Alabama legislature moves to dispense with marriage licenses and solemnization

USincognito said:

>> And yet I bet you'd scream bloody murder if Muslims were allowed to have their marriages governed [recognized by the Local, State and Federal Governments] by Sharia law. <<

Click to expand...

It twere me what added the bracketed items.

Ironically enough, these are the same folks who claim to be the most fearful of Sharia Law...yet, here they are moving forward with the idea that "if the majority religion of a region doesn't like something or wants to enforce their personal religious views on everyone else who lives in said region, it's perfectly acceptable to exploit a number of loopholes in order to do so"

With regard to USincognito's hypothetical/gotcha comment about Shari'a law: Muslims already are allowed to have their marriages recognized according to Shari'a law in places in the USA that have Shari'a courts, such as Texas. (NB: in the video at the link, when the Imam mentions providing notary public services, that is to do things like solemnize Islamic marriages, as Islamic marriage does involve the literal signing and notarization of contracts between the husband and wife.) As the video explains, the outrage over "Shari'a taking over America" via things like the Shari'a court/mediation center in Texas is misplaced and misinformed for many reasons (though I obviously disagree with what amounts to a smoothing over of the rough edges of Shari'a by the video presenter, or the association of anti-Shari'a with raving right-winger or whatever; everyone of my Church is against Shari'a because they've had to actually live under it in their Islamic-majority countries of origin, but I've never seen Pat Buchanan at liturgy), but in terms of having Islamic marriages as recognized by Shari'a law in America, yeah, that's already a thing, so it doesn't work as a hypothetical.

TLK Valentine said:

If it compels the bakers and florists to do business with the coloreds, the Jews, the Muslims, and other people that their "conscience" would otherwise forbid... then yes.

Click to expand...

So if it was a Muslim (whose faith and conscience also opposes SSM) who refused to photograph a gay wedding or be sued, you would side with the State over the conscience of an individual?

dzheremi said:

With regard to USincognito's hypothetical/gotcha comment about Shari'a law: Muslims already are allowed to have their marriages recognized according to Shari'a law in places in the USA that have Shari'a courts, such as Texas. (NB: in the video at the link, when the Imam mentions providing notary public services, that is to do things like solemnize Islamic marriages, as Islamic marriage does involve the literal signing and notarization of contracts between the husband and wife.) As the video explains, the outrage over "Shari'a taking over America" via things like the Shari'a court/mediation center in Texas is misplaced and misinformed for many reasons (though I obviously disagree with what amounts to a smoothing over of the rough edges of Shari'a by the video presenter, or the association of anti-Shari'a with raving right-winger or whatever; everyone of my Church is against Shari'a because they've had to actually live under it in their Islamic-majority countries of origin, but I've never seen Pat Buchanan at liturgy), but in terms of having Islamic marriages as recognized by Shari'a law in America, yeah, that's already a thing, so it doesn't work as a hypothetical.

Click to expand...

My point was made in a lter post when I noted "covenant" marriages are peachy keen but Islamic marriages are CREEPING SHARIA (dum dum dummm!).

USincognito said:

My point was made in a lter post when I noted "covenant" marriages are peachy keen but Islamic marriages are CREEPING SHARIA (dum dum dummm!).

Click to expand...

Yeah, well...that's dumb. (dum?)

There are plenty of reasons to not want Shari'a in your country (I sure don't), but Muslims being able to get married Islamically isn't one of them. I'd be more worried about the comparative laxity and repercussions of Islamic divorce, since that has real and immediate consequences for the woman that she may be left without recourse in challenging, should the Shari'a court uphold it -- e.g., if they would allow for triple talaq, which is a form of 'instant divorce' used by Muslims from the Indian subcontinent that essentially bypasses everything involved in getting a legally-recognized divorce in the West, which is already itself ridiculously easy to do. If such a practice were upheld, which I doubt it would be but you never know, that would be an instance of Shari'a supplanting the state and federal laws regarding divorce, which is inherently not okay and absolutely correct to not tolerate -- you can't just say the Arabic word for "Divorce" three times and then bam, you're divorced. That's not how it works in the West. We have a different procedure and a different standard, and in cases like this I don't see how the Islamic way (which is not the only way Muslims get divorced anyway; that way just happens to be particularly popular among Indian Muslims) is at all compatible with even the bare standard of law in the West on this topic.

crossnote said:

So if it was a Muslim (whose faith and conscience also opposes SSM) who refused to photograph a gay wedding or be sued, you would side with the State over the conscience of an individual?

Click to expand...

Yes... would you still side with the individual?

I think it'd be a good thing to have a Muslim visit a Coptic wedding...they'd see that we're not hiding guns or knives or whatever in our churches like some of their lying religious leaders tell them we are... Granted, it wouldn't be a gay wedding, but thank God we live in a country (here in the USA where I am, anyway) that doesn't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry in the first place.

TLK Valentine said:

Yes... would you still side with the individual?

Click to expand...

In the example above, yes, the individual, because the Muslim is still protected by a Judeo-Christian ethic of individual freedom.
On a personal basis, in my case, I would side with the conscience formed by Scripture. In a 'god neutral' or 'God opposed' State that may pose a problem, (as there is no absolute standard of right and wrong), nevertheless integrity does what it believes is right, and does not believe just because the majority says so, that makes it right.

crossnote said:

See post #5 & #7.

I was also talking about bakers etc. as ministers. In any case my comment about solemnizing still stands whether or not it's in a public or private setting.

Click to expand...

Can you explain what advantage there is to the state giving authority to a minister to do anything of a legal nature?

What benefit does a religious service gain by referencing the state?

If the religious and state are kept apart in this regard then the state would not be compelling anything.

tall73 said:

Can you explain what advantage there is to the state giving authority to a minister to do anything of a legal nature?

Click to expand...

From a Scriptural standpoint...none.
John 19:11 (KJV) Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

From the standpoint of the State...control.

tall73 said:

What benefit does a religious service gain by referencing the state?

Click to expand...

I see none. (or I don't understand the question. Do you mean a marriage ceremony or?).

tall73 said:

If the religious and state are kept apart in this regard then the state would not be compelling anything.

Click to expand...

Again not clear about the point.
The State is usually a reflection of it's prevailing religion. If that religion is built on lies (which most religions are), then the State will reflect those lies and superstitions.That would be the logical extension of a Church-State unified.
If the State rejects the will of it's people (religious or not) it will essentially be a dictatorship. That would be a case of separation of Church and State.

crossnote said:

From a Scriptural standpoint...none.
John 19:11 (KJV) Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

From the standpoint of the State...control.

I see none. (or I don't understand the question. Do you mean a marriage ceremony or?).

Click to expand...

Yes, a marriage ceremony. We largely agree then on the above.

Currently in most religious ceremonies in America the minister will use the phrase "now by the power invested in me by the state of ___whichever state___ ..."

This is because the state gives them authority to solemnize a marriage.

My suggestion is that the state should not have ministers have any authority in this regard. The state can authorize the people being married to satisfy all the requirements of the state in regard to marriage.

This way the minister has a service that is only about the one flesh union God intended, and the notion of the state's view of marriage is not referenced at all, as it is not the focus of a religious ceremony.

If the minister is not authorized by the state to marry then the state cannot force him to marry anyone at any time.

crossnote said:

In the example above, yes, the individual, because the Muslim is still protected by a Judeo-Christian ethic of individual freedom.

Click to expand...

Let's remember that... for as long as it lasts

On a personal basis, in my case, I would side with the conscience formed by Scripture.

Click to expand...

Even when, in the above example, the Muslim's conscience was formed by Sharia?

In a 'god neutral' or 'God opposed' State that may pose a problem, (as there is no absolute standard of right and wrong), nevertheless integrity does what it believes is right, and does not believe just because the majority says so, that makes it right.

Click to expand...

And when there's my integrity, your integrity, the Muslim's integrity, the Satanist's integrity, etc... who's "right" then?

TLK Valentine said:

And when there's my integrity, your integrity, the Muslim's integrity, the Satanist's integrity, etc... who's "right" then?

Click to expand...

Of course as a believer, I would say the one that accords with Scripture.

crossnote said:

Of course as a believer, I would say the one that accords with Scripture.

Click to expand...

And you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

But in terms of solving real problems as they arise in the real world...

TLK Valentine said:

And you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

But in terms of solving real problems as they arise in the real world...

Click to expand...

Again, I would say the one that accords with Scripture because it is the Words of the real God, the One who made this 'real' world, that became man, died for our sins and rose the third day from the dead (a resurrection thus far disproven) who has given us hundreds of prophecies hundreds of years before their fulfillment and many more yet to come concerning His return and Judgment of this world.

Go ahead and mock about the unreality of my faith, as I said, God will have the last word.

tall73 said:

Yes, a marriage ceremony. We largely agree then on the above.

Currently in most religious ceremonies in America the minister will use the phrase "now by the power invested in me by the state of ___whichever state___ ..."

Click to expand...

That statement is not required by anything, however. The cleric can say whatever he or she wants.

This is because the state gives them authority to solemnize a marriage.

Click to expand...

No. The state broadly acknowledges the right of an "ordained" cleric to perform the "confirmation of marriage."

This is an important distinction. Because of the First Amendment, the state cannot impose requirements upon any religion as a condition of recognition, at least not beyond being recognized as a religion to some public degree. The religion and the state walk a certain fine line in some respects, such as dealing with the minimum age of marriage and polygamy/polyandry, but the state can't tell a religion who it can and can't ordain as a cleric able to perform marriages. The state can only say that marriages must be performed by clerics ordained by some religion (and by state officials so authorized by the state).

So if Pastor Fred of the Church of What's Happening Now has a service with a handful of steadfast believers every Sunday morning in the dining area of Homeboy Chicken Shack, the state cannot prohibit Pastor Fred from officiating marriages. The State of New York will insist on him applying for a certificate to do so, but that certificate is, by law, a "shall issue" document, not a "may issue" document.

essentialsaltes said:

Ministers performing polygamous marriages, or fraudulent marriages to aid people who want to 'love em and leave em'. There are laws that prevent ministers from officiating a wedding unless there is a valid license, so that polygamous marriages can be avoided and 'seducers' can't escape a fake wedding because there's a paper trail with a valid license.

Click to expand...

And most religions have analogous rules.

Once upon a time, most marriages occurred between people of families that were well known to each other and to their communities, so the cleric had a way of vetting those he married for adherence to those rules. That's pretty difficult for the cleric under many conditions today, so they go along with the service the state provides by licensing the couple in adherence of rules the religion also has.

crossnote said:

Again, I would say the one that accords with Scripture because it is the Words of the real God, the One who made this 'real' world, that became man, died for our sins and rose the third day from the dead (a resurrection thus far disproven)

Click to expand...

"Disproven"?

who has given us hundreds of prophecies hundreds of years before their fulfillment and many more yet to come concerning His return and Judgment of this world.

Go ahead and mock about the unreality of my faith, as I said, God will have the last word.

Click to expand...

Mock? Nah... while I'd normally enjoy the opportunity to correct your theology, it would be a waste of my time, as here in American Politics, everything you've said above is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand with a few simple words:

A Few Simple Words said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...