General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts)

81. it is very simple, and the op is rather silly and dogmatic

Reply to SidDithers (Reply #66)

Thu May 10, 2012, 02:23 PM

May 2012

about what is a non-issue. Not to mention that this is hardly the next step.

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