General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

76. It does, when the churches start playing the games they do

Thu May 10, 2012, 01:21 PM

May 2012

Why removing the ability from preachers, rabies and others to do that is important. It is also a further separation between church and state.

That does not mean you cannot marry under your church... you can, by all means, but the function is separate.

Nations around the world got this after a lot of blood was spilled... no serious... and it works well.

This is one of those lessons we could and should learn from other places around the world. We really do not have as stringent a separation as we should.

And it only means you get your marriage certificate on oh Thursday and marry in the church on Sunday, if you so chose. If you divorce, the civil divorce is quite separate as well from the religious one... (which thankfully that is quite obvious to most divorcees)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

And the next step should be a complete separation [View all] nadinbrzezinski May 2012 OP

No one can get married in Michigan unless they get a license from the state. notadmblnd May 2012 #1

But your clergy still has the authority to say those famous words nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #5

Nadin I hear what you are saying but I think you would get a bigger argument on this than same jwirr May 2012 #25

Two separate issues nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #34

I know it works that way in many countries and I would work that way here also IF we could ever jwirr May 2012 #46

Agreed it won't be easy. nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #47

agreed... in Germany you marry in front of the state fascisthunter May 2012 #2

uh, guess what? In every state in this country cali May 2012 #6

+1... SidDithers May 2012 #66

it is very simple, and the op is rather silly and dogmatic cali May 2012 #81

Yeah, I know... but not what I meant to say: fascisthunter May 2012 #89

I did not get married in a church some 50 years ago. It has always been legal to marry in front of a jwirr May 2012 #27

I should have been more specific: fascisthunter May 2012 #87

I know of nowhere in the US Dorian Gray May 2012 #54

If it were a separation of church and state Nuclear Unicorn May 2012 #3

Just curious how would the government/state saying you as a church/religious organization can jp11 May 2012 #13

It is largely semantics. annabanana May 2012 #60

Historically, marriage was under the sole jurisdiction The Velveteen Ocelot May 2012 #4

Never gonna happen derby378 May 2012 #7

And that can still happen nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #14

that's not even close to the next step cali May 2012 #8

Sounds right to me. jp11 May 2012 #9

Why? MadHound May 2012 #10

Your civil ceremony could be conducted under a wide open sky nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #12

Well, that's nice and all, MadHound May 2012 #15

Oh we are also a conservative country nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #17

Liberal or conservative, the vast majority of people in this country are indeed religious, MadHound May 2012 #20

I guess Mexicans, who is your closest neighbor to practice this nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #22

And priests, rabbis, imams, and left handed widgets still perform religious ceremonies in the US MadHound May 2012 #28

Go marry in a church, may pole whatever, nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #33

Which is why you are required to sign a marriage license MadHound May 2012 #35

We have the beginnings of it, but not quite there nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #36

"easy peachy" indeed. n/t zappaman May 2012 #37

... Union Scribe May 2012 #49

Why does it matter if you sign the document before or after the ceremony? MadHound May 2012 #38

Off by a few miles, even light years nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #39

Separation of church and state? MadHound May 2012 #42

First tradition, now personal attacks. nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #45

LOL! n/t zappaman May 2012 #48

You have insulted pecwae May 2012 #51

And he has been pure and non insulting, good bye nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #72

oh my word. Nadine, don't you see how insulting you've been to others in this thread? cali May 2012 #52

Classic!... SidDithers May 2012 #70

Can't wait for the H & M thread zappaman May 2012 #80

You've presented the facts and Union Scribe May 2012 #50

"I guess you really have no idea how this works. " zappaman May 2012 #29

you didn't give a reason cali May 2012 #18

+100 n/t zappaman May 2012 #19

'Well beyond what people understand here," -- except you, right? Codeine May 2012 #53

+100 n/t zappaman May 2012 #84

I wanted to get married the same way, but it was pouring that day. badtoworse May 2012 #56

No, the next step should be the Supreme Court upholds & extends *Loving v. Virginia*, and rules that apocalypsehow May 2012 #11

Why shouldn't people be able to get married in a church zappaman May 2012 #16

That is still entirely up to the individual church (or whatever) to decide. . . .n/t annabanana May 2012 #61

So you want some people (actually a lot) to get "married" twice?? madinmaryland May 2012 #21

It happens around the world, outside our borders, regularly nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #24

I don't understand the difference now. Johonny May 2012 #26

Dd not say scrap the religious part nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #30

You should re-read your OP then. zappaman May 2012 #32

(everybody still goes to City Hall too). . .n/t annabanana May 2012 #62

Meh, if religious people want to get married in their sufrommich May 2012 #23

Exactly, but the civil ceremony shoud be completely separate. nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #31

The Civil - thing - does not have to be a "ceremony".. annabanana May 2012 #63

It is a licence, not a cert... at least where I live nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #65

Wait, didn't Obama just come out for states' rights on this issue? nt Skip Intro May 2012 #40

Yes he did, something that seems to be missed in the celebration. Puzzledtraveller May 2012 #59

So peoples marriages wouldn't be legal if they went on annabanana May 2012 #64

Better yet, once you get a license DearAbby May 2012 #41

That is already the case MadHound May 2012 #43

lousy idea. you won't get the majority of people to support it. not even close. dionysus May 2012 #44

Please show us where the federal government was given the power to implement this. badtoworse May 2012 #55

You could and I will make the argument that this is part of the 13 and 14 nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #68

This is not a civil rights issue badtoworse May 2012 #73

Yes it is... nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #74

True, but who marries you doesn't make any difference. badtoworse May 2012 #75

It does, when the churches start playing the games they do nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #76

You should start working on a constitutional amendment... badtoworse May 2012 #77

Civil rights is a pressing issue if you happen to be a minority nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #78

This thread is full of fail. zappaman May 2012 #82

No, the next step HappyMe May 2012 #57

Mark my words, and why this has to be crystal clear nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #67

+1... SidDithers May 2012 #71

Currently, people can get married in courtrooms ecstatic May 2012 #58

Insofa as LGBT rights that is the next step nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #69

please explain clearly for all of us who you deem too stupid to understand cali May 2012 #79

"This also means a complete separation of this civil function from the religious function." Zorra May 2012 #83

I don't think that's necessary. Bake May 2012 #85

Once again, you can have your religious ceremony nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #86

I absolutely agree that this is the best solution to the whole problem. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #88