| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 6:58:41 PM | | ^^^^Sorry--I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Did you want me to look something up? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:04:20 PM |
You might want to look it up yourself. Who is legally allowed to perform marriages? Are there many courtrooms with reverneds presiding?
I believe you didn't bother to look it up before you misspoke. And I'm also wondering who is wearing blinders?
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/officiants.htm
This site lists all the states.... I put a few here. that vary around the country. Like in New York, they don't allow a Ships Captain... But even some places a Ships Capt. can also perform weddings.
California
Clergy, Justices, Judges, Magistrates, Marriage Commissioners (current or retired). Some counties in California also have a "deputy for a day" program that allows non-clergy friends and relatives to officiate at a wedding.
Florida
Any ordained or licensed clergymen, notary publics, and justices of the peace.
Michigan
Marriages may be performed by federal, probate, district, and municipal judges, and district court magistrates, in their court area; mayors, in their city; County clerks; ministers and pastors of the gospel, both resident and non-resident.
Minnesota
Judges, clerks of court, court commissioners, and licensed ministers, priests or rabbis, as well as representatives of Bahai, Hindu, Quaker and American Indian religious groups are authorized to perform weddings.
New York
According to Section 11 of the Domestic Relations Law, an officiant must be an authorized, officially ordained member of the clergy or a public official in the State of New York such as a mayor, city clerk, deputy city clerk, appointed marriage officer, justice, or judge. In New York City, an officiant must be registered with the City of New York. Ship captains can not perform marriage ceremonies in New York State.
Texas
Persons authorized to perform weddings in Texas include licensed or ordained Christian ministers, priests, Jewish rabbis, officers authorized by religious organizations, justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of criminal appeals, justices of the courts of appeals, judges of the district, county, and probate courts, judges of the county courts at law, judges of the courts of domestic relations, judges of the juvenile courts, retired justices or judges, justices of the peace, retired justices of the peace, and judges or magistrates of a federal court of Texas.
Religion originated the institution of marriage, and it has been considered "holy matrimony" for the entire duration of this nation. Many courtrooms still make people place their left hand on a Bible before giving testimony. Judges is a book in the Bible. They not only instituted the first marriages. They instituted the first governments. We know whether the chicken came after the egg in this instance.
If your trying to make the point that people believed in a God or higher Spirit since the beginning of time... Your doing a great job at making that point. People for the most part probably did have some sort of religious or spiritual belief of some sort. If you were trying to say.. (cause it was hard to figure it out exactly) that Christianity started this marriage ball rolling... Well, that Chicken laid that egg a long time before Christianity. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:18:24 PM | If you were trying to say.. (cause it was hard to figure it out exactly) that Christianity started this marriage ball rolling... Well, that Chicken laid that egg a long time before Christianity.
What I said was "religion" created court systems (judges, justice of the peace), government, and marriage. I am sorry if you are an offended Christian. There are other religions, you know. I didn't even mention Christians. I didn't mean to excluse you. I just figured it wasn't an important point of relevence. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:29:59 PM | I'm not offended at all, just trying to figure out what you meant.... I saw you wrote Religion, that's why I said what I did at first... before what you cut and pasted... I'm just trying to understand your point.
You don't back anything up, you just throw out statements... and I'm not telling you, you have to... It's just hard to figure out where you are trying to go with this?
That fact that religion created politics, government and marriage doesn't make sense... for a debate about what we are talking about... .....Pagans ???, (Romans, Greeks.. Egyptians...) and societies way before them... all had some sort of religion or belief system... Is this your point?
What Religion are you talking about?
Religion originated the institution of marriage, and it has been considered "holy matrimony" for the entire duration of this nation.
This quote is what made me believe you are talking about Judeo-Christianity.... because even though their are many different types of Religious groups in America... It was basically different types of Judeo-Christians who came to this Country to form it and make it what it is. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 11:36:43 PM | That fact that religion created politics, government and marriage doesn't make sense... for a debate about what we are talking about... .....Pagans ???, (Romans, Greeks.. Egyptians...) and societies way before them... all had some sort of religion or belief system... Is this your point?
What Religion are you talking about?
Perhaps my histories are wrong, but I understood the cradle of civilization to be the junction of the Tigres and Euphrates, where Hammurabi created the first Laws with religious authority. Yes, newer versions of law have surfaced, but common law maintians that existing practices are de-facto legal standards. Marriage has always been a holy institution representing the union of a man and one or more women. In this country, it was briefly so, then the de-facto standard became one and one. To make a change in law, in this state, the legislature can vote, or the people can vote directly.
I am sorry that you didn't understand my early reference. Typically only a Judge or a preist can marry people. Religion created judges, and religion created preists. If you doubt my interpretation of "common law" I would suggest reading "Blackstone"
| |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 12:02:08 AM | "Blackstone" sounds like a good read.
Well, I'm not familiar with Hammurabi... someone interesting to look up I'm sure. And I'm far from an expert on history. I have read where the most ancient (10,000BC) writings are found on rocks up in modern day Azerbaijan "Gobustan" in the Caucasus Mountains, near the Caspian Sea... but that yes, Babylon for centuries was the capitol of the world you could say. The Tower of Babel and all.
It is thought that the Ark landed at Mt Ararat but who knows where they were before that? if you even believe that stuff, some think in the Americas. Who knows? But my theory is that even that caveman way back when had some ritual of getting married... but may have had religion as well... Who knows?
Maybe clubbing her over the head and dragging her into his cave was his way of saying "I do" | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 12:06:01 AM | Maybe clubbing her over the head and dragging her into his cave was his way of saying "I do"
I figure the alpha males rounded them up like cattle, and gave the uninspiring ones to their hunting buddies. I doubt the marriage ritual involved anything much more intricate than what a male dog does to a female dog. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 4:56:18 AM |
I doubt the marriage ritual involved anything much more intricate than what a male dog does to a female dog.
sniff or hump? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:01:02 AM | | I wonder whatever happened to that Letterman guy...he used to be such the talk of the town. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:28:59 AM | Was Letterman the one that got a civil marriage or was that a religous marriage???  | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:01:27 AM |
The laws on marriage are in the California Code. No mention of religion there.
Really?
California Family Code 422 (c)
"The official position of the person solemnizing the marriage,
or of the denomination of which that person is a priest, minister,
rabbi, or other authorized person of any religious denomination."
Was that "no mention," or you KNOW they mention? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:07:31 AM | "What I said was "religion" created court systems (judges, justice of the peace), government, and marriage. "
The fact that human beings are grouping animals and groups need rules and organization is how laws and judges and governments came into existence ... and religions in parallel to that. government and religion are parallel results of innate social drives ... government doesn't cause religion and religion does not cause government. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:12:50 AM | | I stand corrected. What I should have said is that the law allows religion to be involved in marriages, but doesn't require it. Sections 400-402 authorize the county clerk and various other lay people to solemnize marriages. But this thread is about Letterman's joke. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:14:16 AM | "It is thought that the Ark landed at Mt Ararat but who knows where they were before that?"
Try checking out the genome project which has taken DNA samples and has been tracking all currently alive people back through to the origins of all current people to 3500 bc and all people in Egypt and Nubai. See the current map here:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/globe.html | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:18:08 AM | I am not the one who sent it off topic with incorrect claims. I was correcting them, and quoting the actual statute. I don't know how you guys got into the marriage debate on this thread. I just thought I would put my two cents in and try correct your misconceptions. If you want to stay on the topic, then do so. I will try to avoid replying to your off topic information unless it appears to be bogus as well as irrelevent.
As far as 402, It authorizes a county official to appoint a particular person. The provision of 422 should actually be observed when they appoint the person, ie the person should be ordained. The law is ambiguous, but both versions are enforceable.
According to 422, the solemnizer "is." According to 401-402, the solemnizer "may be." Technically speaking, if you had a civil marriage in California, you might not be legally married.
Lawyers think they are so smart, and a cop will arrest you for any little typo that a lawyer makes. Tell it to the judge. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 12:06:02 PM |
Technically speaking, if you had a civil marriage in California, you might not be legally married.
Might not? Really? You mean it's not clear? What's the answer depend on, I wonder?
All these years, I'd thought my parents' civil ceremony was valid. And so did they! Usually, when people have called me a b----rd, I thought they were insulting me. I never dreamed they might just have meant that my parents were never legally married.
Thanks for enlightening us all on this important legal question. I sure wish the lawyer who helped me with my parents' trust had known about this! If I have "misconceptions" about any other point of law, now I know who can set me straight. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 12:15:54 PM | Thanks for enlightening us all on this important legal question. I sure wish the lawyer who helped me with my parents' trust had known about this! If I have "misconceptions" about any other point of law, now I know who can set me straight.
I don't even want to hijack this thread to talk about the "bimbos of the bar(association)" If you want a professional legal opinion, ask the bimbos. Literally speaking, unless the civil wedding was performed by a legally ordained clergy, it was an unlawful ceremony, and was not solemnized according to "all of the applicable codes." It was out of code.
Show it to a pro, and see what he tells you about the use of "may" and "is," in the relevant provisions. The fact that you can do it deosn't make it legal. It just means nobody got caught. I have long thought that the California legal system was a joke. Now I can prove it.
They could always subpoenae Bill Clinton to decide what the meaning of "Is" is. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 1:33:20 PM | | Wait until Sarah "Baraccuda" writes a book (or someone else writes a book for her that is), then she'll accept Letterman's offer to bury the hatchet and appear on his show. Right now she has nothing to gain by going on his show, but someday she'll need him and she'll go running. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 2:00:01 PM | (or someone else writes a book for her that is),
Oh, you mean just like Hillary wrote a book that was written by someone else.......
| |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 2:05:09 PM | sniff or hump?
Both. If it smells good.....well.... lets just say one doesn`t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what happens next 
| |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 2:15:42 PM |
Literally speaking, unless the civil wedding was performed by a legally ordained clergy, it was an unlawful ceremony, and was not solemnized according to "all of the applicable codes." It was out of code.
What utter nonsense. I didn't even mean to discuss this with you, but you saw fit to assert that marriage ceremonies have to involve religion. Apparently you understand the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment about as well as you do the California Family Code. Your main purpose seems to be to take a nasty tone with me, rather than to say anything even halfway reasonable. Go share your brainstorms with someone else. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 3:53:57 PM | "unless the civil wedding was performed by a legally ordained clergy, it was an unlawful ceremony,"
If this were true than the state would be mandating that all Californians be willing to participate in an activity lead by a clergyman ... that conflicts with a requirement for separation of church and state. The state cannot mandate a clergy man. They can accept a clergyman as an official in a marraige ceremony ... although a state licenses and meeting state rules is also still required. The person being married can choose to abide by both state and church rules, but the state only requires state rules.
So, the above claim is backwards. You can have a state marraige without religion; you cannnot have a religious marraige to be recognized under the laws without state license and rules. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 4:44:50 PM |
Wait until Sarah "Baraccuda" writes a book (or someone else writes a book for her that is), then she'll accept Letterman's offer to bury the hatchet and appear on his show. Right now she has nothing to gain by going on his show, but someday she'll need him and she'll go running.
More likely she'll bury the hatchet in his scalp given the chance!
 | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 5:50:58 PM | What utter nonsense. I didn't even mean to discuss this with you, but you saw fit to assert that marriage ceremonies have to involve religion. Apparently you understand the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment about as well as you do the California Family Code. Your main purpose seems to be to take a nasty tone with me, rather than to say anything even halfway reasonable. Go share your brainstorms with someone else.
Just the fact's. I didn't take any tone but the tone of the English with which our laws are based upon. The Law is written, and I exposed a flaw in the law which had nothing to do with you, expcept that you implied that you are a **stard. At this point I would concur, but for the fail safe of "Common Law Marriage" in California statute. You really should avoid getting over emotional about the facts. Are far as sharing, you can take your Drama Queen personna elsewhere as far as I am concerned.
First you take the thread off topic, then you complain that I am, then you sling accusations and say that I am causing trouble. Learn to look at things a little more carefully before you make claims which have no merit.
Please explain what this has to do with the First Amendment? Freedom of Speech and the Press? Congress shall make no law....? That's is the Congress of the United States. States can write laws, and courts can overturn them. This one has not been disputed. I will assume that nobody mentioned it before because the "California Bar (Bimbo) Association" is making money hand over fist without having to actually read the Law.
I have had to deal with a few Lawyers recently, and I have no confidence in this State's ability to provide credentials. It has nothing to do with you and your insecurities or your lack of attention to detail. You really should learn to take losses more gracefully and learn to give up a few points when you are So Wrong. Does it really damage your ego to be wrong once in a while? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 6:32:05 PM | If this were true than the state would be mandating that all Californians be willing to participate in an activity lead by a clergyman ... that conflicts with a requirement for separation of church and state. The state cannot mandate a clergy man. They can accept a clergyman as an official in a marraige ceremony ... although a state licenses and meeting state rules is also still required. The person being married can choose to abide by both state and church rules, but the state only requires state rules.
.
In the case of Marriage, the US government infringed upon the rights of the citizens of Utah many, many years ago, and forced a religious doctrine of one man and one woman. It is part of documented Supreme Court History, that "family values" were at stake. It is a violation of the Separation of Church and State that has been accepted by the American People for 160 years.
Separation of Church and State is based on issues other than marriage, and is only a doctrine via Jefferson's Danbury letter. It is a non-constitutional doctrine. | |
|
Home
login 
