| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,938,703
|
Article: 20313
[Legal]
Date Posted:
1/11/2009
4:31:30 pm EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 13,344
RSS: 16,653
Comments: 11
|
ACLU Seeks To Clarify Pa. Marriage Rules
Author: The Associated Press Source: First Amendment Center Online
Title: ACLU SEEKS TO CLARIFY PA. MARRIAGE RULES
  Can people who get ordained on the Internet legally marry couples in Pennsylvania?
After four court cases in the last two years, the answer still isn't clear, so civil liberties attorneys are forging ahead with plans to try to solve the question once and for all.
Confusion about the legitimacy of Internet-ordained ministers has led at least three dozen couples to remarry their spouses amid fears that their marriages might be invalid.
A Bucks County judge allayed some fears last month with a 15-page opinion that upheld the qualifications of a Universal Life Church minister ordained through the church's Web site. The ACLU has won similar cases in Philadelphia and Montgomery counties.
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 11 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Marriage Is A Religious Concept | Jan 14th. at 2:15:16 pm EST
|
Shadowbear (Hillsboro, Oregon) - Email Me
Health insurance, responsibility for debts and inheritance are legal concepts.
The state has the power to regulate inheritance, responsibility for support, health insurance, debt obligation - but not marriage.
Legal partnerships could easily be registered with the state - and their dissolution as well. The parties should not have to declare whether or not there is a romantic or sexual involvement between the parties - and there should not have to be such a relationship. This registered partnership would only cover inheritance, etc.
If people want to be "married" they can go to whatever place of worship they have and be married in whatever form that takes because the state has no interest in their religious binding at all.
Simple, and keeps the interests in their correct corners.
|
| BassAkwards Is PA | Jan 13th. at 12:59:14 pm EST
|
Lady GoldenRaven (New Castle, Pennsylvania) - Email Me
There are 2 important points to be made:
1. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that our ordinations are legal.
2. ULC ordinations are not done on the internet; while the signing up IS, the ordination itself takes place at the ULC offices. There has also been some confusion of late between the ULC and the Universal Life Monastery, which are two different organizations.
I live in PA--so I follow this closely. It is more a county by county problem at present. I lived in Lawrence County and they did NOT accept our ordinations--said they had problems with the Quakers? Didn't make sense to me either. But, in Allegheny county and Beaver county they are recognized.
PA is the LAST state to change anything. But, as of now it IS legal for us to perform the duties of clergy in PA.
So, technically the states have to recognize the ordinations since the US Supreme Court has already ruled in our favor.
|
| I Believe... | Jan 13th. at 12:42:13 am EST
|
Corax (Glendale, Arizona) - Email Me
that "marriage" has become a completely obsolete concept. Marriage as we define it, causes many more problems than it prevents. People should be together because they want to be, not because they feel they have to be. The objection of "living in sin" is, of course, a ludicrous concept; human sexuality is not something dirty and should be celebrated freely (so long as "safe sex" is practiced) , Further, since the advent of DNA testing, there is no longer any need for a marriage to establish a presumption of paternity/legitimacy. As to the question of matters of insurance, inheritance, etc., these matters can be easily taken care of by other legal documentation. Many employers, btw, allow employees to to insure "significant others" who are not legally married to that employee.
Of course, there are still a few wrinkles to iron out, but I hope for the day when people stay together only because they WANT to, not because they feel some sort of societal obligation, or because a divorce would be financially devastating. The only people who really win in any family law "settlement" are the lawyers!
|
| ... | Jan 12th. at 8:18:15 pm EST
|
Draken (Bronx, New York) - Email Me - Web
Don't expect any change. PA produced such twits as Rick Santorum.
|
| Hmmm... | Jan 12th. at 7:24:30 pm EST
|
Silver Faery (Hays, Kansas) - Email Me
Two of my friend have gone through the ULC to get ordained as ministers to perform weddings and such. One it still studying to do so and the other spent almost a year preparing and reading. One is Pagan the other Christian. My pagan friend is the one still studying. While my Christian friend hasn't been to church in years, but adhears to his own beliefs. His ministry is at local bars...it would sound like this judge who made that ruling wouldn't accept that.
Personally keep the state and church seperate, and if people are getting registered on-line as ministers, it would be common sense to treat it with some respect, but sadly I too know people that did register just as a joke! Now people don't take the ones that do it seriously as being serious....it's rather sad actually.
Silver Faery
|
| Wrong Solution To Simple Problem | Jan 12th. at 1:25:48 pm EST
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me
This article reaches an unworkable conclusion, to what is really a simple problem of defective law that can be readily fixed. The answer is to not just ban marriage laws, but to ban state laws that require an officiant of any kind for equivalent process clearly delineated as no more or less than execution and registration of domestic partnership civil contracts.
Thanks to the rabid fundies causing the Dover, PA ID case, and Progressive Insurance and hundreds of thousands of others for enabling a doubling of ACLU resources over the Bush regime, the PA ACLU chapter is on solid footing to raise an issue that is problematic in most states. The second linked article to this one quotes the problem more accurately:
"What we want is to fix a problem that never should have existed in the first place," ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper said. "The state has no business invalidating marriages just because it doesn't like the kind of minister who officiated them."
The conclusion of County Registrar Reilly used to conclude this article lacks that clue, stating, "Maybe we can get some clarity," she said. "If nothing else, maybe they can rewrite the law."
The problem is it's impossible to get "clarity" which is necessary for this type of law to be valid, when the underlying standards for clergy are out of bounds for government to define, and no other defining authority can exist with legally valid credentials to impose clear standards. That would pose a difficult paradox for law, were the underlying historic basis for marriage officiants still legally viable, which it's not.
Historically, there were two primary reasons for marriage officiants. One was widespread illiteracy, in a society where clergy were presumed educated enough to complete simple single page forms. Today, it's a reasonable presumption that few people competent to contract legal relationships as complex and pervasive as marriage cannot themselves complete a simple government form, and so rather than require clergy or alternate officiants to do so, it would be a reasonable presumption under current law that anyone too illiterate to execute a marriage license is incompetent to enter that contract at all, absent review by a probate or similar court as might review dementia or other cases of legal incompetency or emancipate some minors.
The other mess reflects how in Colonial times and in many parts of Europe, local clergy and local government head were one and the same position. Much of Europe has changed that, such than in England, a legal marriage may be executed in a government building with no ceremony, at a private party, or in the back room of a church coincident with but separate from any religious rituals, without coercing clergy or an alternate state agent to officiate. PA already does this for some sects who do not have clergy, and similar cases usually involving Baha'i or Quakers have mandated alternate marriage process in other states. If a compelling state interest existed under narrowly constructed laws to require marriage officiants, those exceptions would not be valid. What's needed now is to end officiant rules completely, as they're based on accommodating religious rights by defective presumptions that all religions are institutional (how many solitary pagans or Eastern path types view everyone or no one as clergy?) , and that clergy acting as state agents solves rather than creates Constitutional remedies. As things stand, it's overdue to see gay bashing hate cult preachers sued and coerced to officiate gay marriages in states with that process, not as clergy, but in their roles as state agent officiants. As state agents they have no right to wrongfully discriminate as they're entitled to do as clergy. Existing law in the majority of states cannot resolve that conflict, without a simple remedy of eliminating officiant requirements, and having a contract execution civil legal process that isolates itself from any optional, private, irrelevant to law, religious or other ceremonies, if any.
This doesn't entirely solve the issues of law determining who is or is not legal clergy. That paradox of impossible clarity can still be important, in far fewer cases where the issues at hand are legal confidence or privilege to tell a cop or court to FOAD and refuse to disclose information obtained in a clerical relationship (that gets really interesting for solitaries as to traditional prejudices in legal standards, just as for emerging bloggers as current professional "press" with sources) , or in the cluster of related laws about exemption from medical licensure for clerical counseling, and related child or elderly abuse reporting laws of many states that in turn attach to clergy as they do to teachers, doctors, and other professionals. In those cases it's at least likely that some other legal process forcing court decisions is the context, and not a hodge podge of local officials who for the most part are clueless about the vast range of religious paths and practices involved in marriage traditions.
It's important that these marriage officiant issues are brought front and center over the next decade. As marriage laws biased to promote overpopulating Gaia are eradicated and replaced with civil domestic partnership contract laws restricted to mutual legal agency and not promotion of archaic dogma nor differential extension of thousands of privileges and benefits based on social models rooted in archaic dogma of some, it's all too easy for legislatures to retain artifacts of archaic laws equally overdue for elimination as two chosen family partners only or opposite sex discrimination. Reforming officiant process by eliminating it is really easy if done as part of that more complex work to create a level playing field of domestic partnership laws, and really easy for legislatures to blow off if attempted separately.
Thankyou, PA ACLU, for doing this important work building a legal foundation to inform the public and pressure legislatures to not cut corners on larger legal reforms overdue nationally since 1868, when the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights inside states.
Find More info -- HERE
|
| The Business Of Legality Should Not Be Religious. | Jan 12th. at 11:44:23 am EST
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
I agree with Lorca somewhat in this. This is where the separation of church and state is definitely needed. Even though marriages can be declared by a preacher, the state -in some places at least-needs some proof of a marriage. It isn't because they are trying to complicate matters, but it is often to clarify for tax purposes, estate purposes and other family oriented business that now is being done conjointly.
Who should be conducting this business should not be determined by religion at all. Especially since they happen to be biased as to choice of partner and lifestyle. There is nothing to preclude Gays from conducting such business as anyone else. The State, for itself, should remain fairly impartial in determining who should be married.
|
| The Solution Is Simple | Jan 12th. at 9:49:52 am EST
|
Lorca (Longview, Washington) - Email Me
As Ixacacau has observed, the state should get out of the marriage business. This issue, and the whole "gay marriage" debate that is being so cleverly used as a wedge issue by cynical political operatives, would instantly become a NON-issue if the state stopped using religion as a factor in determining the legal status of domestic partnerships. Want the benefits of a state-sanctioned "union"? Fine. Apply for the license and jump through whatever legal hoops are required. Want the blessing of your church for your union? Fine. Talk to your minister, priest, rabbi, whatever. Just don't expect the two to overlap in any way and ALL the problems are solved. Just like that.
|
| Just My Opinion | Jan 11th. at 7:50:42 pm EST
|
Ixacacau (Moore, Oklahoma) - Email Me
I think the state should stay out of the marriage business. Civil unions can be certified for legal reasons and if two people want a "wedding" for spiritual reasons, they can do that separately.
The government's only interest in unions should be for non-spiritual reasons, i.e. taxes, inheritance, insurance coverge, support of offspring, etc.
|
| About Time | Jan 11th. at 7:40:32 pm EST
|
David Eagan (Cleveland, Ohio) - Email Me - Web
I tend to agree with the reasoning of courts that hold against the ULC in that these credentials can't be taken too seriously if the person put less effort into them than one puts into the maze on the back of the Denny's place mat. Then again, I agree with the philosophy of the ULC that every adult human has the same connection to god and the same right to perform religious rites for other consenting adults. The big problem there is that the ULC doesn't make any effort to insure that the people it certifies are adults or even human. This is a fact that divorce attorneys take advantage of by having their family dog ordained under the auspices of the ULC prior to court in order to get the marriage declared invalid in order to get a more favorable result for their client.
There is also a disconnect between the law that's on the books and what one can get away with. In Wisconsin, for example, the relevant statute indicates that any ceremony between two consenting adults that believe the ceremony was legitimate are actually legally married regardless of the qualifications of the officiant or if there was one at all. All the couple need do is file their secular marriage license with the clerk of courts in their jurisdiction. However the clerk in various jurisdictions has broad leeway in determining who can get married and who is a proper officiant.
|
| The Irony Of This Is | Jan 11th. at 5:11:33 pm EST
|
Ursyl (Murrysville, Pennsylvania) - Email Me
that in PA you can get a Quaker Marriage License, basically uniting yourselves in marriage with witnesses, and then do the ceremony as you please.
Since no officiant is required, whomever you wish to "perform" the ceremony becomes irrelevant to the state because as far as it's concerned, that person is one of your witnesses.
Of course then I read the other article about the twit in Allegheny County who decided that Common Law no longer be recognized meant that Quaker/self-uniting is no longer legal. What a fool!
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
