Reply #64: That is not accurate. Every state in the union requires a [View All]

[AP]

ceremony plus a registration. The JoP thing is a substitute for a religious ceremony.

Name one state that allows no ceremony.

They all require you to get a license and have some kind of ceremony. If some states make the ceremony relatively easy, it's still a fact that getting the license isn't enogh.

Judges are busy people we pay to do more important things than act as fake-preists giving "marriages" a patina of significance. Why are we wasting their time and our tax money for this charade? I know it's not like getting a fishing license, but froming a partnership or starting a business is a major decision in people's lives, and the government makes that as EASY as possible (you can do it on the internet now).

It used to be that Churces had 100% control of marriages. So it's not right to say that government suddenly coopted marriage and now draft churches into their service. No clergy acts as an agent of the gov't. The gov't looks to the church to perform their ceremony part, but allow secular ceremonies, but there still has to be a ceremony. Impressing the church into government service would be an even more stark violation of the separation of church and state.

This is the second time I've seen this mischaracterization today, and I challenge you to support the logic of that characterization. The government doesn't license churches, and they don't legislate what constitutes a valide ceremony. They just say that you need a ceremony.

Calling this an agency relationship, I believe, is a tremendous mischaracterization, and I just wonder what you're basing it upon.

No state allows you to walk into the registrar, fill out a form, and walk out married. They all require some kind of ceremony to sublimate the vows or whatever you want to call it. It's kind of absurd. Is there any other contract or activity recognized by law which needs the church or some secular stand-in to make it solemn? No.