NationStates Jolt Archive

The government is a religious organization now?

He said ordained not be granted a licence to perform weddings. Really there was so much more potential to go into his post, your form is slipping. Same goes for you too PC that wasn't what he was talking about.

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?

Ahhhhh understanding it all now. Heh that'll teach me not to follow links and stuff huh.

Yeah that is discrimination.

Dude, stop, I'm already confused enough!

It's pretty simple. The law requires that you be affiliated with a congregation to get a marriage license. Only religious people will ever honestly be affiliated with a congregation. Thus the law discriminates against non-religious people. They can only officiate at weddings if they get the right job for the local/state government, which isn't the same as getting a marriage license.

It's pretty simple. The law requires that you be affiliated with a congregation to get a marriage license. Only religious people will ever honestly be affiliated with a congregation. Thus the law discriminates against non-religious people. They can only officiate at weddings if they get the right job for the local/state government, which isn't the same as getting a marriage license.

Or google ULC and get ordained.

Or google ULC and get ordained.

Which would be pretending to be religious.

He said ordained not be granted a licence to perform weddings. Really there was so much more potential to go into his post, your form is slipping. Same goes for you too PC that wasn't what he was talking about.

I'm busy. :p

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

I don't. But I could see myself some day wanting to be legally allowed to officiate at a wedding.

He said ordained not be granted a licence to perform weddings. Really there was so much more potential to go into his post, your form is slipping. Same goes for you too PC that wasn't what he was talking about.

But here, the two are, essentially, one in the same. There are few avenues to such a license without getting ordained. That's my problem, there should be avenues that are just as accessible as ordination so people who are not religious or who are not part of an organized religion can officiate at weddings too.

Or google ULC and get ordained.

But that's still pretending to be a part of a religious organization, which, to some people, is unacceptable. It would make me, at least, a bit uneasy, though I'd do it if, say, some friends wanted me to officiate at their wedding.

But here, the two are, essentially, one in the same. There are few avenues to such a license without getting ordained. That's my problem, there should be avenues that are just as accessible as ordination so people who are not religious or who are not part of an organized religion can officiate at weddings too.

Well no not really because the poster had really no idea what this debate was about. He was saying that there is discrimination in Nevada not from gaining a licence to perform weddings but discrimination that a religious organisation was not allowing an atheist to be ordained in their religion. Now I know what your position is, but the poster was confused on what was being discussed.

Well no not really because the poster had really no idea what this debate was about. He was saying that there is discrimination in Nevada not from gaining a licence to perform weddings but discrimination that a religious organisation was not allowing an atheist to be ordained in their religion. Now I know what your position is, but the poster was confused on what was being discussed.

Which is why you should always read the entire thread before posting. :p

Which is why you should always read the entire thread before posting. :p

And the link in the OP.

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.

So, we're back to the original question. How does being a religious leader make someone automatically more qualified to officiate for a legally binding wedding?

It isn't discrimination because it's not universal. Go to a state that allows you to become ordained without needing a congregation.

Being ordained still requires you to do it through religious channels, even if they are rather superficial.

What this guy is complaining about is the fact that he has to pretend to be a part of a religion to get this authority. The need for a congregation or lack thereof is not the point. (I'm sure he could find two people to sign on to be part of his "congregation" if he wanted to go that route).

It isn't a sham. It's an ordination. You needn't refute your old beliefs or absence thereof.

Only because the organizations offering it have declared themselves unaffiliated with any particular religion. They are still, however, nominally religious organizations and must be, by law, to be able to provide ordination.

It's a procedure similar to licensure for people who want to marry other people.

No, it isn't. It isn't provided by the state, so it isn't similar to licensure. It is an ordination provided by a religious organization, regardless of how loosely tied that organization is to any particular religion.

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?

And the only sources are organizations recognized by the state as official religions.

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

How does the state benefit from $20 paid to a private organization that likely isn't even based in their state?

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.

Sounds good to me. Of course, if there is to be such a fee (and classes) associated, then religious leaders should have to go through that process as well.

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!

Someone apparently missed the fact that he could do it through the humanist organization he is a part of, so long as he did so by claiming that it was through religion (it's already recognized as such).


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

Maybe the two people who want you to marry them?

LOL


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

The Christian can go online to any number of recognized non-denominational churches and get ordained in about 5 minutes.

The atheist can also do so, but has to do so through religion - which he does not believe in.

So where is this discrimination agian?

The part where you have to be affiliated with religion, however loosely, to meet this particular requirement.


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

Really? Where are the bunnies and the egg imagery in the Passover?