- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The relevant statuit:here, from the cite, is what undermines your presentation:
the state has intruded into religious turf
*full disclosure: my friend is a party to this suit*
while i do not believe that impairs my objectivity, others could insist otherwise
A minister can perform whatever marriage they like, so long as they give up their authority to legally solemnize a marriage. So here again you have to establish a Church's right to act for the state in solemnizing a marriage.§ 51-6. Solemnization without license unlawful.[
No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant. There must be at least two witnesses to the marriage ceremony.
Whenever a man and woman have been lawfully married in accordance with the laws of the state in which the marriage ceremony took place, and said marriage was performed by a magistrate or some other civil official duly authorized to perform such ceremony, and the parties thereafter wish to confirm their marriage vows before an ordained minister or minister authorized by a church, or in a ceremony recognized by any religious denomination, federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe, nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit such confirmation ceremony; provided, however, that such confirmation ceremony shall not be deemed in law to be a marriage ceremony, such confirmation ceremony shall in no way affect the validity or invalidity of the prior marriage ceremony performed by a civil official, no license for such confirmation ceremony shall be issued by a register of deeds, and no record of such confirmation ceremony may be kept by a register of deeds. [FONT=Times New (W1)](1871-2, c. 193, s. 4; Code, s. 1813; Rev., s. 2086; C.S., s. 2498; 1957, c. 1261; 1959, c. 338; 1967, c. 957, ss. 6, 9; 1977, c. 592, s. 2; 2001-62, s. 6.)
GS_51-6[/FONT]
The relevant statuit:
A minister can perform whatever marriage they like, so long as they give up their authority to legally solemnize a marriage. So here again you have to establish a Church's right to act for the state in solemnizing a marriage.
The state should disallow fraudulent marriage ceremonies.
Then the state should also disallow fraudulent Easter ceremonies.
Copy of The Question Behind The Question By: John G. Miller by Ryan McHale on PreziWhy should a minister have to totally give up their rights to legally solemnize legal marriages to be able to sometimes perform a purely religious ceremony?
Ministers don't have that right to begin with....a minister have to totally give up their rights to legally solemnize legal marriages...
What legally binding contract is made from an Easter celebration?Then the state should also disallow fraudulent Easter ceremonies.
Then the state should also disallow fraudulent Easter ceremonies.
wonder how much he would appreciate a state law that said one must receive a state issued license to attend church ... and those with strong conservative views are prohibited from receiving such license
The point is, if the church wants to keep it's tax-exempt status, including tax-free income and tax-free lands, they have to play by the rules. If a church wants to do whatever it wants, that's fine, they can, but they have to start paying taxes.That is the point, these are purely ceremonial and not legal.
Copy of The Question Behind The Question By: John G. Miller by Ryan McHale on Prezi
Ministers don't have that right to begin with.
That's what has to be created, a religious right to legalize a marriage.
What legally binding contract is made from an Easter celebration?
Easter services are not legally recognized in the first place, so the analogy does not hold.
There's no such thing as invalid Church attendance, so the analogy does not hold.
The point is, if the church wants to keep it's tax-exempt status, including tax-free income and tax-free lands, they have to play by the rules. If a church wants to do whatever it wants, that's fine, they can, but they have to start paying taxes.
My mother's church dropped tax-exempt status so that they could officially endorse or oppose political candidates. If this church feels so strongly on SSM, they should likewise drop their tax-exempt status and do as they please.
Contraception is evil, so the analogy does not hold.
I don't personally agree with their SSM ban, imo any relationship which is not otherwise harmful should be allowed, but the state has the right to withdraw support from institutions who engage in undesired behavior of any kind. The state cannot stop you, but they can remove their support.They are not telling people how to vote, they are merely doing a purely religous/non-legal ceremony.
The state has the right to withdraw support from institutions who engage in undesired behavior of any kind. The state cannot stop you, but they can remove their support.
If the church drops it's tax exempt status, which means it would no longer be legally recognized as a church, which means it's clergy would no longer be legally seen as 'ministers', they can do whatever they want.
The church can do as it pleases, but not while being tax-exempt. That's what this is about, doing what it wants while not paying taxes, and they're willing to establish a religious right to legalize marriage in order to keep their money.
And the marriages they want to conduct arent legally recognized either, they are purely religous.
They don't have to agree with the law, they just have to follow it remember? Now you are moving the goal posts. Pathetic.
But marriages in general are.
However, this law doesnt affect legal marriages only. It affects purely religous ones as well.
The state should disallow fraudulent marriage ceremonies.
I didn't say they were.They are not telling people how to vote...
In the eyes of the law, it's the tax exemption status which makes them a church in the first place. Remember, we're talking about the law, not logic, not common sense.Go back to you posting the law, it is illegal for anybody who happens to be authorized to conduct a legal marriage ceremony to conduct a non-legal marriage. The tax exempt status doesnt matter. If that happens to be a minister in his own church, that is violating the 1st Ammendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
^
And here, folks, we have Exhibit A. Someone who calls himself a proud paleocon, who claims he believes that we should have limited government, while supporting big government intrusion into the lives of those he disagrees with. That is not Conservatism, paleo or neo. That is hypocrisy.
It's not moving the goal posts. It's pointing out that the two are fundamentally different in a way which renders the analogy invalid.
Whether YOU think it is evil or not is irrelevent, it would be law. You made the case that since it is law, they have to abide. So if the State makes a law that religious institutions have to hand out condoms, they would have to abide by the law.
YOU don't get to decide what is evil or what to follow, the state would. That is the case you have argued with forcing a religious institiuons to NOT be able to marry SS couplese because it is against the law.
If a person presides over a marriage which is plainly invalid by law, they should be punished. UCC ministers (who aren't priests, BTW) are not above the law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?