Calif.: Clergy Can Perform, Deny Any Wedding

[MercuryJones]

government does not belong in the marriage business.

Disagree.

For all of history humans have pair bonded, shared assets and debts, and had those bonds recognized by their communities. It makes perfect sense for govt to have processes by which pairs can easily formally establish those bonds, for purposes of recognition of next of kin, and shared assets/debt.

But outside of providing systems for people to make their own decisions, govt has no proper role.

 

[Kulindahr]

Disagree.

For all of history humans have pair bonded, shared assets and debts, and had those bonds recognized by their communities. It makes perfect sense for govt to have processes by which pairs can easily formally establish those bonds, for purposes of recognition of next of kin, and shared assets/debt.

But outside of providing systems for people to make their own decisions, govt has no proper role.

No, he's right.

For what you describe, the government only needs to be in the registering/recording business: individuals make their personal decisions, and inform the government of that. The government has no business setting rules about who may and may not enter into such mutually-consenting relationships, and that's what I think we mean by "being in the marriage business". So long as the parties involved are capable of consent, the government's only legitimate role is to serve the will of those people.

 

[MercuryJones]

^^

Sounds like we all agree, though our terminology differs.

 

[construct]

It's very "no duh" to many of us, but it's important to have such things in writing.

One of the many issues with the laws we have in this country is that they are vague and subject to interpretation. The Obscenity Laws are one such examples (you can be put to jail for video taping two dicks touching in the wrong county due to this federal law).

While many feel that this law doesn't mean anything, having it in strict writing simply makes an implied law into a real law. This way, other implied clauses from any law (future or past) cannot violate this law.

I don't understand the analogy to obscenity law at all. How does something which might take place in another country have anything to do with what would take place in this country with respect to obscenity law? And how does this have anything to do with the purported requirement that churches perform same sex marriages in California (where, by the way, they're illegal)?

Churches have never been required to perform weddings before. Why would anyone think that would change now? Their ability to make decisions about how they will handle sacraments are protected by the First Amendment, and I don't remember any challenges to it. Do you?

 

[SuperPsyze]

I don't understand the analogy to obscenity law at all. How does something which might take place in another country have anything to do with what would take place in this country with respect to obscenity law? And how does this have anything to do with the purported requirement that churches perform same sex marriages in California (where, by the way, they're illegal)?

Churches have never been required to perform weddings before. Why would anyone think that would change now? Their ability to make decisions about how they will handle sacraments are protected by the First Amendment, and I don't remember any challenges to it. Do you?

Not country, county. The Obscenity Laws of the USA are vague, and anyone can be convicted of violating these laws if the court deems that the person is being obscene by "local community standards". Because of the vagueness of this law, various acts that may be legal in one court may be illegal in another court, citing the same law. Paul Little of Max Hardcore fame is sitting in jail for 4 years because his company mailed a porn flick featuring urination to a small city in Kansas.

My point is that the "no duh" reaction is unwarranted, because an explicit declaration of a clergy's right to wed a couple is important. Vagueness and implied rights can easily be turned around by a court decision. The right is only implied before this. Because this law passed, any future laws that are created can't implicitly violate this right, while there may be legal course otherwise.

It's basically like saying "Burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment, no duh". It may not be obvious to everyone. Having legal precedence makes court decisions much easier, and people can burn flags without feeling like they may be put in jail or fined after a long journey in court.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^

Sounds like we all agree, though our terminology differs.

Yes.

The government should STFU and do what it's told. If Geoffrey and Jaspar come and say they're in a committed interpersonal relationship, the job of the government is to say, "Yes, sir and sir!" and write it down, the same as they would for Jeffrey and Jennifer or Gina and Janine.

Or for Bill, Ted, Alice, Corey, Trina, River, Shannon, and Rashid.

 

[JB3]

How do you define "on the table"?

As being remotely possible. Such a thing as forcing clergy to perform gay marriages was never on the table as a legitimate issue, because it wasn't remotely possible.

 

[SuperPsyze]

As being remotely possible. Such a thing as forcing clergy to perform gay marriages was never on the table as a legitimate issue, because it wasn't remotely possible.

I think the primary concern was that, despite it being impossible to force clergy to perform anything, there were voters out in California who honestly believe that the government can do that.

It's like the people who believe Obama is going to ban recreational fishing. Obama never had such a plan, but there are people who believe that he will, and that affects their votes.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the primary concern was that, despite it being impossible to force clergy to perform anything, there were voters out in California who honestly believe that the government can do that.

It's like the people who believe Obama is going to ban recreational fishing. Obama never had such a plan, but there are people who believe that he will, and that affects their votes.

There's why "in play" is a better term here. Those were ideas in play, that is, they had an effect on how people voted. Spin doctors are good at putting ideas into play; the ideas may have no validity at all, but they change the way some people think.



BTW, it amuses me a little that some religious people want assurance on such issues. It's like the Pharisees of the first centuries -- first before, first after -- who "built a hedge around the law", putting in place regulations which made sure the actual law would never get violated because the regulations had to be followed.

 

[Jack Springer]

This is the top five of the stupidest threads on CEP.

 

[MercuryJones]

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting water is...wet?

I am.

(Now we need justapixel to blame Obama for it's wetness.)