via an online source. She's legally married a dozen or more couples in her own spiritual way that people seem to like. So perhaps this is mountain-of-molehill a bit?

they have to be a leader of a reconized church. again, I as a religous person cannot perform a legally binding wedding cerimony.

No. Mom's not religious. At least not any named/organized religion that involves more than her.

and only a religous leader of a church can perform a wedding cerimony.

No again, see above and my previous post.

no, a Religious person has to form a church and lead that church. (and it must be a legally reconized church.)

No, it really doesn't. But keep saying it does. It's amusing.

Seriously, though, perhaps that's the case in your state. Each state has its own rules (or didn't the froofraw over Calimormia's Prop 8 cement that?).

You come so close to the point, and then you miss it. I will set aside, for now, the inherent discrimination in having legally recognized and non legally recognized churches. But even giving churches such special favoritism over nonreligious organizations (such as the SCA, or the chess club, or my D&D group) is discriminatory; it prefers religion to nonreligion, and organized religion to religion that is not organized. That is discriminatory and a violation of the 1st Amendment.


Yes, so the law says that religious people do not have the same legal requirements to perform a marriage that nonreligious people have. The nonreligious have slightly stricter requirements. Especially in the case in question, where you can form a church with a congregation of 2 and that's enough to get the license. So, effectively, yes, any religious person can perform marriages, if they want to. Whereas nonreligious people only can if they pretend to be religious.



Getting back to this now, I don't understand how you can't see this is inherently discriminatory. Granting special legal privileges to some churches but not others is explicit approval of some churches over others. The very concept of recognized and non recognized churches is inherently discriminatory.

Hypothetical situation:
What if only, say, Hindu leaders could perform marriages? That wouldn't be discriminatory against Christians, according to your logic, because only Hindu leaders get that legal ability, not all Hindus!

Oh wait, that's different?
Oh right, because it's not those damned atheists being discriminated against, so it's not okay anymore.

Man, some people just go LOOKING for something to piss themselves off with. It isn't discrimination because it's not universal. Go to a state that allows you to become ordained without needing a congregation. Problem solved. It's been determined, for better or worse, that the several states are the authority on marriage licensure and officiants, not the federal government. So short of a Constitutional amendment, you're just complaining to have something to comlpain about. How is that any better than the faux-persecution of Christians that's rearing up every month or so? Get over it.

Man, some people just go LOOKING for something to piss themselves off with. It isn't discrimination because it's not universal. Go to a state that allows you to become ordained without needing a congregation. Problem solved. It's been determined, for better or worse, that the several states are the authority on marriage licensure and officiants, not the federal government. So short of a Constitutional amendment, you're just complaining to have something to comlpain about. How is that any better than the faux-persecution of Christians that's rearing up every month or so? Get over it.

Yes, if a state's laws are discriminatory, then the proper solution is "go somewhere else." Not "get the law changed."

Granted, there are far bigger problems out there, but that doesn't make this just.

In most cases, I find atheists who whine about discrimination are just trying to mask their frustrated bigotry.

But, as a non-denominational religious person, I actually see an issue here. Why do you have to be part of a religious or non-religious group to conduct weddings? Are weddings that sacred in Las Vegas? If you want to conduct marriage ceremonies, which are legal contracts in the eyes of the government, it shouldn't matter whether or not you are religious.

That being said, I wouldn't call this discriminations against atheists. It's more discrimination against the non-affiliated. Being part of groups, like the Humanist one mentioned in the article, still counts. So some atheists at least obviously have the right to conduct the ceremonies. But those who aren't affiliated, whatever their religious beliefs are shut out.

I'm pretty sure spending all of five minutes online does not qualify you to not be a layperson. (http://www.themonastery.org/)

Thank you, thank you, THANK you. This was exactly my point. Get to it, Pirated Corsairs, and quitcher bitchin' while you're at it. "Discrimination", feh.

The sanctity of marriage I am sure they will use against it. The fact is it is a religious institution more than civil one. If you wanted to you could open any old partnership agreement with the two people and get essentially the same rights. A piece of paper and a ring is all that is needed.

If you want it "authorize" then you have to go to an "authority". What make a notary any different from anyone else. I will tell you about 25$ and the stamp.

Ignorance fail.

You have to have a bond of ten to fifty to thousand dollars to insure you against lawsuits should you notarize something you weren't legally supposed to notarize. To avoid that, some states require notary training. Your state may be lax on their requirements, but some aren't.

English isn't a Romantic language. o_0;;;

It has acquired many words from all languages, but mostly Romantic ones. The syntax and construction is a hybrid of that of Romance and Germanic languages.

And Latin. English took a lot from Latin.

Thank you, William the Conqueror in 1066.

The actual method doesn't matter. The point is, there were words and phrases that the English did not think of independently, and then had the gall to include in English dictionaries and the like.

What the fuck (a concept best expressed in English, not French) are you on about? The concepts were in English, but were better expressed, or more accurately, the Norman conquerors felt they were better expressed, by French, through which Latin has informed the largest part of modern English vocabulary.

Look at food:

Old English: cow. Norman French: boeuf. What is most common now? Beef. Looks a hell of a lot more Latin-through-French than it does Old English. Pig/hog/boar meat became ham via jambon (French), or pork from French porc, from Latin porcus.

The method does matter. It's the difference between theft and a gift.

Or conquest and class division.

It seems to me to be about money and who gets it.

ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - ding!

Man, some people just go LOOKING for something to piss themselves off with. It isn't discrimination because it's not universal. Go to a state that allows you to become ordained without needing a congregation. Problem solved. It's been determined, for better or worse, that the several states are the authority on marriage licensure and officiants, not the federal government. So short of a Constitutional amendment, you're just complaining to have something to comlpain about. How is that any better than the faux-persecution of Christians that's rearing up every month or so? Get over it.

Similarly, gay marriage is legal in some states, so it shouldn't matter that it's illegal in others. After all, they can just 'get over it' and 'go to a state that' permits gay marriage.

Or not. No-one should need to change states in order to be able to get married by an officiator of their choice, just like no-one should need to change states in order to get married full stop. Discrimination is still discrimination, and is still wrong.

Yes, if a state's laws are discriminatory, then the proper solution is "go somewhere else." Not "get the law changed."

Granted, there are far bigger problems out there, but that doesn't make this just.

This isn't even a problem as I and a few others have already pointed out to you. You claiming it is doesn't make it one. Go online for your ordination, show it to the clerk, problem solved. The proper way to get the law changed isn't to scream about false discrimination, anyway. You need a far more rational and emotionless argument.

Similarly, gay marriage is legal in some states, so it shouldn't matter that it's illegal in others. After all, they can just 'get over it' and 'go to a state that' permits gay marriage.

Or not. No-one should need to change states in order to be able to get married by an officiator of their choice, just like no-one should need to change states in order to get married full stop. Discrimination is still discrimination, and is still wrong.

Except that nobody has shown that it is, in fact, discrimination. What, five minutes online is too much to ask for anyone, let alone an atheist, to sit through in order to become "ordained"? Give me a break.

Also? Nice attempt to link ordination with gay marriage. They're not the same issue.

Thank you, thank you, THANK you. This was exactly my point. Get to it, Pirated Corsairs, and quitcher bitchin' while you're at it. "Discrimination", feh.



But it shouldn't be necessary to become a minister, even if it's a sham just for the purposes of marriage, to officiate over marriages. As I have said multiple times, it's not a huge deal, which is why I wouldn't start a "Americans for Atheist-Presided Weddings" PAC, but, on an intellectual level, I will argue that there should not be legal endorsement of religion above nonreligion.

Except that nobody has shown that it is, in fact, discrimination. What, five minutes online is too much to ask for anyone, let alone an atheist, to sit through in order to become "ordained"? Give me a break....A minister of Atheism? Isn't that an oxymoron, or something along the lines of it?

Except that nobody has shown that it is, in fact, discrimination. What, five minutes online is too much to ask for anyone, let alone an atheist, to sit through in order to become "ordained"? Give me a break.

"Ordained" in, I presume, a 'religious' organisation of some sort? In that case, they are being forced to unnecessarily compromise upon their personal beliefs, and it should still be changed.*

This is not a particularly major issue, that's definitely true, but I feel the principle is still the same. Assuming I am correctly informed, and I am certain any gaps will be corrected, then the government is still not giving out licenses to perform marriages to those who aren't willing to pay at least lip service to religion. This is very minor, but it is still wrong for a government body to be doing.

*Yes, I haven't read the link. I'm posting in gaps while doing real work, and don't have time.

This isn't even a problem as I and a few others have already pointed out to you. You claiming it is doesn't make it one. Go online for your ordination, show it to the clerk, problem solved. The proper way to get the law changed isn't to scream about false discrimination, anyway. You need a far more rational and emotionless argument.

Getting ordained at least nominally implies religion-- sure, it's not a huge deal practically, but that does not mean that it should, ideally, be necessary. Yeah, if I wanted to, I would probably get a sham ordination to marry people, because it wouldn't be a huge deal. But that doesn't mean that, on an ideological level, I think it should be necessary.

Its an old "hold over" law. I bet the legislature changes it w/o too much prodding. I sure wouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist over it.

But it shouldn't be necessary to become a minister, even if it's a sham just for the purposes of marriage, to officiate over marriages. As I have said multiple times, it's not a huge deal, which is why I wouldn't start a "Americans for Atheist-Presided Weddings" PAC, but, on an intellectual level, I will argue that there should not be legal endorsement of religion above nonreligion.

It isn't a sham. It's an ordination. You needn't refute your old beliefs or absence thereof. It's a procedure similar to licensure for people who want to marry other people. My mother did it because a very good friend's daughter wanted my mother to marry her to her (now) husband. It wasn't and undue burden, no more than getting a license to fish or hunt.

...A minister of Atheism? Isn't that an oxymoron, or something along the lines of it?

*sigh* And I suppose the Prime Minister of any nation is also automatically a religious office? Come on.

"Ordained" in, I presume, a 'religious' organisation of some sort? In that case, they are being forced to unnecessarily compromise upon their personal beliefs, and it should still be changed.*

Except that they're not.

This is not a particularly major issue, that's definitely true, but I feel the principle is still the same. Assuming I am correctly informed, and I am certain any gaps will be corrected, then the government is still not giving out licenses to perform marriages to those who aren't willing to pay at least lip service to religion. This is very minor, but it is still wrong for a government body to be doing.

Not even lip service. All you need is the certificate of ordination, regardless of its source. If it was five minutes and $20 online, how is that a hardship?

*Yes, I haven't read the link. I'm posting in gaps while doing real work, and don't have time.

Then finish your work, slacker! :p

Getting ordained at least nominally implies religion-- sure, it's not a huge deal practically, but that does not mean that it should, ideally, be necessary. Yeah, if I wanted to, I would probably get a sham ordination to marry people, because it wouldn't be a huge deal. But that doesn't mean that, on an ideological level, I think it should be necessary.

No, no it doesn't. Or at least it doesn't have to.

Are you suggesting that there be no procedure at all, not even sham procedures? How will The State benefit from THAT?

I think we got us a reg'lr ol' COMMIE here, fellers!

Okay, okay, seriously -- what kind of remedy do you propose? I'd be in favor of amending the law to make anyone who pays the ordination fee able to legally wed a couple, provided that, like other licenses, they are made aware of and subject to assessment on their knowledge of the relevant laws.

Personally, I don't give a shit. I just get sick of the discrimination card being played at every opportunity.

Essentially, it's a matter of words. "Ordained Minister" is, at it's core, a religious title. Even if you don't have to renounce your beliefs to get it, it is, at least in theory, a religious title. Ideally, it would be re-termed something like "licensed marriage official" or something to that effect.

Essentially, it's a matter of words. "Ordained Minister" is, at it's core, a religious title. Even if you don't have to renounce your beliefs to get it, it is, at least in theory, a religious title. Ideally, it would be re-termed something like "licensed marriage official" or something to that effect.

Semantics.

Thank you, thank you, THANK you. This was exactly my point. Get to it, Pirated Corsairs, and quitcher bitchin' while you're at it. "Discrimination", feh.

No, it wasn't your point. Your point was that the discrimination didn't exist. Mine was that it did, what with atheists having to become justices of the peace while the religious just have to fill out a form.

What the fuck (a concept best expressed in English, not French) are you on about? The concepts were in English, but were better expressed, or more accurately, the Norman conquerors felt they were better expressed, by French, through which Latin has informed the largest part of modern English vocabulary.

Eh, it was a weak attempt at a joke that didn't improve with age. Someone brought up the old line about how Christianity stole a bunch of ideas from other places and repackaged them. I just took issue with using the word "steal" with ideas, customs, or languages, which was my English/French example. The original point has long since been lost, I fear.

The Apocalypse? You mean the thing where 144,000 virgin Jewish men go to heaven, the Christians all die horribly, and everyone else parties for one thousand years? Or are you referring to something invented by people who have never actually read Revelation?

shit, sign me up for some apocalypse:)

I get a very strong feeling that no one bothered to read the bloody article.

One, Las Vegas is not discriminating against atheists. The decision was made by Clark County, not Las Vegas and no matter how big Vegas has gotten, it does not equal Clark County.

Two, Clark County's decision was due to the laws of the State of Nevada, which, if you bothered to read the bloody article, were written that way to keep everybody and their brother from coming in and performing weddings as their main point of business, ya know, given that a pastor is supposed to be ministering to his or her flock (Not that this law has worked that way, but it wasn't written to annoy atheists). Also, it should be noted that in Nevada, any Justice of the Peace, Judge, or Supreme Court Justice as well as any country clerk or his/her appointed deputy (In counties with populations over 400,000, so pretty much Clark, possibly Washoe) can perform them, so it's hardly the case where there are no paths for anyone without a congregation to take if they wish to perform marriages.

Three, I wish the group luck, but given the rather large problems facing Nevada right now and the sort time the legislature will have to fix it, I highly doubt that the folks in Carson will take this up. They have much to work on.

Eh, it was a weak attempt at a joke that didn't improve with age. Someone brought up the old line about how Christianity stole a bunch of ideas from other places and repackaged them. I just took issue with using the word "steal" with ideas, customs, or languages, which was my English/French example.

Which would have been a valid counterpoint, if only a language gradually evolving from another one and deliberately copying large chunks of other peoples work and ideas without crediting were the same thing.

Maybe you prefer the term "plagiarism" then ?

No, it wasn't your point. Your point was that the discrimination didn't exist. Mine was that it did, what with atheists having to become justices of the peace while the religious just have to fill out a form.

*facepalm*

They don't have to become Justices of the Peace. An online officiation certificate (for those who bristle at the term "ordination") takes about as much to fill out as the "form" the "religious" have to "fill out".

This isn't even a problem as I and a few others have already pointed out to you. You claiming it is doesn't make it one. Go online for your ordination, show it to the clerk, problem solved. The proper way to get the law changed isn't to scream about false discrimination, anyway. You need a far more rational and emotionless argument.

The clear solution to a government denying the right to officiate over weddings to atheists is for atheists to join an online congregation.

Just like black people should invest in some good make up and maybe some plastic surgery, and women should get sex changes if they want to get paid as much as men. Or a fake moustache at least.

The clear solution to a government denying the right to officiate over weddings to atheists is for atheists to join an online congregation.

Just like black people should invest in some good make up and maybe some plastic surgery, and women should get sex changes if they want to get paid as much as men. Or a fake moustache at least.
Or they could *gasp* become a justice of the peace! Or run for county clerk, or for the Nevada Supreme Court, just like every other person who is not ordained and is in good standing with a congregation.

Or they could *gasp* become a justice of the peace! Or run for county clerk, or for the Nevada Supreme Court, just like every other person who is not ordained and is in good standing with a congregation.

Ah, I get it. Things are just a lot more difficult for honest atheists, or honest theists not affiliated with any congregation. That's not discrimination at all. Nope, nobody being treated in a less favourable manner because of their religious beliefs, not a one.

Ah, I get it. Things are just a lot more difficult for honest atheists, or honest theists not affiliated with any congregation. That's not discrimination at all. Nope, nobody being treated in a less favourable manner because of their religious beliefs, not a one.

Huh? What are you on about?

How easy is it for ohh I donno lets say a Christian who is not a minister to get a licence to perform a marriage ceremony in Las Vagas?

Ah, I get it. Things are just a lot more difficult for honest atheists, or honest theists not affiliated with any congregation. That's not discrimination at all. Nope, nobody being treated in a less favourable manner because of their religious beliefs, not a one.
Which would make sense if all I had to do to marry someone in Nevada was just walk down and say I'm a theist, so let me marry folks!

Sorry, it don't work that way. You have to be A. Ordained in a church either incorporated or recognized in Nevada and B. have a congregation.

This isn't discrimination any more than saying that since YOU don't have a teacher license, YOU are not allowed to teach!

Which would make sense if all I had to do to marry someone in Nevada was just walk down and say I'm a theist, so let me marry folks!

Sorry, it don't work that way. You have to be A. Ordained in a church either incorporated or recognized in Nevada and B. have a congregation.

This isn't discrimination any more than saying that since YOU don't have a teacher license, YOU are not allowed to teach!

The article only mentions the 2nd condition.

And of course my point still stands. Theists affiliated with a congregation have to do X to officiate at weddings. Everyone else has to do Y, for no reason other than they are not theists affiliated with a congregation, and when doing Y officiating at weddings is just a part of a larger job. A justice of the peace, or county clerk, or Nevada Supreme Court Justice have lots of other duties. Which is why none of them dress as Elvis every day and marry people all day.

If I want to be a teacher I, like everyone else, have to get the proper education and the rest of it. Which, if any, deity I profess belief in, or what religious group I choose to affiliate with have no bearing on it.

*facepalm*

They don't have to become Justices of the Peace. An online officiation certificate (for those who bristle at the term "ordination") takes about as much to fill out as the "form" the "religious" have to "fill out".

No matter what the recipient chooses to call it, it's still actually called ordination, which is still, in theory, a religious office. Thus, getting ordained is, on a very small level, paying some small lip service to religion. Yeah, there are much bigger problems out there. But really, the reason, in this case, that words matter, should be clear. For one, the fact that the basic path to being able to marry people is to become an ordained minister contributes to the popular understanding of marriage as a mostly religious institution rather than a legal one.

Huh? What are you on about?

How easy is it for ohh I donno lets say a Christian who is not a minister to get a licence to perform a marriage ceremony in Las Vagas?

Very easy. Even a "congregation" of 2 is enough. Just call up 2 of your buddies.

Which would make sense if all I had to do to marry someone in Nevada was just walk down and say I'm a theist, so let me marry folks!

Sorry, it don't work that way. You have to be A. Ordained in a church either incorporated or recognized in Nevada and B. have a congregation.

But "congregation" is so loosely defined that it's basically a non-issue. You can have a congregation of 2 and still be ordained. And that's setting aside the inherent discrimination in having "state-recognized" and "non state-recognized" churches.


This isn't discrimination any more than saying that since YOU don't have a teacher license, YOU are not allowed to teach!
Ah, but the law isn't set up so that the only fairly easy way for most people to get a teaching license is to be a religious leader, is it? If it was, that would be discriminatory. And that's what we have here.

Huh? What are you on about?

How easy is it for ohh I donno lets say a Christian who is not a minister to get a licence to perform a marriage ceremony in Las Vagas?

I can only assume it's just as easy as it is for anyone affiliated with some congregation or other to get one.

Very easy. Even a "congregation" of 2 is enough. Just call up 2 of your buddies.


So the answer is an unordained Christian can no more marry a couple than an unordained Atheist.

So where is this discrimination agian?

What sancticty are we talking about ? Surely you realise the the Christians stole marriage, just like they stole the Winter festival and renamed it Chistmas, the spring festival and renamed it easter and so on.

In fact - is there anything you did NOT steal ? Even most Bible stories are copies of earlier work with a few names changed.

"Sanctity" my arse.

This is always funny to hear. Because it is meant to somehow mean that because Christianity also has parts of other religions that it somehow doesn't matter.

Oh and fyi Easter is actually based on the Jewish Passover and not some spring festival by pagans.

So the answer is an unordained Christian can no more marry a couple than an unordained Atheist.

So where is this discrimination agian?

An unordained Christian can still be affiliated with a congregation. If you go to mass at the same church fairly regularly you could be said to be affiliated with that congregation. Someone who isn't religious obviously must make up a congregation and claim to be affiliated with it, or become a Justice of the Peace, or country clerk, or Nevada Supreme Court Justice. To be treated as religious people are, the must pretend to be religious.

So the answer is an unordained Christian can no more marry a couple than an unordained Atheist.

So where is this discrimination agian?

Because ordination is inherently religious, thus only open to theists or atheists who are willing to lie to the government about being atheists.

An unordained Christian can still be affiliated with a congregation. If you go to mass at the same church fairly regularly you could be said to be affiliated with that congregation. Someone who isn't religious obviously must make up a congregation and claim to be affiliated with it, or become a Justice of the Peace, or country clerk, or Nevada Supreme Court Justice. To be treated as religious people are, the must pretend to be religious.

Which has what to do with being able to get a licence to perform a marriage?

I mean it is a reasonable assumption to make that a Christian is part of a congregation. Are you saying that if you are part of a congregation you can get a license to perform marriage without becoming ordained?

Because ordination is inherently religious, thus only open to theists or atheists who are willing to lie to the government about being atheists.

*blink* What? Are you saying that Atheists face discrimination because it is harder for them to be ordained into a religous organisation?

*blink* What? Are you saying that Atheists face discrimination because it is harder for them to be ordained into a religous organisation?

The government is a religious organization now?

*blink* What? Are you saying that Atheists face discrimination because it is harder for them to be ordained into a religous organisation?

And the government gives special privileges to religious organizations that are unavailable to atheists. How the hell is that not discrimination?

Which has what to do with being able to get a licence to perform a marriage?

I mean it is a reasonable assumption to make that a Christian is part of a congregation. Are you saying that if you are part of a congregation you can get a license to perform marriage without becoming ordained?

The articles says that "Clark County rejected [Michael Jacobson's] application [for a marriage license] because he had no ties to a congregation, as state law requires". Is the article wrong, or are we to believe that he's an ordained atheist without a congregation?

The government is a religious organization now?

Also, this. Though it often seems that many US Christians want it to be, we're fighting them back!

The government is a religious organization now?

Dude, stop, I'm already confused enough!

And the government gives special privileges to religious organizations that are unavailable to atheists. How the hell is that not discrimination?

Well that is discriminatory, but why would an Atheist want to be ordianed into any religion?