|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2007 : 20:33:33 [Permalink]
|
| BPSmurf wrote: The Universal Life Church is not a joke. An organization that has facilitated the legal marriages of thousands of couples all over the USA, providing an alternative for both nonreligious and small minority religious people is not a joke. It is a wonderful and IMO necessary service that they provide. The only way to see them as a joke is if you take established religion too seriously. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/26/2007 20:34:10 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2007 : 22:29:51 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: In my opinion, marriage licenses issued by the state or local government should have a spot for those officiating at a wedding ceremony to sign, but that should be purely optional, a nicety for reasons of cultural tradition. Let religious organizations harbor whatever internal thoughts they like to about validity.
Marriage itself should be a mere licensing function as far as the state is concerned. The state should not get involved with deciding who, if anyone, should officiate. Yes, the Universal Life Church is a joke, but just a smaller gag than is, say, the Catholic Church. Both arbitrarily give priestly (in other words, meaningless) status to individuals.
And of course, adults should be able to marry, regardless of gender. |
I agree whole-heartedly with everything said. Though I normally wouldn't call the ULC or the Catholic Church a "joke", I agree with the spirit of it in this context. I really like the ULC because I think it intentionally pokes fun at the seriousness with which religion is taken and does so in a wonderfully useful way!
Dave wrote: | Anyway, society has an interest in ensuring that people don't get married frivilously or otherwise for the wrong reasons. By setting forth the standards they have on who can or cannot perform weddings, the state intends to filter out those who won't take things seriously and thus cause a burden to the state in terms of costly divorces, improperly applied parental rights, illegal immigration, etc. Society as a whole has an interest in seeing that marriage, either civil or religious, isn't entered into on a whim, because other laws recognize the distinction between married and unmarried people. (Which is why I've got to disagree with Half's hands-off views.] |
Legal marriage is mostly a contract. If two people of sound mind want to enter into this contract, just as they would any other legal contract, how should the state "filter out" those who aren't serious enough? My biggest concern here is that I can't imagine any kind of filter that wouldn't end up being an additional burden on regular people (financially, which would disproportionately discriminate against the poor) and/or lead to arbitrary discrimination in other ways.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2007 : 22:36:30 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: I looked up the laws in PA. I told her there was something in PA that let couples marry themselves, and that she should ask about that...
This article says that if the couples consider their marriage valid, then judges will probably let it slide. |
We have the Quakers to thank for the self-uniting marriage license, which is only available in PA. They don't have clergy and they think it is wrong to require an officiate at all in a marriage ceremony.
Given that thousands of couple have and will continue to get marriage with an officiate from the ULC in PA because they are ignorant of this stupid law, I don't think the state is going to invalidate them. But I suppose that since I know about it now, I'll have to start telling the couples I deal with to get the self-uniting license. At least I'm still legal in OH and soon NJ! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2007 : 22:41:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: You, as an unharmed party, don't have standing to challenge the law in court, so it seems that there are two things you can do:
1) Lobby your state representatives to change the law. |
This I will definitely do.
I talked to a lawyer friend of mine, and he thinks there isn't much I can do, so it seems lobbying is my only worthwhile recourse, at least for now.
| But the primary question that you're going to have to answer in either case is this: what is it about ordination that is special? |
Objectively, nothing, nor should there be. The specialness is dependent on individuals and organizations who deal with it.
| In other words, why should you be allowed to officiate a wedding, and me not? |
I should be allowed because I want to and it fits within my worldview and that of the couples whose weddings I officiate. You should be able to to, and so should everyone else.
| And what's to prevent me from ordaining myself as a minister of the brand-new First Church of Dave, and by doing so, should I suddenly get to officiate at weddings? |
I don't see why the First Church of Dave, were it established, should get any less legal recognition and privileges than any other such organization. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2007 : 23:41:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You, as an unharmed party, don't have standing to challenge the law in court, so it seems that there are two things you can do: |
I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that since clergy generally get paid to officiate at weddings, that if Marfknox is no longer allowed to do that then she is "injured" by being deprived of income.
| Originally posted by Dave W.1) Lobby your state representatives to change the law. Clearly, Pennsylvania has an interest in preventing just anybody from officiating at a wedding, so some standard will be required. "Any regularly established church or congregation" is, obviously, very vague, but what about replacing it with a minimum number of adherents or congregants? Or, perhaps the law could change so that the state hands out "Officiator's Licenses," so they can check up on you and verify how serious you are. I dunno, I'm just brainstorming, here. |
Not all clergy has a congregation. Several years back I attended a wedding officiated by a Rabbi who was not affiliated with any synagogue. He had a regular job as a teacher, and also did both weddings and funerals. I also know of a Minister who is retired but still performs services at weddings and funerals.
| Originally posted by Dave W.2) Contact some of the unmarried married people and get them in contact with the local ACLU. Your real task in that would be to convince everyone that a lawsuit would be worth the time and expense - that the law is actually (legally) discriminatory against smaller religions. |
I hope that's a case the ACLU would take.
Originally posted by Dave W.In other words, why should you be allowed to officiate a wedding, and me not? You're certainly not going to argue (as a preist would) that you have a mandate from God to marry people. And what's to prevent me from ordaining myself as a minister of the brand-new First Church of Dave, and by doing so, should I suddenly get to officiate at weddings?
|
The mandate comes from the people being married. If they want Marfknox officiating their bond, I don't see what other mandate should be necessary.
Frankly, if you wanted to officiate at weddings too, I don't see any problem with that so long as the people being married want you to officiate. The significance of the act is for the participants to discover, with or without the help of a deity. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 01:47:31 [Permalink]
|
A slight hijack, if you don't mind. Always looking for items with which to kid Mab, I keep a pretty close eye on Swedish news. In one story, priests are refusing to participate in weddings in which the father "gives away" the bride. They say it's too paternalistic, and the government's backing them up. The decision caused consternation in the bride's family. The mother of the bride, who chose not to be named, said it was an old tradition in her family for the bride to be walked down the aisle.
"I think my daughter can decide for herself how she wants to do it. She's thirty years old and is extremely aware of equality issues," she told news agency TT. |
My feelings on this are:
1) Yes, it's a custom with paternalistic roots.
2) So what? If the bride wants this, perhaps as a simple way of honoring her daddy, let her have it. It's not as though it makes her chattel in real life. And if the groom wants his mother to give him away, I say more power to them.
3) If a church wants to take such a position, fine, but please don't be so "correct" that you impose it on others. I don't know the laws there, but I hope Swedish laws make "officiating" an option, not a requirement.
Another Swedish news item is interesting to me, as well. Sweden is moving toward allowing same-sex marriage. Gay groups there naturally are upset that some priests may refuse to solemnize such unions. They want the state to force them to do so. Again, the importance of this lies upon whether the "officating" is a legal requirement in Sweden. I just don't know.
Though I'm a hard-line atheist, I think that forcing a priest to do something against even his bigoted beliefs is extreme. Let churches have whatever rules they like, but make sure secular laws make those beliefs irrelevant outside the church.
So we can see the potential that the state requirements for solemnizing marriage can be quite important to people.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 05:24:07 [Permalink]
|
I stand by my statement Marf, ordaining someone without even asking a single question of them is ridiculous, regardless of how many married couples are produced. So I just need to treat religion as a joke, instead of the ULC. Nice position.
A 'minister factory' does not a church make. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 09/27/2007 05:25:22 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 05:33:06 [Permalink]
|
| In related news, the Church of Barry Sanders is still meeting every Sunday during football season. Free ordaining with beer round purchase. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 06:01:31 [Permalink]
|
My point is simply, regardless whether some or all religions, and their priests, are jokes (and I do have a strong, inclusive personal opinion!), it's not the state's business to determine who can officiate. To do so would be an act of "establishment," banned by the Constitution, IMO. It's unconstitutional to establish one church as the official one, and it just makes sense that establishing a pack of them as such is equally wrong. My analogy is this: A dictatorship is a one-man rule. A junta or oligarchy is equally undemocratic (just ask the Burmese), even though it doesn't "establish" one-man rule.
Constitutional rule does not coexist well with special powers granted to priesthoods, since these can and do come between citizens and their rights. Especially if these special priestly powers are given only to a select group, however broad it may be.
I also feel that no way is a Catholic priest, a Conservative rabbi, or an Methodist minister in any manner more "qualified" than a mail-order ULC minister who got his ministry on a whim. The only difference is that the ULC minister hasn't been taught as many foolish lies. None of them should be give any special place above mere mortals by the state.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/27/2007 06:02:09 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 06:05:26 [Permalink]
|
So I just need to treat religion as a joke, instead of the ULC. Nice position.
|
No different than any other church.
A 'minister factory' does not a church make.
|
What does? Seems we can create churches for no good reason, so why not for a good reason?
I got my ordination in 1979. Bishop Hensley was on the old Tomorrow show with Tom Snyder. Mr Hensley stated that he thought that churches should not be tax exempt. I don't remember his exact words, but I remember getting the idea from him that everyone should minister to others. I think he was sincere. I don't know. Anyway, he offered a free ordination to anyone who wrote into the show asking for one.
I was able to marry some dear friends in the beautiful surroundings of Hocking Hills State Park in Ohio. They would not have done that without a ULC minister. My wife performed my daughter's wedding, and I performed the weddings of two of her children. It meant a lot to them, and to us, to have family involved.
And this coming from someone who doesn't care much for marriage. I do think superstition should die soon, and I do think that anyone should be able to perform whatever kind of marriage they want.
For that matter, I think we should get the state to create civil unions for anyone that wants them, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual and non-sexual. I think we need to get the state out of the marriage business and into the civil union business. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/27/2007 06:06:32 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 06:11:40 [Permalink]
|
it's not the state's business to determine who can officiate.
|
What he said.
As far as legal contracts, sign up with the state. As far as anything else, it's something the state should get out of. If they want to say that couples have to go to a trained psychologist before they get married, that's one thing. But to say that I'm not a proper minister, that's another. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:00:13 [Permalink]
|
Funny thing, I dont recall stating that every other Church was devine and holy. If all you want is the abilty to officiate, then you should lobby for the right, don't make a mockery of other Churches beliefs by abusing the system. By this logic, they should be able to teach creation as science.*
Please stop putting words in my mouth, I havent promoted any other religion or their dubious practices, just denouced the ULC. (Of which I am a member)
Oh, and you are not a proper minister Gorgo. An Officiate you may be, but I highly doubt you've been giving sermons or any other non-wedding duties.
*I know this statement is a stretch and we dont need to debate it, clearly I dont want ID as science. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:21:51 [Permalink]
|
BPSmurf wrote: I stand by my statement Marf, ordaining someone without even asking a single question of them is ridiculous, regardless of how many married couples are produced.
...
So I just need to treat religion as a joke, instead of the ULC. Nice position. |
That's obviously not my position since I stated that I don't think either the ULC or the Catholic Church are really a joke in my response to Mooner.
I'm currently ordained by the Church of Spiritual Humanism, which also gives free online ordinations to anyone. The only reason I went with them and not the ULC is because it included the name of my personal worldview – "Humanism". The CSH isn't a joke any more than the ULC. Both do serve the purpose of poking fun at the seriousness of many religions, but that is hardly the sole purpose. These organizations serve a very useful and necessary function in society – they allow nonreligious and certain religious minorities to totally create their own unique ceremony without requiring them to resort to a courthouse wedding officiated by a dispassionate public official or resort to having an officiate from an established religion that they do not adhere to. I know so many people who have been married through a ULC minister, and most often the deal is that they want to be married by a friend or relative that is especially close to them or charismatic, and the ULC makes that possible.
Given that the divorce rate in the Bible Belt is highest in the country (and I think I'm safe assuming that few conservative, rural Christians are getting married through a ULC minister), I fail to see how it is hurting anything for more liberal couples to use this wonderful alternative to traditional officiates.
| A 'minister factory' does not a church make. |
I agree, but it should not be necessary to associate with a church in order to have an officiate at a personal wedding ceremony (opposed to having it at a courthouse officiated by a judge or whatnot) I was married in my parent's back yard by my friend August, and that was a deeply meaningful and beautiful ceremony for myself and all those involved, and I don't belong to any church, and neither does August.
I think we need to also keep in mind that how clergy become clergy in various religions varies rather wildly. In many nondenominational sects of Christianity, the qualifications aren't much more than they want to and make the slight effort necessary to become a minister or reverend. Just because Catholics make priests go through years of strict training doesn't mean most clergy are inducted in such a fashion. And the values of each religion are going to vary so much, what would be consistent across the board? What makes all these people special? Nothing! So why shouldn't just anyone be able to call themselves a "Minister" of the "Universal Life Church" and officiate weddings of willing couples?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/27/2007 07:37:23 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:31:21 [Permalink]
|
BPSmurf wrote: | Funny thing, I dont recall stating that every other Church was devine and holy. If all you want is the abilty to officiate, then you should lobby for the right, don't make a mockery of other Churches beliefs by abusing the system. |
The ULC isn't making a mockery of other Church's beliefs. The people who use the ULC's services either mock or simply personally reject traditional religion. Without the ULC, those people would be forced to go to a public official for an officiate. But with the ULC, these secularists can take a positive act – they can turn their wedding ceremony into something which actually reflects their beliefs and worldview in a personal way. If the ULC's only purpose was to mock religion, I'd agree with you, but that is not even the main purpose. The main purpose is to let everyone get married in the way they want to. That is awesome.
| By this logic, they should be able to teach creation as science. |
How do you figure that?
| Please stop putting words in my mouth, I havent promoted any other religion or their dubious practices, just denouced the ULC. (Of which I am a member) |
Yes, and others here are disagreeing with your denunciation of the ULC.
| Oh, and you are not a proper minister Gorgo. An Officiate you may be, but I highly doubt you've been giving sermons or any other non-wedding duties. |
He is so a proper minister! Who are you to say that to be a "proper minister" one must have duties other than weddings?
Where do you draw your lines? Gorgo certainly spreads the word of his liberal atheist beliefs here, and I'm sure he does elsewhere.
Am I a proper minister? I've officiated weddings, a baby naming, and a memorial, and I speak at my Humanist Association's HumanLight celebration in December. Does all that together qualify me in your view as a proper celebrant? If not, what more must I do? Again, where is that line?
What makes a proper minister depends on the religion or worldview that creates the position in the first place. Only Catholicism can decide whether a Catholic priest is a proper one or not. Gorgo is a secular minister, so only the secular worldview to which he adhere's to can define whether he's a minister or not. He calls himself that. The organization that certified him also calls him that. Who are you to say that it isn't proper?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 07:33:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Funny thing, I dont recall stating that every other Church was devine and holy. If all you want is the abilty to officiate, then you should lobby for the right, don't make a mockery of other Churches beliefs by abusing the system. By this logic, they should be able to teach creation as science.*
Please stop putting words in my mouth, I havent promoted any other religion or their dubious practices, just denouced the ULC. (Of which I am a member)
Oh, and you are not a proper minister Gorgo. An Officiate you may be, but I highly doubt you've been giving sermons or any other non-wedding duties.
*I know this statement is a stretch and we dont need to debate it, clearly I dont want ID as science.
|
You've got the right to decide for yourself who and what (you think) is a "proper" minister or religion. But the state should not have that right.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Discrimination Against Alternative Ministers in PA
