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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I understand the situation from your description, Iron_Captain, it is illegal in the Netherlands to perform religious marriage ceremonies unless the celebrant, usually a priest, is a registered marriage licensor.

Is that correct?

No.

What happens in the Netherlands is what happens in many other places in Europe. Since the religious ceremony doesn't have any legal standing you'll end up being married twice if you wan't a religious marriage, once for the legal civil marriage and another for the religious ceremony.

In some countries (like mine), the major religions will have agreements in place with the state saying that a religious official will be able to substitute the civil official when it comes the time to sign the official paperwork so that it can all be taken care of in a single ceremony. Apparently these agreements don't happen in the Netherlands so Priests need to be registered as actual civil officials as a way to link the civil and religious ceremonies. But its all voluntary, Priests don't need to be registered to perform religious marriages, only civil ones.

Much the same as in the UK, USA and Japan, then.

There is no real concern, therefore, that priests are going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Much the same as in the UK, USA and Japan, then.

There is no real concern, therefore, that priests are going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religion.

Exactly. A priest pronouncing you "husband and wife" (or whatever) doesn't actually mean anything in the US. The person who actually, officially locks in your marriage is the Clerk of the County Courthouse who signs your marriage license.

So in no way, shape or form will gay marriage require a priest or other religious representative to perform marriages against their will.

Having said that, I am an ordained minister of both the Universal Life Church and the Church of the Sub-Genius. Want to get gay-married? I'll officiate your ceremony for a case of beer and a pack of smokes, just cover my travel expenses. I'll do it for people who want to get straight-married, too, but those weddings tend to be a lot less fun.

 Psienesis wrote:

Exactly. A priest pronouncing you "husband and wife" (or whatever) doesn't actually mean anything in the US. The person who actually, officially locks in your marriage is the Clerk of the County Courthouse who signs your marriage license.

Generally speaking a couple is not legally married until the officiant signs off on the marriage. Though, as with all things in the US, that likely varies by state.

If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.

I, for example, as an ordained minister, cannot just find two people who want to get married, pronounce them wed, and send them on their way as a married couple. Doesn't work that way. I mean, I can do that, but it has no standing in the eyes of the law, which requires the marriage to be registered in a courthouse (with some exceptions given for "common law marriages", but those are special cases). There are a few people, however, who *can* do that in certain circumstances. The captain of a ship at sea, for example, has such authority, where a preacher walking down the street doesn't.

Why is this?

Because the civil benefits of marriage (tax credits, insurance benefits, etc) are a function of the State, not a Church. These are the sorts of things that are not currently granted to gay couples in places where gay marriages are not recognized... which makes this a matter of Equal Protection and Equal Access, not religious rights.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Haight wrote:
Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.

However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.

Did it not already? It was a majority yes vote.

Oh i did not realize that ! I thought it just passed a referendum to come to a vote, not the vote itself!!

Wow, that's excellent, and I apologize for my misunderstanding on the topic.

 Psienesis wrote:
If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.

A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.

 dogma wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.

A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.

That's how it works in Virginia.

You go to the circuit court, obtain your marriage license from the clerk (or deputy clerk), and you then have 60 days to have your ceremony, at which time it must be signed by the officiant that has been authorized by the circuit court to do so.

There actually do have to be witnesses in nearly all states as well, I believe. This is traditionally your best man/maid of honor.

 cincydooley wrote:
There actually do have to be witnesses in nearly all states as well, I believe. This is traditionally your best man/maid of honor.

More and more are dropping that stupid arbitrary rule.

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Vermont are all states that that eschewed that practice.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
There actually do have to be witnesses in nearly all states as well, I believe. This is traditionally your best man/maid of honor.

More and more are dropping that stupid arbitrary rule.

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Vermont are all states that that eschewed that practice.

Also Indiana;
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/Clerk/Marriage/Resources/Pages/FAQ.aspx

4. Do we need witnesses? No. Indiana law no longer requires additional witnesses.

Ahh! Thanks for that! I knew some had moved away from it. I didn't realize the list was so extensive.

I figure a notarized doc from the court house is plenty.

 dogma wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.

A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.

It's like this....

You get your license, you wait 3 days, and then you have an officiant (whether that's a judge, a court commissioner, a minister of some kind, or other approved person) sign it, along with 2 witnesses. That's it, job's done. Now, you can have the officiant say some words, make a proclamation, yadda yadda... not required. The "ceremony" is as simple as you want it to be.

In Ontario, Canada, you need a marriage license, and then you need to get it signed by the officiant, [often a religious figure, but not necessarily if you want to elope] the two people getting married, and two more witnesses.

In my case, my wife and I picked up our marriage license at a town hall, brought it to our wedding. We had the pomp and ceremony [non-denominational, since I'm a non-believer and we couldn't be married in a Catholic ceremony] then our officiant signed, we signed, my brother and her sister signed.

Ta-dah!

In Canada, there's no forcing of anyone to marry anybody. You can go to a town hall, drop your $200 [or thereabouts, depends where] and get the clerk, yourself, your spouse, and two other people to sign. Bam. You're married. Or you can get a religious figure that has registered with the government to sign instead of a clerk. I suppose that government clerks are required to marry anyone that's legally allowed to do so, including homosexual people, which might conflict with their religious beliefs, but it's their job and they don't have to keep working if they don't want to.

 Psienesis wrote:

It's like this....

You get your license, you wait 3 days, and then you have an officiant (whether that's a judge, a court commissioner, a minister of some kind, or other approved person) sign it, along with 2 witnesses. That's it, job's done. Now, you can have the officiant say some words, make a proclamation, yadda yadda... not required. The "ceremony" is as simple as you want it to be.

So you admit that your initial claim was wrong?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.

A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.

That's how it works in Virginia.

You go to the circuit court, obtain your marriage license from the clerk (or deputy clerk), and you then have 60 days to have your ceremony, at which time it must be signed by the officiant that has been authorized by the circuit court to do so.

The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.

I'm trying to figure out where we got lost and this became the thought?

We rabbit holed from the Netherlands priests stuff, which we established do actually work for the government, so it makes sense that they'd be required to marry anyone.

But how did we get here?

Well done, Ireland.

Fintan O'Toole of the Irish Times:

Nobody has been diminished. Irish people comprehensively rejected the notion that our republic is a zero-sum game, that what is given to one must be taken from another. Everybody gains from equality — even those who didn’t think they wanted it. Over time, those who are in a minority on this issue will come to appreciate the value of living in a pluralist democracy in which minorities are respected.

 Da Boss wrote:
The problem is the blood test is not 100% accurate, and there is no way to make it 100% accurate. All blood is screened of course, more than once, but if a contaminated sample makes it through, then because samples are pooled, you lose a large amount of blood.

It's a risk management thing, because the population have such an elevated risk of HIV, it's not worth the risk to take blood from them, or at least, that is the judgement made in some countries. I imagine the risk is quite small and needs to just be balanced against the hurt feelings of the gay men excluded. Lesbians are not a high risk group so there is no restriction for them, it isn't a homophobia thing really.

The problem with Mad Cow is that it's a prion disorder, and there's no test for it, so no way to be sure the blood is not contaminated.

A lot think it is, in Canada we have the same sort of ban and awhile ago (not sure if it actually got solved) had a major blood shortage because of that, oh and how inept the people can be at times.
We have a lot of problems but it seems like we just either don't know how or don't feel like solving them.
It's really bizarre.
But that's Canada and I don't like my country but... there's more places I hate more (and besides, where would I go otherwise).
Good on Ireland, you join countries like Canada, some of the US, a lot of Europe and South Africa (never expected them) *golf clap*

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The problem is the blood test is not 100% accurate, and there is no way to make it 100% accurate. All blood is screened of course, more than once, but if a contaminated sample makes it through, then because samples are pooled, you lose a large amount of blood.

It's a risk management thing, because the population have such an elevated risk of HIV, it's not worth the risk to take blood from them, or at least, that is the judgement made in some countries. I imagine the risk is quite small and needs to just be balanced against the hurt feelings of the gay men excluded. Lesbians are not a high risk group so there is no restriction for them, it isn't a homophobia thing really.

The problem with Mad Cow is that it's a prion disorder, and there's no test for it, so no way to be sure the blood is not contaminated.

A lot think it is, in Canada we have the same sort of ban and awhile ago (not sure if it actually got solved) had a major blood shortage because of that, oh and how inept the people can be at times.
We have a lot of problems but it seems like we just either don't know how or don't feel like solving them.
It's really bizarre.
But that's Canada and I don't like my country but... there's more places I hate more (and besides, where would I go otherwise).
Good on Ireland, you join countries like Canada, some of the US, a lot of Europe and South Africa (never expected them) *golf clap*

I was going to say, don't go bashing Canada too much, my mate is going to marry her wife over there at the end of this year, because she can't do it here.

I've lived here my whole life, and been all around it, (and I'm not even that old) there are a lot of things I dislike about it.
The most recent is the tanking of our dollar and the fact that a lot of the provinces are pretty crappy places to live or (well I was going to say work but work is quickly vanishing).
I'm glad we have same sex marriage, I really am, I'd hate to be like the US, but that doesn't make me love this country on its own.

And to add insult to injury our hockey teams choke every year.
It's becoming pathetic.

I was just meaning think of the positives mate, people look at your country as a place they can express their love in a way that they can't here. It's nice

 motyak wrote:
I was just meaning think of the positives mate, people look at your country as a place they can express their love in a way that they can't here. It's nice

It's not the only one, so I don't see it as that special...
Besides you'd have more of a negative opinion on it if you experienced one of our winters lol

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 motyak wrote:
I was just meaning think of the positives mate, people look at your country as a place they can express their love in a way that they can't here. It's nice

It's not the only one, so I don't see it as that special...
Besides you'd have more of a negative opinion on it if you experienced one of our winters lol

What's wrong with Canadian winters? They're pretty cool!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.

In the US the licensor is not necessarily the officiant, in fact he usually isn't. The licensor is the government body issuing the marriage license, the officiant only conducts the ceremony and signs that license.

I am not familiar with the legal terms in the US. The point is that both priests and non-priests can obtain legal licences to perform marriage ceremonies, but in any case it is done under the jurisdiction of the state and the happy couple have to apply to the town hall for their certificates and so on.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


What's wrong with Canadian winters? They're pretty cool!

 dogma wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.

In the US the licensor is not necessarily the officiant, in fact he usually isn't. The licensor is the government body issuing the marriage license, the officiant only conducts the ceremony and signs that license.

Similar in the UK and Japan. The terminology differs, of course, but the basic principle is that the government controls the legal framework of marriage and can licence people to conduct wedding ceremonies, who may be priests or lay people.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

What's wrong with Canadian winters? They're pretty cool!

I don't know if this has been posting... for some reason it keeps not showing my replies, as though Im not posting....Ok... that was fething weird (took actually writing all this out for my reply to show up on my screen