Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
While I'm glad to see the march of civil rights proceeding apace, my preference far and away would be for the government to exit the marrying business.

Marriage is a private covenant between 2 consenting adults and their place of worship or secular equivalent; there simply is no role for the state to play in it. My 2 cents.

QFT, do the religious bit with a preacher of your preference, do the legal bit via a new type of power of attorney. No Feds required.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
While I'm glad to see the march of civil rights proceeding apace, my preference far and away would be for the government to exit the marrying business.

Marriage is a private covenant between 2 consenting adults and their place of worship or secular equivalent; there simply is no role for the state to play in it. My 2 cents.

QFT, do the religious bit with a preacher of your preference, do the legal bit via a new type of power of attorney. No Feds required.

Yup.

 Ouze wrote:
Marriage is the most insane and abusive contract possible between 2 consenting adults and their place of worship or secular equivalent; there simply is no role for the state to play in it. My 2 cents.

There, corrected.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Marriage is the most insane and abusive contract possible between 2 consenting adults and their place of worship or secular equivalent; there simply is no role for the state to play in it. My 2 cents.

There, corrected.

Good one...

 Ouze wrote:
While I'm glad to see the march of civil rights proceeding apace, my preference far and away would be for the government to exit the marrying business.

Marriage is a private covenant between 2 consenting adults and their place of worship or secular equivalent; there simply is no role for the state to play in it. My 2 cents.

This is more about civil union, where people are recognized as the legal spouse as recognized by law. Church has nothing to do with it, since it is more allowing partners to be treated as such in the eyes of the law in regards to taxes, who survives, life and health insurance, adoption rights, or even if a partner has right to raise the child of the deceased.
A church can marry anyone, but unless the government recognizes that union, those people will not be considered a union in the eyes of the law.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
While I'm glad to see the march of civil rights proceeding apace, my preference far and away would be for the government to exit the marrying business.

Marriage is a private covenant between 2 consenting adults and their place of worship or secular equivalent; there simply is no role for the state to play in it. My 2 cents.

QFT, do the religious bit with a preacher of your preference, do the legal bit via a new type of power of attorney. No Feds required.

Except that produces a giant mess. It's very useful to have an entire package of various legal agreements and privileges under the name "marriage", because they're all standard things that almost every married couple wants. If you remove that standardization you now have an endless amount of slightly different variations on the contracts. For example, right now your spouse can automatically visit you in the hospital, just by being legally married to you. In your world you'd have to bring the special hospital visitation rights contract (and go home and get it possibly), and someone would have to read and understand it and make sure all the details of the contract are being followed. It's a huge extra burden on society, and the much better solution is to just allow any group of 2+ consenting adults to get married.

I knew it was going to happen eventually. Personally, I don't give a gak. I refuse to support it or be against. I'm one of the people on the side lines saying "Nah, I really don't give a gak anyway." If it was legalised in Australia, I'd be like "Meh, I'd prefer more stimulus money or student grants but whatever." It's going to be passed regardless of my support or not.

 reds8n wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Does the law force priests to perform the marriage in a church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_74_(2012)


" and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony."

Maryland's law reads similarly, and it seems even extends that protection to various wedding services. (e.g., Florists, caterers, etc.)

I think this image belongs here, especially since it's washington

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think this image belongs here, especially since it's washington

Why is Woody sad is he a homophone or something, I find that surprising considering his name is "Woody" then again maybe he hates pot.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think this image belongs here, especially since it's washington

Why is Woody sad is he a homophone or something, I find that surprising considering his name is "Woody" then again maybe he hates pot.

He's coming down.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think this image belongs here, especially since it's washington

Why is Woody sad is he a homophone or something, I find that surprising considering his name is "Woody" then again maybe he hates pot.

I don't think so...he is pretty wild. He's probably just sad that everyone else will be high.

NSFW - Enter only if you want your childhood to be ruined.