General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

71. And I'm saying if they added an easy-to-get non-religious officiant license

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 09:25 PM

Jan 2015

that would probably be sufficient to not cause a first amendment problem. Say, if the license was available to any adult who pays a small licensing fee. Vaguely like how a state hands out notary licenses.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK-End of civil marriage [View all] blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 OP

Here's a question. If the church becomes the agent of the state, will it have to comply... Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2015 #1

With respect to marriage, it already is. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #42

Depends on what is required to be an officiant. jeff47 Jan 2015 #65

Not sure what you're saying. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #69

And I'm saying if they added an easy-to-get non-religious officiant license jeff47 Jan 2015 #71

That already exists - Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #72

Idiot. silverweb Jan 2015 #2

He knows that - it's the county clerks that he is worried about. Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #37

I understand that. silverweb Jan 2015 #66

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. n/t Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #68

Lots of religions will perform same-sex marriages. Unitarians for one. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #3

Yep pipi_k Jan 2015 #50

The Assemblies of God was founded a century ago and was integrated and had women pastors on day 1. LeftyMom Jan 2015 #4

I wish they would just give it. marym625 Jan 2015 #5

Makes no sense. That is already a reality in my county. Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #6

That is beyond disgusting. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #7

Yup! I could even use my G-d! Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #10

LMFAO! beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #13

It is a great way to make money. Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #15

Sounds like the perfect wedding. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #19

Not boring, really. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #28

You hit the nail on the head davidpdx Jan 2015 #33

You owe me a new keyboard! Jamastiene Jan 2015 #27

Congrats on your marriage, but how is that requirement not a violation of freedom of religion, which merrily Jan 2015 #9

Trust me. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #29

It is a violation. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #45

That's a violation of the first amendment. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #44

Taking that to court, it would have to be found unconstitutional treestar Jan 2015 #59

I thought it was gays, not RW whackos, who were supposed to undermine marriage? merrily Jan 2015 #8

I am not sure, to be honest. It threw us for a loop. Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #11

I got it was meant for my reply to you. It fits both my posts anyway. merrily Jan 2015 #12

What a nice reply! Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #17

Thanks. And I never sugar coat, either. If I say something and there is no sarcasm emote, merrily Jan 2015 #18

If you want hooman kids I'm available for adoption. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #14

You cook and clean? Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #16

No, but I'm cute and loyal. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #20

Negative. That would place churches in charge of part of civil government. silvershadow Jan 2015 #21

Question: Does a civil marriage have the same benefits as a formal marriage? sakabatou Jan 2015 #22

A civil marriage is a formal marriage, in the USA muriel_volestrangler Jan 2015 #23

Yes all legal marriages are equally valid as long as ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #24

Got it. sakabatou Jan 2015 #67

Just more proof that the religious in America have no interest in living in a secular society ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #25

You can finally have your satanist marriage!!! DetlefK Jan 2015 #26

The correct answer quaker bill Jan 2015 #30

And so athiests, agnostics, and those who are spiritual but not aligned to a religion cannot marry? peacebird Jan 2015 #31

We got married in a courthouse Bettie Jan 2015 #36

I was married at the court house too. Adrahil Jan 2015 #46

One of our right wing relatives Bettie Jan 2015 #52

I'd have a hard time resisting too.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #53

Yep. And that's exactly why I cringe whenever anyone says government has no business in marriage. kcr Jan 2015 #38

And HOW quickly would this be declared unconstitutional? jmowreader Jan 2015 #32

Pretty much instantaneously. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #47

Unconstitutional MohRokTah Jan 2015 #34

Paging the Church of Satan... brooklynite Jan 2015 #35

Clearly we need another one of those polls to find out how oppressed religious people feel. Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #39

Here's a copy of the proposed amendment el_bryanto Jan 2015 #40

The author of the law says the reason for it is to 'protect' clerks from 'having to issue' licsences Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #41

I agree. nt el_bryanto Jan 2015 #43

I agree... Clerks are employees of the county/state. Adrahil Jan 2015 #48

actually, refusal to prosecute men who beat their wives because the Bible allows it was the common Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #61

Sadly true. n/t Adrahil Jan 2015 #62

That is actually an interesting twist. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #49

The counter loophole is what is the legal definition of a common law marriage in Oklahoma el_bryanto Jan 2015 #55

Not much, actually - Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #56

Will two men or two women be allowed legally to hold themselves out to the community el_bryanto Jan 2015 #57

I don't recall the status of Oklahoma - Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #60

...to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least... ret5hd Jan 2015 #51

You may be right - there is a section later on dealing with faiths that have no ordained clergy el_bryanto Jan 2015 #54

Gee, the poor clerks treestar Jan 2015 #58

My opinion is, if a clerk feels they are unable to perform the duties of their office, ladyVet Jan 2015 #63

If I were an LGBT person, I'd have left Oklahoma long, long ago. MineralMan Jan 2015 #64

I tried to register a common-law straight marriage in Texas and was refused. Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2015 #70