Kim Davis

[muichimotsu]

It's also a revenue getter that the Government has created to gain the most money from us for as little effort to them.

It's revenue, but not sure if it's a huge amount compared to taxes, even if there's less effort by comparison to the whole labyrinth of tax forms and such. On average, license costs about...$50 to my knowledge?

 

[gzt]

In my state, it's $35, actually, I just checked, and in KY it's about the same. Kim Davis was apparently paid $80K/yr, so that would buy less than an hour of her time. So I don't think there's much padding, since they take about 20 minutes of time to set up the thing with you there and probably have about 20 minutes more filing involved once it gets turned in. Definitely one of the cheaper things involved in my wedding.

 

[muichimotsu]

Just checked one county in TN (my home state) and apparently they charge about $100 for it though they'll cut off 60 if you do a course a year beforehand (likely getting more money out of you there in exchange for the cost of the license being $30 with that trade of). Heck it seems like that cost of $100 ($98 according to Weddingvendors.com) is fairly standard in many counties in TN, but they offer similar "rebates" to cut it down to 30% of the original cost.

Heck, at least one office in TN isn't performing the ceremonies anymore, which is a petty thing to do, but it's arguably not discriminatory, since you can find anyone who has legal power and they can sign it and be done with the whole affair anyway within..30 days.

 

[buzuxi02]

This whole process sounds strange to me. Is there a line like in DMV offices? Ι remember awhile back that blood tests were required, but I never actually heard anyone ever saying they are getting blood work done to get married.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If you have to lose your job, then it most certainly is a euphemism.

unless there are other options, which there were. that was all I was saying. I did not say any were preferable or correct from a Christian POV.

 

[gzt]

With the availability of antibiotics, the blood test is less important, so most jurisdictions have gotten rid of it. That would be part of the stuff you have to have on hand when you go to the office. There wasn't a line when I did it, but, sure, there might be a slight wait sometimes.

 

[muichimotsu]

This whole process sounds strange to me. Is there a line like in DMV offices? Ι remember awhile back that blood tests were required, but I never actually heard anyone ever saying they are getting blood work done to get married.

Probably depends on how many people are getting married that day, but I kind of doubt lots of people are just clamoring for it in America's economy, with the average cost probably running about as high as a medium-low quality tire replacement, at $60 for the license itself. Similar reasons why people are delaying having kids.

The blood work is a formality, but it has a reasonable basis for why you want it, since it ensures that you're not related, among other concerns, like STDs. Of course they're not going to say it's purely for marriage, it's for preventative purposes and health protocol, so to speak. It's like getting a check up, they'll often take blood.

Never having been married myself, I only can speak with general experience of my grandmother remarrying. The general reason for the meticulous nature of it is because it's so important to make sure. You don't want people exploiting the institution, since it does give benefits you wouldn't get otherwise without much more complicated methods. I've heard that the tax benefits are mostly good for if you have children, not just being a married couple in itself, unless you're good with money.

 

[gzt]

The bloodwork - which is only required in two states and DC in the USA - doesn't tell whether you're related. It's just for disease. In NY as well certain minorities require bloodwork to establish whether you have sickle cell anemia (but it's just information, not something that prevents you from marrying).

 

[rusmeister]

To non-Orthodox folk here - I address Orthodox people, and don't care to engage with disagreement with non-Orthodox here. (Heck, I don't want to do disagreement in TAW at all, really.) Unless I know you're an Orthodox member, I'm not going to respond to disagreement, so if you are a relatively new member, and we haven't been introduced, please identify your faith status if you want any response. (We used to have faith icons...)

To Greg - Chesterton is a heckuva lot closer to (ie, more in agreement with) the Orthodox fathers than some modern Orthodox. If what he says chimes with and illuminates their consensus, I will quote it, because it is true.
"8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Philippians 4:8
But I suppose referring to a Scriptural exhortation will be seen as "Protestant Sola Scriptura personal exegesis"...

I think the real issue is whether we should ever take any political action in the world or not. Whether only passive resistance to evil is acceptable or active resistance with force. I am solidly on the side of appropriate force and against passivity-only. There are too many saints and cases in Church history of good use of force, and sufficient precedent that rebukes universal Tolstoyan-type pacifism for me to accept my own mother's pacifism. That may not be given, Orthodox Christians may not agree. I am well aware of the pacifist side of the Tradition of the Church, and think St Maximilian as admirable as St George or St Nicholas.

And using force IS a political statement. So it is bootless for anyone to complain of making political statements.

I understand the idea behind those who think "secular rule" best, and see a dichotomy of either rabid theocracy or laissez-faire secularism. For my part, I see the necessity of having a dominant world view governing society, and that it be the right one, and that it should have mechanisms tolerating and granting peace, dignity and freedom to those that do not share that view. Secularism ultimately and inevitably discards that tolerance, as it is doing now. America has lasted as long as it has because it long had a dominant world view that was actually right on the most important things, and yet tolerated those that disagreed. But that kind of "secularism" only worked because most people acknowledged Jesus Christ as Lord, and no longer works for us because they don't.

George Washington rightly said in his Farewell Address: "You cannot maintain national morality in exclusion of the religious principle."
Now there is hardly anything that will completely exclude Christian principles from public life more rapidly than for all Christians to passively resign from their posts when challenged. I happen to love my children and think that staving off the American Sodom, making it less so to the limited extent that we can for when they grow up, to be better than just resigning. Sometimes we HAVE to resign ourselves to our fate, to the will of God, and of wicked men. But not always. We were put into this world to act, to make a difference, not just to save ourselves. Yes, absolutely, we need to acquire the Holy Spirit and I admit that I am no St Seraphim, and fail to rise to his level. But I don't think that means I should turn from what is happening in the world. I think it is right to stand up and say "No, we will not obey wicked laws". Fr PH Reardon did one very right thing that was in his power (and didn't walk away from his job in doing so). This poor, and by now miserable non-Orthodox sinner (who is not chief, who we ought to be seeing as better than ourselves) in Kentucky did another very right thing that was in her power.

The Orthodox pacifist, who only resigns, is not wrong for resigning. Resigning in this case would not have been wrong. But it is certainly the less bold step, the less bold witness. And the Orthodox fighter, as long as he fights carefully and honorably, is not wrong for refusing to comply with wicked laws and orders, and to accept imprisonment.

 

[jckstraw72]

this thread is classic Greg

 

[buzuxi02]

With the availability of antibiotics, the blood test is less important, so most jurisdictions have gotten rid of it. That would be part of the stuff you have to have on hand when you go to the office. There wasn't a line when I did it, but, sure, there might be a slight wait sometimes.

I thought blood tests were indeed to make sure the was no consanguinity going on.
Im still confused though. When a couple marries in the church do they still go for this interview? What actually takes place at this sit down?

Also when I see in the Movies, scenes of couples running up the steps of city hall and come out married is this an expanded version of the interview process. Basically who is this elected filing clerk and what is their relationship to the guy in the black robe in city hall who claims the state has given him power to pronounce someone man and wife?

 

[gzt]

How would a blood test in, say, 1940 verify consanguinity? That's the era those things were in. They only verify whether you have, say, syphilis. And very few jurisdictions still have them.

It's not an interview, you're just filling out paperwork. It's just bureaucracy. You're filling out a form. Details vary, but here's what you do: the two of you go in with your piles of identification (like, birth certificate and photo ID), they give you a form, you fill it out, you give it to them, they enter stuff on computer and ask a couple more questions to fill out a form, you make sure everything is correct, they verify that your stuff matches your official documents, then you all sign things. Then they give you the license. You must have the license before your church marriage and the priest signs the license.

The county clerk's office does a lot of other things, of course, and has a handful of other (unelected) staff to take care of things. One of the issues here is that, not only would she not issue licenses, she forbid the others from doing so, too.

 

[rusmeister]

I notice that no one here suggests that the people in question wanting validation of their "marriages" could have gone to another office. Just an observation.

 

[isshinwhat]

One this missing here is that she could have had the deputy clerks issue the licenses. That is a workaround that many places adopt to allow people to have conscientious objections to issue marriage certificates for whatever reason - as long as there's somebody there that can do it, they defer to them. However, Kim Davis refused to allow others to do so. One of the suggested compromises was to let her out if she would not interfere with the people under her issuing marriage licenses. She did not accept that compromise.

Has it been mentioned yet that she has said she would agree that licenses be issued so long as her signature (which appears no matter who issues it) is removed from the documents?

 

[isshinwhat]

Actually, the abortion situation does happen. There are too many precise details to go over for me to accurately recount them, as I am not a law talking guy, but in some situations in some jurisdictions a minor desiring an abortion requires a judicial order to obtain it. A Catholic or some other types of Christian judges cannot in good conscience do so, so in situations where they would be in line to hear the case, what do they do? Do they hear the case and refuse to let it happen? No, they recuse themselves from the case and have another judge hear it.

SALEM, Ore. — Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oregon-judge-refuses-perform-sex-marriages-33551955

 

[gzt]

I notice that no one here suggests that the people in question wanting validation of their "marriages" could have gone to another office. Just an observation.

That is, they would have to go to another county. That's a burden.

 

[gzt]

Has it been mentioned yet that she has said she would agree that licenses be issued so long as her signature (which appears no matter who issues it) is removed from the documents?

This is false - her name appears, not her signature.

 

[rusmeister]

That is, they would have to go to another county. That's a burden.

So... It's OK to burden Christians, because the Supreme Court passes a ruling, but a burden - even as compromise - for the "gay lobby" is too much. I see.

 

[rusmeister]

This is false - her name appears, not her signature.

I frankly don't see any difference that matters. And a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
I just don't get why you are so eager to completely put this woman down and defend the rulings and laws being passed. I don't think the stand you are taking is going to soften the blows or work in our defense in the least.

 

[gzt]

Who's defending rulings and laws in this thread? I'm correcting misinformation and offering my own suggestion for how to appropriately not comply with the rulings.