Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think they're considered charities.Not many*
*Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Cololmbia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
You definitely forgot Germany.
I still think that the government shouldn't have this special part in marriage though. I don't see a problem with all those unions being called civil partnership, and being extended to any group of people that want to enter into such a contract.
i don't want to be rude and change topics away from tax exemption, and don't ask don't tell, but i'd like to discuss gay marriage...
i'd like to address some early questions regarding why the word "marriage" is important. some people asked why not grant gays the same legal rights and just call it something else like "civil union" the reason i believe so many gays object to this is because the word "marriage" has certain connotations besides those that are simply legal. obviously, marriage is an indication of the love that two people feel for each other. for many people being married is the deepest expression of love that one person can make for another. therefore, to grant gays equal legal rights but deny them the word "marriage" would seem to suggest that gay people somehow lacked the capacity to love as deeply as heterosexual couples. to suggest that homosexuals are not as loving as heterosexuals is understandably extremely upsetting to the gay community and is probably why the word "marriage" is so important and why the civil union between to gays must be called "marriage" by the state. if they don't call it that, they would be denying the full humanity of homosexuals and refuse to acknowledge their capacity to love as human beings. words are important.
just my two cents.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, I'm right.There are those that are trying to cause churches to lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating against gays.
Here it is, addressed, from simple legal terms:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
That's by far NOT the only case or situation. The first I heard of this rubbish was on FOX (or CNN, I don't remember) during the rush to get married after it was made okay for gays to marry in CA. Some retarded loud mouth gay guy, every bit as retarded as a conservatard, was screaming on the TV that churches should lose their tax exemption status for not marrying gays.
Another “Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings—of any religion—could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.
🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]No, you are wrong.Another “Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings—of any religion—could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.
🙄 [/B]
I am definitely right. I even posted a link to a specific example from a very credible source. 😬
Everything in your post is irrelevant because it wasn't something to the effect of, "I apologize, you were right."
Technically, I should report you for trolling. I won't.
Adam's link and post specifically refuted your link, Dadude. Displaying that attitude when you have clearly not even bothered to read what he posted makes you in error, not him. If you wanted to make some sort of counter argument, fine, but trying to make out he is trolling when he posted to show why your point was wrong puts you in a very bad light.
Still, prolonging this argument would distract from the topic also, so if we could concentrate on the prop 8 thing it would be nice.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Adam's link and post specifically refuted your link, Dadude. Displaying that attitude when you have clearly not even bothered to read what he posted makes you in error, not him. If you wanted to make some sort of counter argument, fine, but trying to make out he is trolling when he posted to show why your point was wrong puts you in a very bad light.Still, prolonging this argument would distract from the topic also, so if we could concentrate on the prop 8 thing it would be nice.
No it doesn't. You didn't read the link I posted. 😬
And, again, you're being rude.
Edit - After reading everything, it's quite obvious that Adam is completely clueless as to what my actual point was. You are too. Go back and reread my point. The right thing to do is for both of you to apologize for your rudeness and arrogance.
Originally posted by §P0oONYNo, it really doesn't. Not only in my country, but in most I know of, people must get married before a judge - civil mariage which is recognized by the State - for it to count, religious marriage is just a cerimony kept for the sake of cultural tradition. Priests have no power to celebrate a legal contract of marriage because they're not part of the State.
Religious marriage has legal validity in most countries... if not all.
So how does that work? The priest is given legal authority to marry people?
Originally posted by UshgarakCare to provied a list of those nearly all countries? In all I knew of, either the church demands legal proof of the already celebrated civil marriage to perform the religious cerimony or it simply performs it on its own, not caring whether or not the couple is legally married.
In nearly all countries with religious weddings, either the priest equivalent is qualified to marry people or the relevant person comes to the ceremony as well.
Public employees may be called out to marry people in their cerimonies, religious or not, but that's irrelevant to the point, religious institutions still can't marry people in the law.
Well, it certainly applies to most European and North American countries. What you describe is unusual. It's also not irrelevant to the point that the relevant employee comes to the ceremony, seeing as I was explaining to you how it works. The fact is that registrars are built into the religious ceremony, one way or another.
I believe that in many American states, the priest equivalent is licensed to marry.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, it certainly applies to most European and North American countries. What you describe is unusual. It's also not irrelevant to the point that the relevant employee comes to the ceremony, seeing as I was explaining to you how it works. The fact is that registrars are built into the religious ceremony, one way or another.I believe that in many American states, the priest equivalent is licensed to marry.
In that particular case, it is irrelevant to the what I was questioning because the power to marry isn't the chucrche's, they simply offer a built-in service into the cerimony. I realize the church in a lot of countries offers these services, but the one actually marrying them legally is the magistrate, not the priest. The registrar services could be provided on their own and a religious cerimony wouldn't have validity on its own.
That is what I was asking, if the priest has legal power to marry people. Do you know if anybody can acquire the power to marry people there or does he need to be a cleric of some kind or a registrar?
Originally posted by 753
In that particular case, it is irrelevant to the what I was questioning because the power to marry isn't the chucrche's, they simply offer a built-in service into the cerimony. I realize the church in a lot of countries offers these services, but the one actually marrying them legally is the magistrate, not the priest. The registrar services could be provided on their own and a religious cerimony wouldn't have validity on its own.That is what I was asking, if the priest has legal power to marry people. Do you know if anybody can acquire the power to marry people there or does he need to be a cleric of some kind or a registrar?
I know that Joey from friends, wed Monica and Chandler with some sort of certificate he attained online.
😐
Originally posted by 753
In that particular case, it is irrelevant to the what I was questioning because the power to marry isn't the chucrche's, they simply offer a built-in service into the cerimony. I realize the church in a lot of countries offers these services, but the one actually marrying them legally is the magistrate, not the priest. The registrar services could be provided on their own and a religious cerimony wouldn't have validity on its own.That is what I was asking, if the priest has legal power to marry people. Do you know if anybody can acquire the power to marry people there or does he need to be a cleric of some kind or a registrar?
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/
"Performance of a marriage ceremony with witnesses and a person recognized by the state to have the authority to perform marriage ceremony (such as a priest, rabbi or a judge).
A religious ceremony should be conducted under the customs of the religion, or, in the case of a Native American group, under the customs of the tribe. Religious ceremonies normally are conducted by religious officials, such as ministers, priests, or rabbis. Native American ceremonies may be presided over by a tribal chief or other designated official.
Civil ceremonies usually are conducted by judges. In some states, county clerks or other government officials may conduct civil ceremonies. Contrary to some popular legends, no state authorizes ship captains to perform marriages."
Evidently you have to be a religious official or government official.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/"Performance of a marriage ceremony with witnesses and a person recognized by the state to have the authority to perform marriage ceremony (such as a priest, rabbi or a judge).
A religious ceremony should be conducted under the customs of the religion, or, in the case of a Native American group, under the customs of the tribe. Religious ceremonies normally are conducted by religious officials, such as ministers, priests, or rabbis. Native American ceremonies may be presided over by a tribal chief or other designated official.
Civil ceremonies usually are conducted by judges. In some states, county clerks or other government officials may conduct civil ceremonies. Contrary to some popular legends, no state authorizes ship captains to perform marriages."
Evidently you have to be a religious official or government official.
Thanks, that answers it.
Originally posted by 753
In that particular case, it is irrelevant to the what I was questioning because the power to marry isn't the chucrche's, they simply offer a built-in service into the cerimony. I realize the church in a lot of countries offers these services, but the one actually marrying them legally is the magistrate, not the priest. The registrar services could be provided on their own and a religious cerimony wouldn't have validity on its own.That is what I was asking, if the priest has legal power to marry people. Do you know if anybody can acquire the power to marry people there or does he need to be a cleric of some kind or a registrar?
To be fair, you asked about the ceremony, not the person. You were referring to ceremonies of purely decorative value as used in some countries; I was informing you that this was not the case here. Religious institutions CAN marry people in most jurisdictions because they are part of a country's legal marrying process.
It's not as if a registrar just comes along to any old celebration. A person cannot have a party at a friend's house and invite the registrar to get married. It is specifically part of a religious marrying ceremony in the majority of western countries that it has legal force, which makes it one of only two ways (the other being purely civil) to do so. The religious ceremony simply would not take place without the legal side.
I think this point is important to understand.