Alabama legislature moves to dispense with marriage licenses and solemnization

[Pommer]

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.

As a “deist*” I can well understand those who never had faith before or those whom have never seriously questioned their faith, whether “there actually is a God”.

Having a God is important, people invest their intellectual honesty and form their worldview: God “being there” allows them to pin their ideals to Him, He mirrors them, to a degree; they’re supposed to mirror Him as well.

When someone comes to the conclusion that they’ll going to live their life as if no God(s) exist, a lot of stuff needs to be rethought-out. The stuff that God used to hold up for them underpin their worldview, without God there a system of ethics arises; sometimes it’s a poorly thought-out, antisocial system, incomplete and extremely situational but still as valid as a theist’s.

*I actually think “Sun worship” is the most logical “faith”. If one does worship Sol, there are benefits that most other religions are void of:
You can actually see your “god”! [aye, doing it for too long will blind you, but gazing upon the God of the Bible will kill ya]
Overdo it on the worship and he’ll burn you! [that’ll learn ya]!
And, so far as I know, the Sun is the thing that actually gave rise to life on this planet.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

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.

Except Pastor Fred “Rerun” Berry died in 2003.

 

[crossnote]

"Disproven"?

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:

Theology( study of God) affects every aspect of life...including politics. (I don't leave home without Him )

 

[crossnote]

As a “deist*” I can well understand those who never had faith before or those whom have never seriously questioned their faith, whether “there actually is a God”.

Having a God is important, people invest their intellectual honesty and form their worldview: God “being there” allows them to pin their ideals to Him, He mirrors them, to a degree; they’re supposed to mirror Him as well.

When someone comes to the conclusion that they’ll going to live their life as if no God(s) exist, a lot of stuff needs to be rethought-out. The stuff that God used to hold up for them underpin their worldview, without God there a system of ethics arises; sometimes it’s a poorly thought-out, antisocial system, incomplete and extremely situational but still as valid as a theist’s.

*I actually think “Sun worship” is the most logical “faith”. If one does worship Sol, there are benefits that most other religions are void of:
You can actually see your “god”! [aye, doing it for too long will blind you, but gazing upon the God of the Bible will kill ya]
Overdo it on the worship and he’ll burn you! [that’ll learn ya]!
And, so far as I know, the Sun is the thing that actually gave rise to life on this planet.

This is going way off topic. I'll quickly say this. As an ex-agnostic raised under atheism who had been in the New Age (before it was popular), in Eastern religions and the occult...it's one thing to 'know about' god (religions) and another to actually 'know' God through the new birth (Jn 3.3).

 

[tall73]

While I'm generally sympathetic to what you're saying and my comment should be regarded as a big asterisk...

as has already come up, the US has never forced any minister to officiate any marriage. And rather than the state granting authority to ministers, most of the rules are more about ensuring that ministers adhere to relevant laws in the state.

I too am unaware of any attempt to make a minister perform a service. However, I have no idea what could happen in the future, and I see no reason to have the minister involved either way.

And yes the ministers are to follow the laws of the state--but why? Because the state generally allows them to fill that role. That is authority or else anyone could do it (some states I think allow for the two people themselves to marry without, but my point being most states recognize that role for clergy, judges, etc.

Most of the abuses that these rules are meant to avoid run the other way.

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.

I am sure there are such violations, which is another great reason to not have the clergy involved at all. Any state requirement should be between the couple and the state. Then there is no third party to game the system.

 

[tall73]

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

I agree they can say whatever they want. But it is something most people have heard , so I was relating it because it is a description of what is happening.

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.

Recognizing the right to do so blurs lines between the legal definition of marriage and the religious. Why do they provide the right for the clergy to do that? They allow clergy to perform a role that they in many cases do not allow just anyone else to perform. That is giving them authority to carry out that duty on behalf of the state, to meet the state's requirements.

This is where I think they have a problem. Recognizing a right of clergy makes no sense if it is the state who determines the requirements for a valid marriage. At that point what the state requires is of its own definition, though derived from earlier traditions. It is now codified into a civil contract.

To recognize the right of the clergy means the state is recognizing that the clergy member fulfills a role on behalf of the state in this instance. The clergy can solemnize. That is authority delegated to the clergy by the state to carry out a requirement of the state in question.

Now I am fine with the state allowing ministers to conduct any service they want, because to do otherwise would be to interfere with the free exercise thereof clause. But the minister conducting a religious ceremony is just that--a religious ceremony--unless the state also accepts that in fulfillment of its legal requirements. Then it becomes not only a religious ceremony but a part of entering into the civil contract as required by the state.

I think they should leave clergy out of it. Clergy do not need their permission to perform a religious duty. And they should not have any power beyond that of any other person in the entering into of a civil contract.

Let's take New Mexico as an example:

https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/wp-c...co-Chapter-40-Article-1-Marriage-Licenses.pdf


40-1-1. [Marriage is civil contract requiring consent of parties.] Marriage is contemplated by the law as a civil contract, for which the consent of thecontracting parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. History: Laws 1862-1863, p. 64; C.L. 1865, ch. 75, § 2; C.L. 1884, § 978; C.L. 1897, § 1415;Code 1915, § 3425; C.S. 1929, § 87-101; 1941 Comp., § 65-101; 1953 Comp., § 57-1-1.

The state is not recognizing a religious definition of marriage but is defining it as a civil contract. There is no reason a minister would need to be involved.


40-1-2. Marriages solemnized; ordained clergy or civil magistrates may solemnize. A.The civil contract of marriage is entered into when solemnized as provided in Chapter 40,Article 1 NMSA 1978. As used in Chapter 40, Article 1 NMSA 1978, "solemnize" means to join in marriage before witnesses by means of a ceremony. B.A person who is an ordained member of the clergy or who is an authorized representative of a federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo may solemnize the contract of marriage without regard to sect or rites and customs the person may practice. C.Active or retired judges, justices and magistrates of any of the courts established by the constitution of New Mexico, United States constitution, laws of the state or laws of the United States are civil magistrates having authority to solemnize contracts of marriage. Civil magistrates solemnizing contracts of marriage shall charge no fee therefor.

Now is this not spelling out a special role, authority given by the state, to meet the state's requirements, to ministers, Indian Nation representatives, or judges? It is.

And they generally have to sign off on the license as well.

This is not recognizing a right already inherent to religious bodies. This is recognizing a role they allow minsters to play in a civil contract. I am saying ministers should perform the religious ceremony and have nothing to do with the civil contract between the two parties.

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).

But that is my point. Why do ministers have to be involved at all in a civil contract? Why does the state have to involve them? That is the decision of the state to do so, largely based on prior tradition since many were married in churches, so witnesses would be present. There is no inherent need for the minister to be involved in a civil contract. My understanding is that in some countries the marriage is handled by the state and a separate religious ceremony is conducted if desired, and the two have no particular relation. That is what I would like to see, so that the state has no role being played by the church, and therefore no requirements put on the clergy for said role.

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.

Pastor Fred should have no role authorized by the state to help people enter into civil contracts in my view. The state chose to extend that authority to Pastor Fred. They did not need to.

Why should it be incumbent upon Pastor Fred to get involved in the process and obtain a certificate for a civil contract, and sign it, etc? Leave Fred alone. The state should conduct the contract between the two parties.

 

[Pommer]

Recognizing the right to do so blurs lines between the legal definition of marriage and the religious. Why do they provide the right for the clergy to do that? They allow clergy to perform a role that they in many cases do not allow just anyone else to perform. That is giving them authority to carry out that duty on behalf of the state, to meet the state's requirements.

Does a convenience store that sells fishing licenses have a right to refuse a license to a man who is seriously bragging about engaging in the age old “sport” of “dynamite-fishing”?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Theology( study of God) affects every aspect of life...including politics. (I don't leave home without Him )

Which is fine insofar as your personal opinion and conscience goes...

...but out in the world, if your "conscience" tells you that you don't have to sell a product to a black person, a Jewish person, a Muslim person, or a gay person... you're going to have a problem with the law of the land.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But that is my point. Why do ministers have to be involved at all in a civil contract?

Well, they don't have to be. The couple can go to a justice of the peace or other government functionary.

Why does the state have to involve them? That is the decision of the state to do so, largely based on prior tradition since many were married in churches

Yes, certainly. And many people, including many here in the forums, are more invested in the religious tradition and meaning of marriage than the civil laws.

My understanding is that in some countries the marriage is handled by the state and a separate religious ceremony is conducted if desired, and the two have no particular relation. That is what I would like to see, so that the state has no role being played by the church, and therefore no requirements put on the clergy for said role.

Again, I'm broadly sympathetic to religious freedoms, but this is where the potential for abuse worries me. You've brought up the idea that marriage is handled by the state and a religious ceremony is optional. But if the two are entirely disconnected, this brings up the possibility that there could be a religious ceremony with no state recognition.

You can imagine remote communities where 'God's law is more important than man's law' and religious marriage is used as a method of controlling and abusing women. In fact, we don't have to imagine it, because performing plural marriages and worse is part of what Warren Jeffs was charged with: marrying teenage girls to much older men, a 14-year-old-girl to her 19-year-old first cousin against her will.

If there are no rules for Pastor Fred, there is no such thing as an 'illegal religious marriage'.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree they can say whatever they want. But it is something most people have heard , so I was relating it because it is a description of what is happening.

I'll point out that you moved that goalpost, but I'll let it go.

Recognizing the right to do so blurs lines between the legal definition of marriage and the religious. Why do they provide the right for the clergy to do that? They allow clergy to perform a role that they in many cases do not allow just anyone else to perform. That is giving them authority to carry out that duty on behalf of the state, to meet the state's requirements.

This is where I think they have a problem. Recognizing a right of clergy makes no sense if it is the state who determines the requirements for a valid marriage. At that point what the state requires is of its own definition, though derived from earlier traditions. It is now codified into a civil contract.

To recognize the right of the clergy means the state is recognizing that the clergy member fulfills a role on behalf of the state in this instance. The clergy can solemnize. That is authority delegated to the clergy by the state to carry out a requirement of the state in question.

Now I am fine with the state allowing ministers to conduct any service they want, because to do otherwise would be to interfere with the free exercise thereof clause. But the minister conducting a religious ceremony is just that--a religious ceremony--unless the state also accepts that in fulfillment of its legal requirements. Then it becomes not only a religious ceremony but a part of entering into the civil contract as required by the state.

I think they should leave clergy out of it. Clergy do not need their permission to perform a religious duty. And they should not have any power beyond that of any other person in the entering into of a civil contract.

I've said before that I don't believe the state should be involved at all in "marriage."

States should become involved in enforcing legal contracts under state contract law. People who want the financial factors of their domestic relationships enforceable under state contract law should have lawyers prepare suitable contracts and sign them legally. Other secular entities such as insurance companies and hospitals should ask for proof of such domestic partnership contracts, just as they would before providing services under business insurance or employee insurance situations. Such contracts would still require evidence provided that they do not conflict with any previous contracts that might be in force by any of the contractors.

People who want to be known socially as husband and wife or wife and wife or husband and husband or whatever should find some clergycritter willing to perform the social ceremony they think they need. The Body of Christ certainly does not need the signature of a county clerk to confirm a marriage between its members.

If they want both, they should do both.

 

[RDKirk]

Again, I'm broadly sympathetic to religious freedoms, but this is where the potential for abuse worries me. You've brought up the idea that marriage is handled by the state and a religious ceremony is optional. But if the two are entirely disconnected, this brings up the possibility that there could be a religious ceremony with no state recognition.

You can imagine remote communities where 'God's law is more important than man's law' and religious marriage is used as a method of controlling and abusing women. In fact, we don't have to imagine it, because performing plural marriages and worse is part of what Warren Jeffs was charged with: marrying teenage girls to much older men, a 14-year-old-girl to her 19-year-old first cousin against her will.

If there are no rules for Pastor Fred, there is no such thing as an 'illegal religious marriage'.

We've been there and done that in the case of the Mormons and drug usage. If some religion decides that crystal meth is part of their religion, the state can bust them anyway. Muslims practicing minor marriage can still be busted. They can take it to court and the court will rule as in the past that the social benefits outweigh the First Amendment in those cases. The First Amendment has never been absolute.

And as for Christianity, we still have within our own religion several explicit commands of the Lord to obey the laws of the state that do not cause us to conflict with commands of the Lord.

 

[crossnote]

Which is fine insofar as your personal opinion and conscience goes...

...but out in the world, if your "conscience" tells you that you don't have to sell a product to a black person, a Jewish person, a Muslim person, or a gay person... you're going to have a problem with the law of the land.

Yes, but as a Christian, doing business according to one's skin color or religion should have no bearing on one's action...but when it comes to a moral issue and the Christian (or anyone) is forced to comply then it becomes a problem of the State dictating to others morality. The State becomes the new god/religion.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, but as a Christian, doing business according to one's skin color or religion should have no bearing on one's action...but when it comes to a moral issue and the Christian (or anyone) is forced to comply then it becomes a problem of the State dictating to others morality. The State becomes the new god/religion.

Christians do not get to refuse business with non-Christians as a moral issue--it's not as black and white as saying "You're immoral by my standards, so I won't do business with you." Christ proved that Himself in His own interactions with immoral people, and Paul re-emphasized it.

It's not that black and white. Christians have an obligation to Christ to engage sinners for Him where sinners are, just as He did.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, but as a Christian, doing business according to one's skin color or religion should have no bearing on one's action... but when it comes to a moral issue and the Christian (or anyone) is forced to comply then it becomes a problem of the State dictating to others morality. The State becomes the new god/religion.

I couldn't help but notice that you've shifted your argument form "conscience" to "Christianity."

Any reason for that?

In any case, you've presented your opinion, and currently it's the popular one... but it hasn't always been.

For example, consider this judgement against the felony of interracial marriage:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."--Judge Leon Bazile in Caroline County Court, 1958

It took the Supreme Court -- Loving v Virginia to be precise -- for the "State God" to replace Judge Bazile's Christianity.

Was that a mistake?

 

[crossnote]

Christians do not get to refuse business with non-Christians as a moral issue--it's not as black and white as saying "You're immoral by my standards, so I won't do business with you."

I did put in parenthesis (or anyone), so it is not just Christians I am speaking of. It is a matter of individual conscience...something we are quickly losing.

Christ proved that Himself in His own interactions with immoral people, and Paul re-emphasized it.

It's not that black and white. Christians have an obligation to Christ to engage sinners for Him where sinners are, just as He did.

Of course the Christian is to interact with others, but here the issue is forcing action against one's conscience. Even Jesus wouldn't yield Himself to forced compliance that was against the Father's will.e.g...

John 2:4 (KJV) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

or with Paul...
to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.(Gal 2:5)

 

[crossnote]

The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

False conclusion by the Judge. Even Moses married a black woman, a Cushite, and was criticized by his brother and sister (Aaron, Miriam). Who did God reprimand? Not Moses but his sibling accusers.
That judge was just ignorant of the Scriptures which is a harbinger of the type of decisions in the future from Judges ignorant of God's Word.

 

[jayem]

But that is my point. Why do ministers have to be involved at all in a civil contract? Why does the state have to involve them? That is the decision of the state to do so, largely based on prior tradition since many were married in churches, so witnesses would be present. There is no inherent need for the minister to be involved in a civil contract. My understanding is that in some countries the marriage is handled by the state and a separate religious ceremony is conducted if desired, and the two have no particular relation. That is what I would like to see, so that the state has no role being played by the church, and therefore no requirements put on the clergy for said role.

Very true. In fact, there is precedent in this country for what you propose. Among the Pilgrims in the 17th century Plymouth Colony (no church-state separation back then) marriage was purely a civil affair officiated by a magistrate. Check link # II-C in the website below. And that practice is consistent with a very literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Because nowhere does scripture state that a marriage should be officiated by a religious authority. AFAIK, there isn't even any example in either the OT or NT of a rabbi, priest, or other religious leader performing a wedding. It's my impression that marriage didn't become a Christian religious ritual until the Catholic Church adopted it as a sacrament.

Plymouth Colony Legal Structure

 

[RDKirk]

I did put in parenthesis (or anyone), so it is not just Christians I am speaking of. It is a matter of individual conscience...something we are quickly losing.



Of course the Christian is to interact with others, but here the issue is forcing action against one's conscience. Even Jesus wouldn't yield Himself to forced compliance that was against the Father's will.e.g...

John 2:4 (KJV) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

or with Paul...
to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.(Gal 2:5)

The father's will and their consciences are two different things. They consciences are based on pushing their WASP-gang agenda, rather than Christ's agenda of finding opportunities to speak the gospel to the lost.

 

[tall73]

I'll point out that you moved that goalpost, but I'll let it go.

I would prefer you explain rather than saying that and letting it go. Please explain how I moved the goalpost.

Here is the chain again:

I said:

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.

And you replied:

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

I agree that they are not required to say the statement. But I never made the claim that they were required to state it. I said most do state it, and the reason is that they are explaining that the state gives them authority to solemnize. And the state does give them that authority, as we looked at in the New Mexico example.

I was relating something the poster may have heard, and then explaining why they may have heard it. Most ministers explain in some fashion that they are fulfilling a role recognized and authorized by the state in initiating the civil contract.

So I made no claim they have to say it.

Then I responded to your post by saying:

I agree they can say whatever they want. But it is something most people have heard , so I was relating it because it is a description of what is happening.

This did not move the goalposts. I never said they were required to say it. I said most do say it, and they say it to indicate the authority given to them to solemnize.

Then you indicated above that I am moving the goalposts. I did not start out trying to prove one thing then switch it, so how did I move the goalposts? I mentioned they usually say it, and why. And you said they do not have to say it. But I never asserted they do have to say it, merely why they tend to.

 

[TLK Valentine]

False conclusion by the Judge.

So what? He ruled according to his conscience, and you telling him his beliefs are wrong accomplishes nothing.