Of course, you can get that ability (depending on the state) by signing up for it with no religious specification at all. Or as a ship's captain!
Certainly. I actually have that ability, from having been ordained of all things. My point is that when this individual is acting as both an agent of the church and an agent of the church there is a conflict of interest. The person signing the marriage certificate for a state sponsored marriage should be acting as an agent of the state without influence from other affiliations.
To me this is similar as the issue with Pharmacists refusing to fill day after pill prescriptions due to religious beliefs. If you are a state licensed pharmacist then you adhere to the state requirements first. If you are acting as an agent of the state signing a marriage certificate then you are acting as an agent of the church first.
To my I-like-preferential-voting head, that sounds kind of... awesome. And it would totally bring new meaning to the phrase "You just gained some points with me!"
OMG, this both cracks me up, and makes me cringe at the the thought of having to constantly reconsider being all "top 8" myspace style revising my "who ranks in my 'familypoints' list". Ack!
But in general I am pretty live and let live--if you want to be "married" and it doesn't harm anyone else and y'all can consent, good onya. I'm skeptical of siblings, cause that seems pretty fucked up, but hey, whatev'. I'd be pretty upset if they were having kids though. Likewise, polygamy, though I do start wondering when you've got large numbers, about the setup when it comes to our welfare system and how you're supposed to SUPPORT a family like that...
And the current problem with domestic partnership stuff in addition to the previously mentioned things, is that even when you get something like, say, Washington State just passed, which is an 'all but marriage' bill, there are plenty of FEDERAL things that can only be done marriage-wise. Like tax shit. Or stuff that is great while you're in your own state or wherever, but god forbid you leave your state/city/county/wherever.
Or as a ship's captain!
It's much easier to justify a ship's captain as a temporary agent of the state, since the concept comes from an era when a ship would be at sea for weeks and the captain was the highest authority. That's not a commingling of state and religious authority.
See, I'm of the radical thought that all marriages between same sex, different sex, box turtle and vulcan etc etc should be made into domestic partnerships in the eyes of the government. If folks want some kind of religious or spiritual wedding beyond that, then it is their deal, and it's between them and their church, or synagogue, or spaghetti monster, or whatever....As an atheist it bugs the crap out of me that religion gets into the middle of a legal partnership.
ayup! This!! Of course, I look at the history of marriage, and know, it is a legal contract to pass along things to heirs. Used to unite in peace warring families/towns/kingdoms. Days of the dowry have slipped away in 1st world countries (afaik). And slowly marriage has turned into a thing of love, not property. So, if that's the case, let evolve. If you want division/joining of property, bam, you have civil ceremony. If you want something "in the eyes of god", you have the religious ceremony. If you want to profess your ever love for someone, than throw a party and have at it. If you want to do all 3. Awesome. But now, it's an all or nothing element. And you have people all about the 3rd thing (I love ___, we should get married), and then fast forward, and they are no longer in love, and divorce happens. Maybe it should be a progressive thing. First the love ceremony. Then the optional "in the eyes of god" ceremony. And then the joining of assets ceremony. Of course, the divorce attorney lobby will never let that fly.
At my wedding we (the bride and groom) paid for most things, the groom's parents paid for some things and my Dad picked up the enormous bar tab.
Laga, I say this with love. I've partied with your family. They can drink! (and that was only Christmas!!) I can only imagine how big that tab was!
ION. The deed is done. Ass!Hat ass't is gone. Today was his last day. We had a low key "exit interview". It was a fairly mutual thing of: I don't want him back/he doesn't think coming back is a good idea. Whew. Now starts the summer of going through the old building, cleaning up things, sorting through old equipment, and chucking crap. Then move into the new theater in September!!! First, I need to food shop. Then I'll start that, ok?
Oops. Sorry. I killed the thread.
And the assistant.
(but I don't think you did)
Of course, you can get that ability (depending on the state) by signing up for it with no religious specification at all.
We had a retired economist marry us, as a Vermont Justice of the Peace. I love Vermont. I recommend Vermont elopements for all.
I am not a fan of the theory of having a wedding to recoup the costs of attending others' weddings. I think that is actually kinda crass and epitomizes the commercialization and scorekeeping that people sometimes do. (er, no offense to your friend Toddson, but I feel pretty strongly about it.)
Laga, I say this with love. I've partied with your family. They can drink! (and that was only Christmas!!)
Only Christmas? That's one of the biggest drinking holidays of the year! Mmmmm mimosas.
I sent SLNRLBF back to Vermont today.
I didn't want to and the weather almost got us a chance to stay together another day but although his plane out of here was seriously delayed he got on it and the plane in Atlanta wasn't even there yet so I'm going to assume (since I haven't heard from him yet) that he made the plane and is heading back.
We had a wonderful, if too short, of a time. And I've been stirring around tonight trying to figure out what to do with myself.
We also talked about our future and some plans that although do not include a Vermont elopement, does include me moving to Vermont and us getting married on the beach here in Florida at some point.
