references sought: masturbation law, marriage licenses
Arnold Zwicky
in the laws of u.s. jurisdictions. "masturbation" doesn't appear
in the index of the obvious source, wm. eskridge's Gaylaw (harvard
u.p., 1999), nor do u.s. laws seem to be mentioned in the two
obvious sources on masturbation, stengers and van neck, Masturbation:
The History of a Great Terror (palgrave, 2001, a translation by
hoffman of the 1998 french original), and laqueur, Solitary Sex:
A Cultural History of Masturbation (zone books, 2003).
googling on "masturbation law" produces a lot of stuff, but it's
mostly about religious law (jewish, islamic, christian, mormon)
or the laws of other countries (indonesia and singapore figure
prominently here) or about u.s. laws having to do with something
other than masturbation simpliciter (masturbation for hire,
masturbating in the presence of others, mutual masturbation,
depictions of masturbation, or the sale, distribution, or use of
sex toys). there's also a wonderful parody site.
justice scalia has warned that decriminalizing sodomy (noncommercial,
in private, consenting, between adults) might lead to the voiding
of laws against various other sorts of sexual behavior, and at least
once he mentioned masturbation. i was not aware that masturbation
(simpliciter) is currently against the law in any u.s. jurisdiction.
is it? has it ever been?
maybe justice scalia had mutual masturbation (noncommercial, in
private, consenting, between adults) in mind, in which case i'd
assume that the decision in lawrence v. texas would void any such
laws (since it voids laws against the more opproprious acts
characterized as sodomy by the texas and georgia laws). actually,
are there any of these still standing? have there been anti-sodomy
laws that covered mutual masturbation?
meanwhile, on a separate front, i'm interested in finding out exactly
what couples contract for in civil marriage in the u.s. what do the
applications and licenses *say*? in california, in particular? the
california state webpage on marriage licenses provides none of this
information, nor does it have a link to pages where you can look at
it. (a helpful ad offers, for a fee, copies of marriage licenses in
every state of the u.s., but i'm reluctant to *pay* for this
information. if i'm going to buy something, i'll go look at books
that give legal and other advice to those contemplating marriage.)
ivy hall, seeker of information
Timothy McDaniel
<http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html>
? I did a quick search and there are 20-30 Supreme Court decisions
that mention masturbation, but I haven't read them in detail. It
appears from the one decision I looked at (a Scalia dissent) that 18
U.S.C. 2256 (2) may have something.
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/> has the US Code and a search
engine. It appears from my cursory search that masturbation is
mentioned by name only in the context of child-abuse laws: there are
three hits.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Arnold Zwicky
<tm...@panix.com> gets the matter in hand:
>Arnold, have you checked findlaw, e.g. at
><http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html>
>? I did a quick search and there are 20-30 Supreme Court decisions
>that mention masturbation, but I haven't read them in detail. It
>appears from the one decision I looked at (a Scalia dissent) that 18
>U.S.C. 2256 (2) may have something.
><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/> has the US Code and a search
>engine. It appears from my cursory search that masturbation is
>mentioned by name only in the context of child-abuse laws: there are
>three hits.
thanks for the urls, tim.
to clarify things a bit, i assume that masturbation, of oneself or of
another (these might, of course, be treated differently in the law),
counts as a sexual act, so that any laws regulating sexual acts in
general - against commercial sex, sex in public places, sex in public
view, sex with minors, nonconsensual sex, sex involving more than two
people, solicitation of sex, etc. - would cover masturbation.
and what of frottage?
ivy hall, covering all the bases
Alex Elliott
Arnold Zwicky <zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>maybe justice scalia had mutual masturbation (noncommercial, in
>private, consenting, between adults) in mind,
Or maybe he had in mind the stereotypical trench-coated, lurking in the
library to show his wee-wee to the girls, flasher-type person. That makes
a little more sense if he's trying to say that the Lawrence decision
pushes us down a slippery slope: "Allow gays to have sex, and the next
thing you know, you won't be able to prosecute dirty old men who brandish
their personal areas in the general direction of Delicate Flowers of
Womanhood!"
Alex.
Chris Ambidge
>to clarify things a bit, i assume that masturbation, of oneself or of
>another (these might, of course, be treated differently in the law),
>counts as a sexual act, so that any laws regulating sexual acts in
>general - against commercial sex,
commercial, as in sex-for-pay? hmmm, how much faster could
I pay off my mortgage if I pay myself to jack off?
>sex in public places, sex in public
>view, sex with minors, nonconsensual sex, sex involving more than two
>people, solicitation of sex, etc. - would cover masturbation.
of course, I'm just being silly
>and what of frottage?
to quote Jamie (or possibly Ste) in *Beautiful Thing*, "it's
a French word - means 'yoghurt' ". So there might well be
Ministry of Agriculture regulations involved here.
>ivy hall, covering all the bases
manly panda
hope that south london explanation is clear
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Arnold Zwicky
<zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU> move beyond masturbation:
>and what of frottage?
>ivy hall, covering all the bases
well, not all of them. there are public displays of same-sex
affection, in particular kissing in public. it certainly used to be
that some cities had laws against them - one type of "affront to
public decency", along with exposure (of genitals, breasts, buttocks)
and cross-dressing (there used to be places with laws against wearing
more than n items of clothing appropriate to the other sex).
are there, i wonder, any anti-motss-kissing laws left? (they wouldn't
obviously be covered by the lawrence v. texas decision, which dealt
specifically with private behavior, but maybe equal protection could
be argued on the basis of lawrence v. texas.) if not, what were the
last ones to go, and when?
ok: nipple play, ass play,...
if i play with another guy's balls (but not his dick), is that
masturbation? if i suck on his balls (but not his dick), is that
fellatio (and therefore sodomy, a` la georgia and texas)?
dick question-boy thirsty
Mike McKinley
>and what of frottage?
>
It's delicious on water crackers!
--
Vera incessu patuit dea
(By her walk, the goddess was revealed)
Vergil, The Aeneid
Queen of the Damned
> to clarify things a bit, i assume that masturbation, of oneself or of
> another (these might, of course, be treated differently in the law),
> counts as a sexual act, so that any laws regulating sexual acts in
> general - against commercial sex, sex in public places, sex in public
> view, sex with minors, nonconsensual sex, sex involving more than two
> people, solicitation of sex, etc. - would cover masturbation.
Non-consensual masturbation is sexual assault (and rape, if it
involves any degree of penetration whatsoever) - with minors, very
bad. Consensual masturbation in the privacy of your own home is now
beyond the reach of state law (a consequence of Lawrence). Consensual
masturbation with minors would not be sodomy (which is important,
though perhaps less so with the Lawrence decision), but would fall
under some form of "lewd and lascivious" statute (sexual
gratification).
Masturbating in public would be covered under indecent *X*posure.
These statutes will not be affected by Lawrence, as a public right to
pubic privacy should rather obviously be enigma bound in
contradiction.
What any of this has to do with marriage licenses is rather
intriguing. The justifications for criminalizing masturbation would
rest on the same laurels as criminalizing homosexuality: it's
anti-family. Is that where you were going?
*X*
(anyway, simple answer: yes)
DRS
6a7e154b.03070...@posting.google.com
[...]
> beyond the reach of state law (a consequence of Lawrence). Consensual
> masturbation with minors would not be sodomy (which is important,
> though perhaps less so with the Lawrence decision), but would fall
> under some form of "lewd and lascivious" statute (sexual
> gratification).
I would assume most if not all American states would have laws against
"corrupting" minors as we do.
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
DRS
behqo1$kll$1...@panix1.panix.com
Or not so delicate.
"What do you think about this?" asked the flasher.
"Well," she said, "it looks like a penis - only smaller."
Dennis Lewis
wrote:
>
>Or not so delicate.
>
>"What do you think about this?" asked the flasher.
>
>"Well," she said, "it looks like a penis - only smaller."
"Even my Hulk doll is more impressive than that..."
Arnold Zwicky
matthew qotd melmon <mel...@yahoo.com> supplies various useful
legal notes, and wonders about the connection between my queries
on masturbation and on marriage licenses:
>What any of this has to do with marriage licenses is rather
>intriguing. The justifications for criminalizing masturbation would
>rest on the same laurels as criminalizing homosexuality: it's
>anti-family. Is that where you were going?
i wasn't going anywhere. they were two entirely separate questions,
related only in that they both concern legal matters. i should have
said that, i see.
richard small, not to mention terse
David Kaye
> i've been looking for references on the treatment of masturbation
> in the laws of u.s. jurisdictions. "masturbation" doesn't appear
> in the index of the obvious source, [....]
The SF Chronicle recently reviewed a book all about masturbation and
its historic roots. You might want to go to www.sfgate.com and root
around for it.
Michael Palmer
The Cornell site covers just federal law. Most sex laws are either
state or local. Most states should by now have their laws online
(type in "<name of state> laws" in Google(tm)): for the California
state code, see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Typing in
"masturbation" and selecting "all" code sections results in 6 separate
hits, most in the penal code.
The really loony stuff is in the local laws (for a taste of which, see
http://bertc.com/sexlaws.htm), most of which are not online. In fact,
most jurisdictions that have these laws still on the books aren't
aware of the fact: the only record is often the entry in the city
council minutes locked away in the city clerk's office (or even, if
the records are *really* old, in the local history collection of the
local public library). (Cities are supposed to review all their laws
on a regular basis, but the city clerks I know tell me that very few
cities ever do, and many clerks even joke about unknown, ridiculous
19th century ordinances that are still in effect, unknown to anybody,
just waiting to be dredged up in some obscure lawsuit to wreak havoc
on the res civilis.)
You might want also to contact the staff at the Robert Crown Law
Library at Stanford Law School: this is the sort of question that
might just, erm, arouse the interest of one of the librarians or
faculty members.
M well, it would interest *me*, but I don't even get to play a law
librarian on TV P
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
Recumbent Ocelot
this:
"No thanks, I smoke my own."
--
Bess.
Michael Palmer
zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) wrote:
>meanwhile, on a separate front, i'm interested in finding out exactly
>what couples contract for in civil marriage in the u.s. what do the
>applications and licenses *say*? in california, in particular? the
>california state webpage on marriage licenses provides none of this
>information, nor does it have a link to pages where you can look at
>it.
Well, no state in the US has a purely civil marriage, though what
would be so difficult about declaring marriage a civil event--no puns,
please--and declaring that all clergy are automatically civil
registration officials--as they have been in France, Germany, and, I
believe, the Netherlands since the days of Napoleon--is beyond me.
In California, marriage licenses are issued on the county level, and
there is, to my knowledge, no single, set form for the entire state
(at least the licenses issued by San Berdoo *look* different from
those issued by LA). I don't remember the text for either county, but
as I recall from my days as a local government records administrator
most of the text is administrative (how long the license is valid, who
can solemnize the marriage, what to do with the document after the
ceremony, etc.). There's no detailing of what the couple contracts
for, merely that the marriage is solemnized according to the laws of
the State of California. You can obtain a copy of the marriage
license application form for Santa Clara Co from
http://www.sccgov.org/scc/assets/docs/31560Appl4PublicMarriage.pdf.
As for the text of the marriage license itself, if you know someone
who's going to be officiating at a wedding in the near future, ask for
a photocopy of the form before it's returned to the county recorder.
Otherwise, contact the Santa Clara Co Recorder's Office in San Jose,
(408) 299-5664. If you explain that you're a Very Important Linguist
at Stanford (you linguists are always asking for the *strangest*
things) you should be able to get the text of the license itself.
(The county recorder's office may be unwilling to send you a copy of a
blank marriage license, since this could conceivably be used for
fraudulent purposes; you could allay their concerns by requesting a
copy defaced as to be legally unusable but with all its text legible.)
>(a helpful ad offers, for a fee, copies of marriage licenses in
>every state of the u.s., but i'm reluctant to *pay* for this
>information. if i'm going to buy something, i'll go look at books
>that give legal and other advice to those contemplating marriage.)
Actually, the offer is for marriage *certificates*, which are not
necessarily identical to the licenses themselves. The procedure, at
least in California, is as follows: the happy couple obtains a
marriage license; somebody officiates at the marriage; the officiant
completes the marriage license and returns it to the county recorder
of the county in which the license was issued. If the happy couple
wants documentary proof that they are legally wed, they must request
and pay an additional fee to obtain an official (certified) copy of
the marriage license. The copy *may* be a photocopy of the original
marriage license as completed and returned by the officiant; however,
it may also be another form, on which the county recorder's office has
copied the information from the original marriage license (the
government tendency to copy information from original documents on to
other forms is the reason good genealogists always ask for photocopies
of the originals).
M Government Record Managers R Us P
Ann Burlingham
> Well, no state in the US has a purely civil marriage, though what
> would be so difficult about declaring marriage a civil event--no puns,
> please--and declaring that all clergy are automatically civil
> registration officials--as they have been in France, Germany, and, I
> believe, the Netherlands since the days of Napoleon--is beyond me.
what do justices of the peace officiate at, then? i think of my
parents' marriage as a civil event, no religion involved, or am i
missing something?
Michael Palmer
<an...@panix.com> wrote:
>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>
>> Well, no state in the US has a purely civil marriage, though what
>> would be so difficult about declaring marriage a civil event--no puns,
>> please--and declaring that all clergy are automatically civil
>> registration officials--as they have been in France, Germany, and, I
>> believe, the Netherlands since the days of Napoleon--is beyond me.
A correction: France has had mandatory secular registration since the
1790's. In Germany, some states which were ruled by France directly
during the Napoleonic era also adopted mandatory secular registration,
while other states made the clergy ex officio civil registration
officers; mandatory secular registration came into effect throughout
all of Germany in 1876. There has been mandatory civil registration
throughout the Netherlands since 1811.
>what do justices of the peace officiate at, then? i think of my
>parents' marriage as a civil event, no religion involved, or am i
>missing something?
American state laws recognize only one kind of marriage that can be
performed by different types of individuals, both secular and
religious. Your parents may have been married by a JP, but their
marriage would have been equally valid if it had been performed by a
RC priest or a Moravian bishop. Your parents' marriage had a secular
*appearance*, but it had the *potential* to appear religious, if the
ceremony had been performed by a member of the clergy. The state uses
the same forms to register marriages performed by secular officials
and by clergy. The only difference is which box is checked under the
statement "This marriage was performed by" at the bottom of the form.
In fact, these days, these boxes are used only for statistical
purposes: it doesn't matter to the state whether the ceremony was
performed by a secular individual or by a member of the clergy.
Only the state has the power to "perform" marriages, but it delegates
that power not just to secular state employees and officials, such as
JP's, but also to other individuals, clergy, appointed by religious
groups. The state has no say in who becomes clergy: that's up to the
various religious denominations. In simplistic terms, this amounts to
churches appointing government officials without any government
vetting. True civil marriage means that the only people who can
perform marriages are secular officials appointed by the government
and answerable to it. (I'm revising my statement in my earlier post:
while it is possible to make clergy ex officio civil registration
officers this creates a potential for conflict of interest: while
some German states used this sytem for about 50 years, upon
unification in 1871 they chose a system with a completely secular
staff, all appointed directly, rather than ex officio.) There is no
*potential* for clergy, no *potential* for church involvement, even if
you want it. There is a complete separation of the secular and the
religious, and it is the *secular*, and only the secular, that makes
the marriage valid. Germans wishing to marry go to the Standesamt
(civil registration office) and fill out the necessary forms, etc., in
front of a secular, government official. This, and only this,
constitutes legal marriage in Germany. If the couple then wish to
have a religious ceremony they are free to do so, but such a ceremony
has no legal force, and is in no way a substitute for the secular
registration.
Michael Palmer
<j...@acm.org> wrote:
>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) wrote:
>
>>The really loony stuff is in the local laws (for a taste of which, see
>>http://bertc.com/sexlaws.htm), most of which are not online.
>
>At least one of them is not online because it doesn't exist. There's a
>lot of mythology surrounding sex laws.
That goes without saying. But various California archivists have dug
up any number of weird and wonderful unrepealed (and hence technically
still valid) laws and regulations in the council records for various
bay area cities, particularly in the 1850's and 1860's. (We've never
discussed sex laws as such, although I would expect some interesting
ones, particularly concerning "working girls" in San Francisco.)
Marina Muilwijk
news:3f0ccf50....@news.panix.com:
> Well, no state in the US has a purely civil marriage, though what
> would be so difficult about declaring marriage a civil event--no
> puns, please--and declaring that all clergy are automatically
> civil registration officials--as they have been in France,
> Germany, and, I believe, the Netherlands since the days of
> Napoleon--is beyond me.
Not in the Netherlands. You have to have a civil marriage before you
can appear in front of any clergy. But yes, it was Napoleon's idea (as
were many other things that are still with us).
Marina
Mike McKinley
Everything I learned about the Napoleonic Code, I learned from
Stanley Kowalski.
Clay Colwell
> if i suck on his balls (but not his dick), is that
> fellatio (and therefore sodomy, a` la georgia and texas)?
As it is a mouth making contact with genitalia, that would
qualify as sodomy under Texas law.
Edward Ricketts
xym...@bean.rochester.rr.com
(Arnold Zwicky) wrote:
>and what of frottage?
Frottage, mmmmmmmm!
Katie, a big fan
Michael Palmer
<m.mui...@library.uu.nl> wrote:
<sign> I knew that. This is what comes of combining three sentences
into one at some ridiculous hour of the morning.
MP, whose current teachers think that sleep is an unnecessary luxury
for their students
Marina Muilwijk
news:3f0e02fe....@news.panix.com:
> On 10 Jul 2003 10:48:35 GMT, in soc.motss, Marina Muilwijk
><m.mui...@library.uu.nl> wrote:
>>Not in the Netherlands. You have to have a civil marriage before
>>you can appear in front of any clergy. But yes, it was Napoleon's
>>idea (as were many other things that are still with us).
>
><sign> I knew that.
Your post explaining all this, appeared on my server shortly after I
posted this, so I know you know (not that I ever doubt that you know
everyting, of course)
> MP, whose current teachers think that sleep is an unnecessary
> luxury for their students
It is.
As is a view of the fields and woods behind the new library.
I just saw the plans of who gets which office, and the students are the
only people who get such a view. And what do I get? A view of the
students.
*grumblegrumbledevelopersshouldneverseestudentsgrumblemuttermutter*
Marina
David Kaye
> Well, no state in the US has a purely civil marriage, though what
> would be so difficult about declaring marriage a civil event--no puns,
> please--and declaring that all clergy are automatically civil
> registration officials--as they have been in France, Germany, and, I
> believe, the Netherlands since the days of Napoleon--is beyond me.
Huh? What planet are you from? This is exactly how it's done in the
U.S. The priest, rabbi, or minister performs a civil ceremony in
addition to a religious one. If they are credentialed by a church,
they are allowed to perform the civil ceremony, and what with the rise
of the Universal Life Church in the 1970s, the government's definition
of "church" is very broad indeed.
One does not need to be married by a minister at all, of course. Just
go to a justice of the peace and get a license. Heck, it's easier
than getting a dog license.
Queen of the Damned
> > beyond the reach of state law (a consequence of Lawrence). Consensual
> > masturbation with minors would not be sodomy (which is important,
> > though perhaps less so with the Lawrence decision), but would fall
> > under some form of "lewd and lascivious" statute (sexual
> > gratification).
>
> I would assume most if not all American states would have laws against
> "corrupting" minors as we do.
Oh, yes. That has more to do with drugs, alcohol, staying out late,
what have you. It's possible of course that prosecutors might go for
both charges if there were drugs, alcohol, naughty materials lying
about. If not, it would be something of a waste of time even if the
statute covered turning Japanese, in that L&L is more serious and
would put someone away quite a bit longer. If the judge was going to
fudge out of "leniency," the contributing charges would not likely be
substantial enough, even if accepted, to make a difference. If the
judge was going to go all out, then I suppose concurrent sentences
might be imposed. So if the goal was to keep someone out of
circulation as long as possible, that might work. However, there are
limits to how many charges can be filed for the same act - a right
fine mess.
*X*
Joe Fineman
> And what do I get? A view of the students.
<licks lips>
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Rules, tomatoes, entertainment: homegrown is best. :||
Chris Hansen
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:29:14 -0400, in soc.motss, Ann Burlingham
> <an...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>>
>>> Well, no state in the US has a purely civil marriage, though what
>>> would be so difficult about declaring marriage a civil event--no puns,
>>> please--and declaring that all clergy are automatically civil
>>> registration officials--as they have been in France, Germany, and, I
>>> believe, the Netherlands since the days of Napoleon--is beyond me.
>
> A correction: France has had mandatory secular registration since the
> 1790's. In Germany, some states which were ruled by France directly
> during the Napoleonic era also adopted mandatory secular registration,
> while other states made the clergy ex officio civil registration
> officers; mandatory secular registration came into effect throughout
> all of Germany in 1876. There has been mandatory civil registration
> throughout the Netherlands since 1811.
All C of E clergy in England are automatically civil registrars. I believe
that clergy of other denominations have to apply for this status but it's
granted without undue delay.
>>what do justices of the peace officiate at, then? i think of my
>>parents' marriage as a civil event, no religion involved, or am i
>>missing something?
>
> American state laws recognize only one kind of marriage that can be
> performed by different types of individuals, both secular and
> religious. Your parents may have been married by a JP, but their
> marriage would have been equally valid if it had been performed by a
> RC priest or a Moravian bishop.
I would turn the answer around a bit. A marriage in a religious setting has
two components: the purely civil one of registering with the appropriate
government body the fact that two people wish to be considered life-
partners in a form recognised by the state, and a purely religious one that
witnesses (in the RC and Orthodox sense) the administration of the
sacrament of Holy Matrimony by the partners on each other, or (in a
Protestant sense) blesses the union of two people in Holy Matrimony.
The civil ceremony, on the other hand, has only one of these elements.
> (I'm revising my statement in my earlier post:
> while it is possible to make clergy ex officio civil registration
> officers this creates a potential for conflict of interest: while
> some German states used this sytem for about 50 years, upon
> unification in 1871 they chose a system with a completely secular
> staff, all appointed directly, rather than ex officio.) There is no
> *potential* for clergy, no *potential* for church involvement, even if
> you want it. There is a complete separation of the secular and the
> religious, and it is the *secular*, and only the secular, that makes
> the marriage valid.
In the eyes of the RCs, however, a civil marriage which involves at least
one RC partner is invalid and illicit. This has little or no effect on
one's secular life; however, those wishing to enjoy whatever benefits the
RCs have to offer (sometimes, if you wish to have your children educated in
a parochial school, quite substantial) need to get their marriages
regularised.
As for us benighted Protestants, or other believers or non believers, civil
marriage is both valid and licit. This means that when a non-RC member of a
marriage becomes an RC, they are still married unless they use the Opt-out
Clause (Petrine Privilege for those who were baptised at the time of their
marriage, or Pauline Privilege for those who were unbaptised and married to
an unbaptised person).
> Germans wishing to marry go to the Standesamt
> (civil registration office) and fill out the necessary forms, etc., in
> front of a secular, government official. This, and only this,
> constitutes legal marriage in Germany. If the couple then wish to
> have a religious ceremony they are free to do so, but such a ceremony
> has no legal force, and is in no way a substitute for the secular
> registration.
There has been a goodly amount of discussion in C of E and ECUSA circles
about whether the Church as a whole ought to get out of the business of
legalising marriages. As marriage, per se, carries secular privileges and
responsibilities over and above those conferred by religious marriage, and
is regulated by the state for those secular privileges and
responsibilities. This means that the state is telling a religion who they
may or may not marry. Some ECUSA priests now refuse to perform marriage
ceremonies, and limit themselves to blessing those who have entered into
civil marriage.
Chris "A neat Anglican conclusion" Hansen
--
Chris Hansen
chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk
Michael Palmer
<chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>I would turn the answer around a bit. A marriage in a religious setting has
>two components: the purely civil one of registering with the appropriate
>government body the fact that two people wish to be considered life-
>partners in a form recognised by the state, and a purely religious one that
>witnesses (in the RC and Orthodox sense) the administration of the
>sacrament of Holy Matrimony by the partners on each other, or (in a
>Protestant sense) blesses the union of two people in Holy Matrimony.
>
>The civil ceremony, on the other hand, has only one of these elements.
And it is the civil element alone that makes this a marriage in the
eyes of the state.
> [snip]
>
>There has been a goodly amount of discussion in C of E and ECUSA circles
>about whether the Church as a whole ought to get out of the business of
>legalising marriages. As marriage, per se, carries secular privileges and
>responsibilities over and above those conferred by religious marriage, and
>is regulated by the state for those secular privileges and
>responsibilities.
(Of course it's only because of these secular privileges and
responsibilities that the state is at all concerned with marriage.)
>This means that the state is telling a religion who they
>may or may not marry.
As I wrote earlier, the secular view is that a clergyman's power to
perform legal marriages is delegated to him/her by the state ("by the
power vested in me by the state of ...")); therefore, a clergyman who
refuses to marry a couple on any but statutory grounds denies this
couple their legal right to marry. (I suppose one could even argue
denial of equal access to state services, but so many people have the
power to marry that it should be fairly easy to find someone who would
perform the ceremony--in California, the deputy county recorders
authorized to perform marriages are required to perform them for all
couples that fulfill the statutory requirements.)
>Some ECUSA priests now refuse to perform marriage
>ceremonies, and limit themselves to blessing those who have entered into
>civil marriage.
Or, more correctly, "been married in a civil ceremony", since US law
does not recognize the concepts of "civil" and "religious" marriage:
these are distinctions made only by churches. (And in fact, if a
couple is married in a civil ceremony they cannot by US law then be
*married* by a clergyman, since only one person can sign and return
the marriage certificate.)
Chris Hansen
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 08:21:04 +0000 (UTC), in soc.motss, Chris Hansen
> <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>I would turn the answer around a bit. A marriage in a religious
>>setting has two components: the purely civil one of registering with
>>the appropriate government body the fact that two people wish to be
>>considered life- partners in a form recognised by the state, and a
>>purely religious one that witnesses (in the RC and Orthodox sense) the
>>administration of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony by the partners on
>>each other, or (in a Protestant sense) blesses the union of two people
>>in Holy Matrimony.
>>The civil ceremony, on the other hand, has only one of these elements.
> And it is the civil element alone that makes this a marriage in the
> eyes of the state.
I guess it's important to note that I am speaking from the point of view
of a religious person looking at the marriage question. Thus my verbiage
is slanted toward the religious side of marriage, rather than the civil
or legal side.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>There has been a goodly amount of discussion in C of E and ECUSA
>>circles about whether the Church as a whole ought to get out of the
>>business of legalising marriages. As marriage, per se, carries secular
>>privileges and responsibilities over and above those conferred by
>>religious marriage, and is regulated by the state for those secular
>>privileges and responsibilities.
> (Of course it's only because of these secular privileges and
> responsibilities that the state is at all concerned with marriage.)
The legal part of marriage, that is. To people who feel that marriage is
a sacrament, the legal part is all piffle, and the important part is the
church wedding. This may be bad law, but sound theology.
>>This means that the state is telling a religion who they
>>may or may not marry.
> As I wrote earlier, the secular view is that a clergyman's power to
> perform legal marriages is delegated to him/her by the state ("by the
> power vested in me by the state of ...")); therefore, a clergyman who
> refuses to marry a couple on any but statutory grounds denies this
> couple their legal right to marry. (I suppose one could even argue
> denial of equal access to state services, but so many people have the
> power to marry that it should be fairly easy to find someone who would
> perform the ceremony--in California, the deputy county recorders
> authorized to perform marriages are required to perform them for all
> couples that fulfill the statutory requirements.)
I think it would be a very bold prosecutor indeed in California who
would prosecute a Roman Catholic priest for refusing to marry two Jewish
people who presented themselves to him for marriage. It would also be
true that two RCs who do not meet the RC definition of valid matter for
the sacrament of marriage (two people, neither of whom have a living
spouse, or who have had their previous marriages annulled in a RC
Diocesan or Roman Tribunal, who have never taken a vow of celibacy or
who have but who have been dispensed from it, who are not related to
each other within the permitted level of consanguinity, and at least one
of which either lives within the territory of the parish or has a letter
from his or her pastor giving permission for the wedding to take place
at another church) would not be able to be married by an RC priest, who
would be bound by Church law to refuse to witness their marriage.
>>Some ECUSA priests now refuse to perform marriage
>>ceremonies, and limit themselves to blessing those who have entered
>>into civil marriage.
> Or, more correctly, "been married in a civil ceremony", since US law
> does not recognize the concepts of "civil" and "religious" marriage:
> these are distinctions made only by churches. (And in fact, if a
> couple is married in a civil ceremony they cannot by US law then be
> *married* by a clergyman, since only one person can sign and return
> the marriage certificate.)
As I said above, I'm speaking from the point of view of a religious
person here.
According to the RCs, there is a very big distinction between civil and
sacramental marriage.
Chris "So we are both right" Hansen
Michael Palmer
<chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>... To people who feel that marriage is
>a sacrament, the legal part is all piffle, and the important part is the
>church wedding. This may be bad law, but sound theology.
Of course. But since the US claims to be a secular state, it is the
legal part that is supposed to be important, and the religious part of
it all piffle. After all, as far as the state is concerned,
divorce--the dissolution of marriage--is strictly a civil affair. You
can't go to a clergyman to get unhitched: the only place to get a
divorce is in a court of law. Why should a clergyman have the legal
power to get you into marriage if he doesn't have the legal power to
get you out of it?
I won't even begin to say what I think of Senator Frist's statement
that he views marriage as a "sacrament" and therefore supports a
constitutional amendment to "protect" it. Since when did "sacrament"
become a term of civil law?
I would argue that while a clergyman may have the right to refuse to
perform a religious ceremony he does not have the right to refuse,
purely on religious grounds, to exercise secular powers (to sign and
return the marriage license) vested in him by the state. If, when the
priest reaches the point in the ceremony where he says, "if any person
knows just cause why this couple should not ..." and someone at the
back of the church leaps to his or her feet and says, "the bride is a
divorcee whose former husband yet lives" (OK, nobody's talked like
that since the days of Shakespeare), the priest has every right to
stop the church service, since this is a violation of canon law.
However, he should still be required to sign and return the marriage
license, since having a living ex-spouse, provided the divorce is
legal, is not a legal bar to marriage.
I think this may have mooovie potential. I'll give it a year--enough
time for JLo and BAf to get married and divorced--before I start
shopping the concept around.
M My Big Fat Civil Wedding P
Chris Hansen
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:08:59 +0000 (UTC), in soc.motss, Chris Hansen
> <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>... To people who feel that marriage is
>>a sacrament, the legal part is all piffle, and the important part is the
>>church wedding. This may be bad law, but sound theology.
> Of course. But since the US claims to be a secular state, it is the
> legal part that is supposed to be important, and the religious part of
> it all piffle. After all, as far as the state is concerned,
> divorce--the dissolution of marriage--is strictly a civil affair. You
> can't go to a clergyman to get unhitched: the only place to get a
> divorce is in a court of law. Why should a clergyman have the legal
> power to get you into marriage if he doesn't have the legal power to
> get you out of it?
Ah, but in the RC world he does. He refers the marriage to the Diocesan
Tribunal, which has the power to annul the marriage if that's appropriate.
> I won't even begin to say what I think of Senator Frist's statement
> that he views marriage as a "sacrament" and therefore supports a
> constitutional amendment to "protect" it. Since when did "sacrament"
> become a term of civil law?
I agree with you on this one. I would welcome the good Senator's thoughts
on a constitutional amendment to ensure that only males can become priests
or bishops, thus protecting the RC sacrament of Holy Orders.
This is a very interesting point. I think you may be having me on, but if
there are any lawyers out there who have interest in such an arcane point
of law, I'd be delighted to hear about it.
I have never heard of a minister of religion who was required to sign and
return a marriage license even though, in the face of it, the marriage
would not be possible under the rules or his or her denomination.
I suspect that if such a case came up, it would be laughed out of court as
it's most unlikely that no other person empowered to perform a civil
marriage could be found.
C of E priests here in the UK are not required to marry divorced people,
even though they are allowed to if they wish (in most dioceses).
> I think this may have mooovie potential. I'll give it a year--enough
> time for JLo and BAf to get married and divorced--before I start
> shopping the concept around.
>
> M My Big Fat Civil Wedding P
Chris "Who's BAf?" Hansen
Robert S. Coren
Chris Hansen <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) wrote in
>news:3f10f82f....@news.panix.com:
>
>> time for JLo and BAf to get married and divorced--before I start
>> shopping the concept around.
>>
>> M My Big Fat Civil Wedding P
>
>Chris "Who's BAf?" Hansen
Ben Affleck, one assumes.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"My homosexuality is neither strange, surprising, unusual, or silly."
--FJ!! van Wingerde
Charlie Fulton
: In article <Xns93B78938184C8ch...@217.32.252.50>,
: Chris Hansen <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
:>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) wrote in
:>news:3f10f82f....@news.panix.com:
:>
:>> I think this may have mooovie potential. I'll give it a year--enough
:>> time for JLo and BAf to get married and divorced--before I start
:>> shopping the concept around.
:>>
:>> M My Big Fat Civil Wedding P
:>
:>Chris "Who's BAf?" Hansen
: Ben Affleck, one assumes.
As JLo has announced she'll be changing her name after the knot is
tied, she'll soon be shedding that moniker for "JAffleck".
--
Charlie Fulton--foultone@mtcc.com--http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"You wouldn't recognize your own reflection in a mirror."
Steven Levine
Michael Palmer
<foul...@fasolt.mtcc.com> wrote:
>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>: In article <Xns93B78938184C8ch...@217.32.252.50>,
>: Chris Hansen <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>:>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) wrote in
>:>news:3f10f82f....@news.panix.com:
>:>
>:>> I think this may have mooovie potential. I'll give it a year--enough
>:>> time for JLo and BAf to get married and divorced--before I start
>:>> shopping the concept around.
>:>>
>:>> M My Big Fat Civil Wedding P
>:>
>:>Chris "Who's BAf?" Hansen
>
>: Ben Affleck, one assumes.
>
>As JLo has announced she'll be changing her name after the knot is
>tied, she'll soon be shedding that moniker for "JAffleck".
Isn't that a rather rash move, considering her, erm, track record?
Kevin Michael Vail
> Non-consensual masturbation is sexual assault (and rape, if it
> involves any degree of penetration whatsoever) - with minors, very
> bad. Consensual masturbation in the privacy of your own home is now
> beyond the reach of state law (a consequence of Lawrence). Consensual
> masturbation with minors would not be sodomy (which is important,
> though perhaps less so with the Lawrence decision), but would fall
> under some form of "lewd and lascivious" statute (sexual
> gratification).
So I'm OK if I consent to masturbate with myself, but not if I
masturbate against my will? OK, I think I can live with that.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Chacun a son goūt. -- Lisa Cohen
ke...@vaildc.net | Get your own goo! -- Ned Deily
Duncan Mitchel
wrote:
> I won't even begin to say what I think of Senator Frist's statement
> that he views marriage as a "sacrament" and therefore supports a
> constitutional amendment to "protect" it. Since when did "sacrament"
> become a term of civil law?
You're right, of course. But I always want to remind people that during
the 2000 electoral campaign, Al Gore said the same thing: that marriage
is a "sacrament" that should be reserved for men and women. At some
point -- after the election, I think -- he said that even so, gay
relationships should have some kind of legal recognition and protection,
separate and unequal. To be fair to Gore, even the gay left-wing
candidate David McReynolds said something similar: that he couldn't see
the point of fussing about gay marriage, since it's just a religious
thing. But all that means is that McReynolds is as stupid as Gore.
From the other side, I've encountered pro-marriage gay people who've
said that the government should guarantee their right to a church
wedding. They become quite spitty when it is pointed out to them that
civil and religious marriage are two very different things, and that the
First Amendment forbids such government intervention in religious
matters.
I don't understand why this distinction is so hard for many people to
grasp, but it clearly is rocket science. It's proper to despise people
like Frist, and I do; but I also have no use for the people who confuse
the issue from the other side.
Duncan Mitchel
Vail) wrote:
>
> So I'm OK if I consent to masturbate with myself, but not if I
> masturbate against my will? OK, I think I can live with that.
> --
As long as no money changes, er, hands.
Chris Ambidge
marriage, civil and religious]
[mr bb]
>> Of course. But since the US claims to be a secular state, it is the
>> legal part that is supposed to be important, and the religious part of
>> it all piffle. After all, as far as the state is concerned,
>> divorce--the dissolution of marriage--is strictly a civil affair. You
>> can't go to a clergyman to get unhitched: the only place to get a
>> divorce is in a court of law. Why should a clergyman have the legal
>> power to get you into marriage if he doesn't have the legal power to
>> get you out of it?
you mean justices of the peace and county registrars have
the power to grant divorces? Not in Canada they don't.
yet you said a few posts ago that JPs and county registrars
can marry people in your neck of the woods.
>>>> As I wrote earlier, the secular view is that a clergyman's power to
>>>> perform legal marriages is delegated to him/her by the state ("by the
>>>> power vested in me by the state of ...")); therefore, a clergyman who
>>>> refuses to marry a couple on any but statutory grounds denies this
>>>> couple their legal right to marry.
again, not in Canada. Here, ministers of religion [and that's
not just Christians - Ontario tends to grant ministers licences
on the recommendation of their denomination, as long as the
denomination has been established (ie has at least one congregation
worshipping regularly) in the province for ten years. In
other provinces, that threshhold is different - 5y in Alberta,
I think] have the right to marry couples "according to the
standards of their denomination" (paraphrase). So both RC
and Jewish ministers can refuse to marry couples unless both
parties are members of the minister's religion. Anglicans
do not require (that is, it is up to the conscience of the
individual) ministers to marry divorced persons. Until 1995,
the Anglican table of kindred and affinity was different to the
on in federal law - (cue *Iolanthe* "marriage with deceased
wife's sister!"). If you were too closely related by that
table, you were outta luck in asking for an Anglican wedding.
But you could always get married at city hall. The couple were
NOT being denied their "legal right to marry", because a JP
would do the ceremony for them. And the phrase "by the power
vested in me by the state [province] of..." isn't used.
>> I would argue that while a clergyman may have the right to refuse to
>> perform a religious ceremony he does not have the right to refuse,
>> purely on religious grounds, to exercise secular powers (to sign and
>> return the marriage license) vested in him by the state. If, when the
>> priest reaches the point in the ceremony where he says, "if any person
>> knows just cause why this couple should not ..." and someone at the
>> back of the church leaps to his or her feet and says, "the bride is a
>> divorcee whose former husband yet lives" (OK, nobody's talked like
>> that since the days of Shakespeare),
sounds rather like Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester to me (all right,
so Mrs Rochester was still alive)
>> the priest has every right to
>> stop the church service, since this is a violation of canon law.
>> However, he should still be required to sign and return the marriage
>> license, since having a living ex-spouse, provided the divorce is
>> legal, is not a legal bar to marriage.
again, no, not in Canada. If the couple are getting married
in a religious ceremony, they follow the protocols of that
religion. Divorced people can now get marrried in an Anglican
church , for instance [I'm using these examples because I'm
most familiar with them, but I'm sure parallel cases exist for
other denominations and faith bodies]; but if the previous
marriage was only "discovered" at the wedding ceremony, it
would have to be postponed, because the protocols dealing with
remarriage of divorced persons (and permission is not automatically
granted) would not have been followed.
>Chris "Who's BAf?" Hansen
Ben Affleck
Manly Panda
Lee Rudolph
> Divorced people can now get marrried in an Anglican
> church
Really. I'd have thought that practice would be more a Church of
Scotland kind of thing.
Lee Rudolph
Ellen Evans
Duncan Mitchel <dmitche...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 06:35:37 GMT, mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer)
>wrote:
>
>> I won't even begin to say what I think of Senator Frist's statement
>> that he views marriage as a "sacrament" and therefore supports a
>> constitutional amendment to "protect" it. Since when did "sacrament"
>> become a term of civil law?
>
>You're right, of course. But I always want to remind people that during
>the 2000 electoral campaign, Al Gore said the same thing: that marriage
>is a "sacrament" that should be reserved for men and women.
Putting aside its utility as a political statement, this is so odd. Many
*mainstream Christian denominations* don't think of marriage as
technically a "sacrament": Presbyterians only count baptism and
communion, and they're not alone among Protestants. And some Protestants
don't have sacraments as such at all: Southern Baptists for one.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Frank McQuarry
For a really big splooge, you can shove a quarter into you anus in the
middle of the night. Just like the Tooth Fairy!
David W. Fenton
>I think this may have mooovie potential.
I find myself rather cowed by this assertion.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Michael Palmer
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
> [GlitterAnn Begay and Mr Bitch Bovine have been debating
> marriage, civil and religious]
>
> [mr bb]
>>> Of course. But since the US claims to be a secular state, it is the
>>> legal part that is supposed to be important, and the religious part of
>>> it all piffle. After all, as far as the state is concerned,
>>> divorce--the dissolution of marriage--is strictly a civil affair. You
>>> can't go to a clergyman to get unhitched: the only place to get a
>>> divorce is in a court of law. Why should a clergyman have the legal
>>> power to get you into marriage if he doesn't have the legal power to
>>> get you out of it?
>
> you mean justices of the peace and county registrars have
> the power to grant divorces? Not in Canada they don't.
>
> yet you said a few posts ago that JPs and county registrars
> can marry people in your neck of the woods.
Civil authority (i.e., courts). (Speaking of which, one of my
maternal grandmother's several divorces, in PA, was granted by the
orphans court.)
Of course, Ahnold has the power to grant divorces all on his own.
But then, Canada, like Britain, doesn't have true civil marriage (cf.
France, Netherlands, Germany, etc.).
Ann Burlingham
> As JLo has announced she'll be changing her name after the knot is
> tied, she'll soon be shedding that moniker for "JAffleck".
i've been wondering why jell-o never got her as a spokeswoman.
Michael Palmer
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
> [GlitterAnn Begay and Mr Bitch Bovine have been debating
> marriage, civil and religious]
>
> [mr bb]
>>> Of course. But since the US claims to be a secular state, it is the
>>> legal part that is supposed to be important, and the religious part of
>>> it all piffle. After all, as far as the state is concerned,
>>> divorce--the dissolution of marriage--is strictly a civil affair. You
>>> can't go to a clergyman to get unhitched: the only place to get a
>>> divorce is in a court of law. Why should a clergyman have the legal
>>> power to get you into marriage if he doesn't have the legal power to
>>> get you out of it?
>
> you mean justices of the peace and county registrars have
> the power to grant divorces? Not in Canada they don't.
>
> yet you said a few posts ago that JPs and county registrars
> can marry people in your neck of the woods.
The serious answer is that while the state recognizes marriages
performed by clergy, only the secular courts can legally dissolve a
marriage. Yes, depending upon your denomination you can have a
marriage "annulled", but this alone has no bearing on your legal
status. (Back in the 1930's, my favorite aunt's first husband decided
to trade her in on a younger model. He was rich, powerful, and RC,
and had little problem having the marriage annulled. However, my aunt
tied him up in court so long that he died before any divorce papers
were issued. Regardless of what the church said, the law said she was
his widow, and she got *everything*.)
Marina Muilwijk
news:3f10f82f....@news.panix.com:
> I would argue that while a clergyman may have the right to refuse
> to perform a religious ceremony he does not have the right to
> refuse, purely on religious grounds, to exercise secular powers
> (to sign and return the marriage license) vested in him by the
> state.
There's a case in the Netherlands at the moment about a town official
who refuses to marry same-sex couples. The town's position is "she
should marry any couple for whom it is legal to marry". Her own
position is "my religion says that same-sex couplings are sinful and I
will not take part in legalising such couplings".
For newly hired officials, it is clear that they can be required to
perform same-sex marriages. If they don't like that, they won't be
hired. But for people who were hired before marriage was opened to
same-sex couples, the question is "can we fire them if they refuse such
marriages?".
Marina
Chris Ambidge
>> > So I'm OK if I consent to masturbate with myself, but not if I
>> > masturbate against my will? OK, I think I can live with that.
>> > --
>>
>> As long as no money changes, er, hands.
[frank]
>For a really big splooge, you can shove a quarter into you anus in the
>middle of the night. Just like the Tooth Fairy!
you're showing your age, m'dear. the Tooth Fairy herabouts
wouldn't get away with leaving only a quarter. $1 or $2 is
the going rate.
didn't you just have recent dental work? if you got only
a quarter, you wuz robbed! file for supplemental benefits!
Chris
and before anyone makes smart-arsed comments about the canadian dollar,
the US$ has fallen more than 10% in value this year, and the two coins
mentioned above are worth $0.73 and $1.46US, still WELL above a reported
$0.25US per tooth.
Chris Ambidge
[mr bitch bovine]
>But then, Canada, like Britain, doesn't have true civil marriage (cf.
>France, Netherlands, Germany, etc.).
you know, you're starting to sound like Scott when he was
claiming that civil unions in Vermont were *exactly* like
same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.
Chris
Alex Elliott
Chris Ambidge <amb...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
> And the phrase "by the power
> vested in me by the state [province] of..." isn't used.
I attended my first Canadian wedding this weekend (I didn't know the bride
or groom, I was just part of the a capella dodecuplet that provided the
music) and noted this absence. In fact, the actual magical moment when
the marriage happens seems to take place "off-stage". The minister took
the couple away to a seperate room where they apparently filled out
paperwork as a sign of their eternal commitment; and it was after this
that he brought them back and presented them (*not* pronounced them) as
man and wife.
Alex.
Robert S. Coren
My first reaction is to say that the answer is (should be) "yes", but
I realize it's not quite so simple.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Then roll in confectioner's sugar." -- Last instruction in the
_Settlement Cookbook_'s recipe for Rum Balls
Chris Ambidge
>> Divorced people can now get marrried in an Anglican
>> church
[lee]
>Really. I'd have thought that practice would be more a Church of
>Scotland kind of thing.
exsqueeze me. I should have been more explicit. Divorced
people can, under certain (most) circumstances get remarried
in the Anglican Church of Canada. Other (national) branches of the
communion (especially those Quite Cross with Canada for
being nice to homos in New Westminster) are probably less
accommodating. Of course, some of them have different teachings
on polygamy too... The two (homos, divorce) are separate
subjects, but puritanical attitudes tend to group 'em.
manly panda
DRS
beuhjr$cee$1...@panix5.panix.com
[...]
>>There's a case in the Netherlands at the moment about a town official
>>who refuses to marry same-sex couples. The town's position is "she
>>should marry any couple for whom it is legal to marry". Her own
>>position is "my religion says that same-sex couplings are sinful and I
>>will not take part in legalising such couplings".
>>
>>For newly hired officials, it is clear that they can be required to
>>perform same-sex marriages. If they don't like that, they won't be
>>hired. But for people who were hired before marriage was opened to
>>same-sex couples, the question is "can we fire them if they refuse such
>>marriages?".
>
> My first reaction is to say that the answer is (should be) "yes", but
> I realize it's not quite so simple.
It is that simple. They work for a local branch of the secular government
and have a duty to implement its policies. Laws and regulations change from
time to time. So what? If they can't deal with that then they have to go.
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
Frank McQuarry
Chris Ambidge wrote:
>
> [kevin + duncan]
> >> > So I'm OK if I consent to masturbate with myself, but not if I
> >> > masturbate against my will? OK, I think I can live with that.
> >> > --
> >>
> >> As long as no money changes, er, hands.
>
> [frank]
> >For a really big splooge, you can shove a quarter into you anus in the
> >middle of the night. Just like the Tooth Fairy!
>
> you're showing your age, m'dear. the Tooth Fairy herabouts
> wouldn't get away with leaving only a quarter. $1 or $2 is
> the going rate.
Splooge worth more than a quarter? I'm shocked.
> didn't you just have recent dental work? if you got only
> a quarter, you wuz robbed! file for supplemental benefits!
The bitch left me nothing. Nothing!
David W. Fenton
<Xns93B88090E...@131.211.16.24>:
>On 13 Jul 2003, mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) wrote in
>news:3f10f82f....@news.panix.com:
>
>> I would argue that while a clergyman may have the right to
>> refuse to perform a religious ceremony he does not have the
>> right to refuse, purely on religious grounds, to exercise
>> secular powers (to sign and return the marriage license) vested
>> in him by the state.
>
>There's a case in the Netherlands at the moment about a town
>official who refuses to marry same-sex couples. The town's
>position is "she should marry any couple for whom it is legal to
>marry". Her own position is "my religion says that same-sex
>couplings are sinful and I will not take part in legalising such
>couplings".
Gee, I thought we here in the US were the only ones who had
lunatics like that in public office, i.e., people who have no
comprehension of the concept of civil law vs. private morality.
>For newly hired officials, it is clear that they can be required
>to perform same-sex marriages. If they don't like that, they won't
>be hired. But for people who were hired before marriage was opened
>to same-sex couples, the question is "can we fire them if they
>refuse such marriages?".
Absolutely.
One's job duties are separate from one's personal beliefs.
Well, I can attempting to accomodate the official by moving her to
a job where she is not required to perform duties that are at
variance with her religious beliefs.
But civil laws are for the civil realm. If the official cannot
abide those things that are allowed within that realm, then the
official really doesn't belong in that realm.
Ann Burlingham
> I attended my first Canadian wedding this weekend (I didn't know the bride
> or groom, I was just part of the a capella dodecuplet that provided the
> music) and noted this absence. In fact, the actual magical moment when
> the marriage happens seems to take place "off-stage". The minister took
> the couple away to a seperate room where they apparently filled out
> paperwork as a sign of their eternal commitment; and it was after this
> that he brought them back and presented them (*not* pronounced them) as
> man and wife.
the australians do this, or at least give you the option of doing
this, right smack dab in front of the assembled throng. we stood up
for a while, then i sat down and signed documents while jason stood
next to me and signed them, then we were up again, then everyone
signed things saying they'd seen us sign things, and at each instance,
the celebrant conveyed that we'd done it properly with a "ta," which
had god and me nearly in giggles.
Michael Palmer
Er, no. So far as I know--I defer to Marina for the True Facts (as
distinct from the less than true facts our government uses to justify
its various and sundry invasions)--same-sex marriages in the
Netherlands have *all* the rights that motos marriages do, and motss
couples use the same documents as do motos couples. This is clearly
not the case in Vermont. Vermont doesn't have civil marriage: it has
something separate-and-not-quite-equal called "civil union".
M civil marriage: accept no substitute P
Chris Hansen
> The serious answer is that while the state recognizes marriages
> performed by clergy, only the secular courts can legally dissolve a
> marriage. Yes, depending upon your denomination you can have a
> marriage "annulled", but this alone has no bearing on your legal
> status. (Back in the 1930's, my favorite aunt's first husband decided
> to trade her in on a younger model. He was rich, powerful, and RC,
> and had little problem having the marriage annulled. However, my aunt
> tied him up in court so long that he died before any divorce papers
> were issued. Regardless of what the church said, the law said she was
> his widow, and she got *everything*.)
Good for her. I do not defend the marital customs of those who follow the
Scarlet Whore of Babylon.
~Chris "Of course, in the 2000's he would probably have had little
difficulty in getting a divorce, contrary to the 1930's." Hansen
--
Chris Hansen
chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk
Chris Hansen
This is a throwback to the English "signing of the register". We set up a
table at the back of the sanctuary with the two register books and pens at
the ready. The documents are already filled out, except for the couple's
and witnesses' and officiant's signatures. Once the signatures are dry, the
couple are wed.
Chris "That is, when we have a wedding at St. Matthew's at the Heffalump;
we have about a 20 foot aisle so brides often choose to be married
elsewhere and only those who are members of the congregation generally get
married with us." Hansen
Michael Palmer
<chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
>Chris "That is, when we have a wedding at St. Matthew's at the Heffalump;
>we have about a 20 foot aisle so brides often choose to be married
>elsewhere and only those who are members of the congregation generally get
>married with us." Hansen
(I like the "with us". Very chez nous and bei uns.)
Well, if St. Mattalump has side aisles, everyone can march down the
center aisle, turn to one side aisle, march to the back, march down
the center aisle again, turn to the other side aisle, march to the
back, and march down the center aisle a third time (reverse direction
if this is post signature). This has the added benefit of giving
camera challenged relatives several chances of getting a photo of the
happy couple as they steam up (or down) the center aisle.
MP, wondering (but not *too* much) what non Cathedral church in
Britain has the longest aisle.
Michael Sarris
> Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
> : In article <Xns93B78938184C8ch...@217.32.252.50>,
> : Chris Hansen <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote:
> :>mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) wrote in
> :>news:3f10f82f....@news.panix.com:
> :>
> :>> I think this may have mooovie potential. I'll give it a year--enough
> :>> time for JLo and BAf to get married and divorced--before I start
> :>> shopping the concept around.
> :>>
> :>> M My Big Fat Civil Wedding P
> :>
> :>Chris "Who's BAf?" Hansen
>
> : Ben Affleck, one assumes.
>
> As JLo has announced she'll be changing her name after the knot is
> tied, she'll soon be shedding that moniker for "JAffleck".
No, no. She'll be the Wife of BAf.
She'll still need to work on the number of husbands, though.
Michael, who googled to count her married derails
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"If you've got a wife we'll fire her
You can put me in the Enquirer."
-- Kami Lyle, "Polka Dots"
Marina Muilwijk
news:beuhjr$cee$1...@panix5.panix.com:
> In article <Xns93B88090E...@131.211.16.24>,
> Marina Muilwijk <m.mui...@library.uu.nl> wrote:
>>For newly hired officials, it is clear that they can be required
>>to perform same-sex marriages. If they don't like that, they won't
>>be hired. But for people who were hired before marriage was opened
>>to same-sex couples, the question is "can we fire them if they
>>refuse such marriages?".
>
> My first reaction is to say that the answer is (should be) "yes",
> but I realize it's not quite so simple.
Things are never simple in Dutch politics.
The woman who refused was fired some time ago, then re-hired last
month. Same-sex couples wanting to marry in that town will be advised
to ask for a different registrar.
(if you read Dutch, the Leeuwarder Courant
http://www.leeuwardercourant.nl/
has a file on the case)
In the meantime, our new government (led by the Christian Democrats) is
thinking of making it legal to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
So same-sex couples can marry, but they'll have to shop around to find
someone who will actually perform the marriage.
This is such an enlightened country.
Marina
Marina Muilwijk
<chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com> wrote in
news:Xns93B8E3C361330ch...@217.32.252.50:
> This is a throwback to the English "signing of the register". We
> set up a table at the back of the sanctuary with the two register
> books and pens at the ready. The documents are already filled out,
> except for the couple's and witnesses' and officiant's signatures.
> Once the signatures are dry, the couple are wed.
In the Netherlands, signing the register *is* the marriage.
A few years ago I signed such a paper at my sister's wedding. After the
almost-husband's parents had done the same, the couple was officially
married.
With the registrars speech before and after, plus the exchanging of
rings, the whole thing lasted about half an hour.
Marina
(and no, the bride didn't wear white or in fact anything resembling a
wedding dress)
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> I do not defend the marital customs of those who follow the
> Scarlet Whore of Babylon.
When you call it that, it seems sooo much more attractive.
Chris Ambidge
>Well, if St. Mattalump has side aisles, everyone can march down the
>center aisle, turn to one side aisle, march to the back, march down
>the center aisle again, turn to the other side aisle, march to the
>back, and march down the center aisle a third time (reverse direction
>if this is post signature). This has the added benefit of giving
>camera challenged relatives several chances of getting a photo of the
>happy couple as they steam up (or down) the center aisle.
st matthew's at the heffalump is a rectangular hall, with the altar
centred on the long wall, as I recall. So the aisle from the
main entrance (centre other long wall) is less than the
width of the room. But no perimeter aisles either.
>MP, wondering (but not *too* much) what non Cathedral church in
>Britain has the longest aisle.
good question. Beverly minster? The longest cathedral naves are
Winchester and St Albans, but I'm not sure where the nave altars
are (which would stop the procession) in each one. It may be
that another cathedral without nave altar / pulpitum / screen
would have a looooonger central aisle.
manly panda
not planning on marching down any of those aisles with a husband, but
marriage (accept no substitutes) in Ontario and BC are exactly equivalent
for same and opposite sex couples
Michael Palmer
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
> [mr bitch bovine]
>>Well, if St. Mattalump has side aisles, everyone can march down the
>>center aisle, turn to one side aisle, march to the back, march down
>>the center aisle again, turn to the other side aisle, march to the
>>back, and march down the center aisle a third time (reverse direction
>>if this is post signature). This has the added benefit of giving
>>camera challenged relatives several chances of getting a photo of the
>>happy couple as they steam up (or down) the center aisle.
>
> st matthew's at the heffalump is a rectangular hall, with the altar
> centred on the long wall, as I recall. So the aisle from the
> main entrance (centre other long wall) is less than the
> width of the room. But no perimeter aisles either.
Oh dear. Not at all good for processions. What was Mr. Haenlein
thinking?
>>MP, wondering (but not *too* much) what non Cathedral church in
>>Britain has the longest aisle.
>
> good question. Beverly minster? The longest cathedral naves are
> Winchester and St Albans, but I'm not sure where the nave altars
> are (which would stop the procession) in each one. It may be
> that another cathedral without nave altar / pulpitum / screen
> would have a looooonger central aisle.
A brief stint on Google(tm) suggests that nave measurements are as
consistent and reliable as penis measurements. However, the 11th
edition of the EB--which as we know Does Not Lie About Such
Things--gives the length of the nave at St. Albans as 300 feet, and of
the nave at Winchester as 264 feet, and declares these the two longest
naves in England (although it has the shorter nave, Winchester is
considered the longest church in England). However, several internet
sites give the length of the nave at Christchurch Priory, Hants, as
311 feet. (The widest nave is reputed to be Manchester Cathedral.)
M where is Nicky Pevsner when we really need him? P
Robert S. Coren
Michael Palmer <mpa...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>A brief stint on Google(tm) suggests that nave measurements are as
>consistent and reliable as penis measurements.
Somehow I don't envision thousands of spam email messages shouting
"Add 5 feet to your nave!"
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"You ain't seen from animus." --Ken Rudolph
Cornelia Wyngaarden
mpa...@panix.com wrote on 7/15/03 11:25 PM:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:07:45 GMT, in soc.motss,
> amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
>
>> [mr bitch bovine]
>
>>> MP, wondering (but not *too* much) what non Cathedral church in
>>> Britain has the longest aisle.
>>
>> good question. Beverly minster? The longest cathedral naves are
>> Winchester and St Albans, but I'm not sure where the nave altars
>> are (which would stop the procession) in each one. It may be
>> that another cathedral without nave altar / pulpitum / screen
>> would have a looooonger central aisle.
>
> A brief stint on Google(tm) suggests that nave measurements are as
> consistent and reliable as penis measurements. However, the 11th
> edition of the EB--which as we know Does Not Lie About Such
> Things--gives the length of the nave at St. Albans as 300 feet, and of
> the nave at Winchester as 264 feet, and declares these the two longest
> naves in England (although it has the shorter nave, Winchester is
> considered the longest church in England). However, several internet
> sites give the length of the nave at Christchurch Priory, Hants, as
> 311 feet. (The widest nave is reputed to be Manchester Cathedral.)
>
What about the Bath Abbey? How long is that?
corry
Lee Rudolph
>A brief stint on Google(tm) suggests that nave measurements are as
>consistent and reliable as penis measurements.
And *that* (viz., the consistency and reliability) can be, and
has been, quantified. Abstracted from the Archives of Sexual Behavior
31 (4): 351-357, August 2002:
Test-Retest Reliability of the Measurement of Penile Dimensions in
a Sample of Gay Men
Richard Harding and Susan E. Golombok, Family and Child Psychology
Research Centre, City University, London, England
Abstract
Both physiological and self-measurement methods have been employed
to collect data on the dimensions of the erect penis. However,
self-measurement using paper strips has often been favored as a
less intrusive and time-consuming method, despite the recognition
of the increased chance of bias through exaggeration. The current
study aimed to establish the test-retest reliability of measurement
of the erect penis using paper strips in a sample of 312 gay men.
....
Test-retest reliability of measurement was found to be moderately
low at r = .60 for length and r = .53 for girth. No relation was
found between measurement discrepancy and the age, social class,
education, ethnicity, or employment status of the partner taking
the measurements. Although self-measurement strips are both
convenient and acceptable, and widely reported in the literature,
they only have moderate test-retest reliability. This may be due
to both natural variability in penis size within subjects over time
and unreliability of the measurement method.
Math is hard! Let's do statistics.
Lee Rudolph
Michael Palmer
Rudolph) wrote:
And to think they probably got a government grant for this!
DRS
3f15c4af....@news.panix.com
I think there should be a government grant for studying penis size. And I
think the government should give it to me.
Eric Bohlman
news:bf3td6$74b$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> And *that* (viz., the consistency and reliability) can be, and
> has been, quantified. Abstracted from the Archives of Sexual Behavior
> 31 (4): 351-357, August 2002:
>
> Test-retest reliability of measurement was found to be moderately
> low at r = .60 for length and r = .53 for girth. No relation was
Translation: men with the same first-test measurement show a variance in
second-test measurement that's about two-thirds of the variance in random
measurements.
I.E. size queens may be disappointed.
Chris Ambidge
>>>Britain has the longest aisle.
[yr panda]
>> good question. Beverly minster? The longest cathedral naves are
>> Winchester and St Albans, but I'm not sure where the nave altars
>> are (which would stop the procession) in each one. It may be
>> that another cathedral without nave altar / pulpitum / screen
>> would have a looooonger central aisle.
[mr bb]
>A brief stint on Google(tm) suggests that nave measurements are as
>consistent and reliable as penis measurements. However, the 11th
>edition of the EB--which as we know Does Not Lie About Such
>Things--gives the length of the nave at St. Albans as 300 feet, and of
>the nave at Winchester as 264 feet, and declares these the two longest
>naves in England (although it has the shorter nave, Winchester is
>considered the longest church in England).
that's because the nave is by no means all of the length
of the church itself. In many places, the nave has an altar at
or just east of the crossing (where the transepts meet the
nave), and a screen; and then there's a choir and high altar
east of that. The "longest church in England" title for
Winchester is measuring from the western doors to the east
wall. But the subdivision inside gives more to nave and less
to other bits (choir, chapels, etc) in St Albans than in
Winchester. St Albans (my diocesan cathedral, when I was a
children) is a loooong building, but not quite as long as Winton.
[ooops, I misspoke. a visit to the website,
http://www.stalbanscathedral.org.uk and thence to "around the
cathedral" shows that the nave is 13 bays long, but the
nave screen (pulpitum) is at bay 10, so it's not even as
long as the distance from west doors to the crossing
http://www.stalbanscathedral.org.uk/photos/nave.htm ]
St Albans (he said tangentially) was built at the site of
Verulamium, a very significant Roman city during their occupation
of Britannia. It was a standard days outing for schoolchildren
to go and visit Verulamium, see the various excavated bits (and
later buy souvenirs - you could get broken terracotta bits
that were Roman in origin for tuppence, wish I still had mine).
It was only a 20min bus ride from our school - I think we went
twice. And to the cathedral in the afternoon. Goodly amounts
of Roman brick was used in the cathedral construction (pillaged
from the ruins, one assumes) - the local stone in Hertfordshire
is flint, which does not make for faaabulous architecture. So
most of the tower is visibly Roman brick (doesn't show well here)
http://www.stalbanscathedral.org.uk/photos/cathedral-1.htm ]
>However, several internet
>sites give the length of the nave at Christchurch Priory, Hants, as
>311 feet. (The widest nave is reputed to be Manchester Cathedral.)
less need of lubrication
Chris
born in Northamptonshire, grew up in Hertfordshire
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Michael Palmer
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
> St Albans (he said tangentially) was built at the site of
> Verulamium, a very significant Roman city during their occupation
> of Britannia. It was a standard days outing for schoolchildren
> to go and visit Verulamium, see the various excavated bits (and
> later buy souvenirs - you could get broken terracotta bits
> that were Roman in origin for tuppence, wish I still had mine).
> It was only a 20min bus ride from our school - I think we went
> twice. And to the cathedral in the afternoon. Goodly amounts
> of Roman brick was used in the cathedral construction (pillaged
> from the ruins, one assumes) - the local stone in Hertfordshire
> is flint, which does not make for faaabulous architecture. So
> most of the tower is visibly Roman brick (doesn't show well here)
> http://www.stalbanscathedral.org.uk/photos/cathedral-1.htm ]
My first excavating experience was a Verulamium, in the summer of 1971
(by which time, if I remember correctly, you had already departed for
more westerly climes). One of my closest friends lived in St. Albans
in the 1970's and 1980's (her children went to St. Alban's School),
and she still owns the topmost flat in what was formerly the abby mill
(she rents it out to rich London commuters, since she lives on the
outskirts of York).
Chris Hansen
Hell, I would have done it for free.
Chris "And maybe even paid for doing it myself..." Hansen