Now, by the power vested in my the ???

[DanS.]

What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
now pronounce you man and wife."

The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Steve Hayes]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[DanS.]

On 12/23/2011 1:18 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:37:35 -0500, "DanS."<dslaug...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>
>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>
> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>
>

I actually like that better.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Derek Turner]

In England:

The minister addresses the people

In the presence of God, and before this congregation,
N and N have given their consent
and made their marriage vows to each other.
They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands
and by the giving and receiving of rings.
I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.

The minister joins their right hands together and says

Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.

Can't speak for Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Nor for civil services in a
register office.



--
"Capitalisation is the difference between helping
your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse."

[MC]

In article <9lilr8...@mid.individual.net>,

Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:37:35 -0500, DanS. wrote:
>
> > What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
> > preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
> > now pronounce you man and wife."
> >
> > The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>
> In England:
>
> The minister addresses the people
>
> In the presence of God, and before this congregation,
> N and N have given their consent
> and made their marriage vows to each other.
> They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands
> and by the giving and receiving of rings.
> I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.
>
> The minister joins their right hands together and says
>
> Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.
>
> Can't speak for Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Nor for civil services in a
> register office.

Then there are the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Quaker ceremonies...
(and all the rest).

--

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

[MC]

In article <9lilr8...@mid.individual.net>,
Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:37:35 -0500, DanS. wrote:
>
> > What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
> > preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
> > now pronounce you man and wife."
> >
> > The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>
> In England:
>
> The minister addresses the people
>
> In the presence of God, and before this congregation,
> N and N have given their consent
> and made their marriage vows to each other.
> They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands
> and by the giving and receiving of rings.
> I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.
>
> The minister joins their right hands together and says
>
> Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.
>
> Can't speak for Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Nor for civil services in a
> register office.

PS... I'm stealing your signature line!

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On 23 Dec 2011 06:36:24 GMT, Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:37:35 -0500, DanS. wrote:
>
>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>
>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>
>In England:
>
> The minister addresses the people
>
>In the presence of God, and before this congregation,
>N and N have given their consent
>and made their marriage vows to each other.
>They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands
>and by the giving and receiving of rings.
>I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.
>
> The minister joins their right hands together and says
>
>Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.
>
>Can't speak for Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Nor for civil services in a
>register office.

The (Anglican) Church of Ireland has two variants of the marriage
service.
#1:
http://ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/files/worship/pdf/marrone09.pdf

Joining their right hands together, the priest says

Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.

DECLARATION

The minister speaks to the people

Forasmuch as …. and …. have consented together in holy wedlock, and
have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto
have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have
declared the same by giving and receiving of a ring, and by joining
of hands; I pronounce that they be man and wife together: In the
Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

#2:
http://ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/files/worship/pdf/marr209.pdf

THE DECLARATION

The priest addresses the people

In the presence of God, and before this congregation

…. and …. have given their consent

and made their marriage vows to each other.
They have declared their marriage
by the joining of hands

and by the giving and receiving of a ring.
Therefore in the name of God
I pronounce that they are husband and wife.

The priest joins the right hands of the husband and wife together,
and says

What God has joined together

let no one put asunder.

Those are from the _Book of Common Prayer 2004 Texts_. Versions are
available in Irish as well as English.
http://ireland.anglican.org/worship/12


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:

>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>
>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>
> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Good!

I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
marriages.

I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
partnership."

Perce

[Leslie Danks]

AFAIK the Roman Catholic Church still does this--unless you've got Money, of
course.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Derek Turner]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:50:45 -0500, MC wrote:

>
> Then there are the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Quaker ceremonies...
> (and all the rest).

As far as I am aware, all other denominations and religions have to use
the same wording as the register office. Only the Established Church has
authority to use its own wording.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 12/23/11 08:44 am, Leslie Danks wrote:

>>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>>>> now pronounce you man and wife."

I have just checked with another clergy person who performed marriages
in New York. Although she was in fact authorized by that state to marry
people, she did not use that formula in pronouncing the couple man and wife.

>>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>>
>>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
>> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
>> marriages.
>>
>> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
>> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
>> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
>> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
>> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
>> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
>> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
>> partnership."
>
> AFAIK the Roman Catholic Church still does this--unless you've got Money, of
> course.

You mean as far as granting "ecclesiastical divorces," I assume. But I
thought that the Roman Catholic Church would not grant divorces at all
but will in certain circumstances grant dissolutions/annulments on
grounds such as non-consummation or inability to give *informed* consent.

More than a decade ago I attended worship at a Greek Orthodox church and
found a copy of the parish magazine, which included a piece reminding
parishioners that if they wished a "church wedding" (my term; I don't
recall the specific wording) following a civil divorce they would have
to have their situation investigated by the diocesan(?) authorities --
for a fee of $2000 or so at the time, IIRC. (AIUI, the Orthodox,
acknowledging the frailty of human nature, permit two remarriages in
certain circumstances.)

Perce

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

The situation in the UK is that religious leaders are authorised by law
to conduct marriages. I understand that some are _ex officio_
authorised, others are individually authorised.

The reason, surely, for the involvement of the civil authorities,
governments, is that a marriage is a contract defined, at least partly,
in law. Marrying or entering into a civil partnership triggers a whole
raft of legal rights and responsibilities.

[Don Phillipson]

"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message
news:jd201f$8a5$1...@dont-email.me...

> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage business
> and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which religious
> communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as marriages,

> according to their own criteria . . .

Note that in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition governments are not
"in the marriage business" because they did not create marriages.
Marriages were recognized before governments existed in their
recognized form (as distinct from the effective power of a king
or lord.) All governments did was to propose solutions to the sorts
of particular roblems marriage gave rise to. The institution was
up to the 20th century widely accepted as an autonomous (and
prehistoric) institution. All governments did was prescribe who might
perform the ceremony (only Anglican priests, for one interval
in Engllish history, regardless of the religion of the marriage
partners) or how a marriage might be dissolved. More generally,
governments usually adopted local religious doctrine prescribing
who was eligible to marry whom. Not until the 20th century did
anyone suggest legislatures were competent to define what
marriage was or ought to be.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> writes:

> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here,
>>> the preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of
>>> Indiana, I now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>
>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>
>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>
> Good!
>
> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes
> to marriages.

They're certainly not forced to, mereley allowed to. Unless they make
a declaration in front of witnesses, in a form that explicitly states
that they are empowered to create a legal marriage and intend to do so
(and sign the wedding license), the marriages they perform won't be
legally recognized, but that's allowed.

> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
> partnership."

Except for the fact that they're both called "marriages", that's
pretty much the way it works now. My rabbi has performed weddings for
gay couples, which aren't legally recognized by the state of
California, and these couples are considered to be married, for
religious purposes. And Orthodox rabbis frequently refuse to marry
women who have been divorced but have not obtained a get.

Allowing those officiating religious ceremonies to also do the legal
part merely simplifies the process for couples that are going to have
a religious ceremony anyway and cuts down on the number of state
employees needed to perform civil ceremonies. But on the whole I
agree with you that it would be a good idea to more explicitly
decouple the two notions. Unfortunately, the wording is littered
throughout the various legal codes, so such a change would almost
certainly have to be effected by wording that says that wherever
"married" is encountered, it should be read as "in a partnership",
wherever "unmarried" is encountered, it should be read as "not in a
partnership", etc.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The whole idea of our government is
SF Bay Area (1982-) |this: if enough people get together
Chicago (1964-1982) |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Steve Hayes]

I advocated such a system on my blog, here:

http://methodius.blogspot.com/2006/09/state-should-get-out-of-marriage.html

[Skitt]

Well, *legal* status for a marriage has to be granted by someone who is
*legally* authorized to do it.

Marriage in the USA is a legal contractual union. The church goings-on,
if any, are just fancy and often expensive window dressing.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[franzi]

Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote

Hmm. What business is it of governments to attempt to interfere in and
classify the personal relationships of friends, couples, intimate
acquaintances, life partners, lovers, accidental parents, and serial
philanderers? If two people want to enter into a formal contract to
share their property, let the law govern it. But if they want to vow
mutual fidelity before God, it seems not to be a matter for the secular
authority.

I still haven't worked out why British government policy (presumably
civil service policy in fact) is that family members and opposite-sex
couples should be excluded from civil partnerships. Discrimination is
bad, innit.
--
franzi

[Skitt]

franzi wrote:
> Skitt wrote

>> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:

>>>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of
>>>>> Indiana, I
>>>>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>>>
>>>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>>>
>>>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>>>
>>> Good!
>>>
>>> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
>>> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
>>> marriages.
>>>
>>> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
>>> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
>>> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
>>> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
>>> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
>>> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
>>> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
>>> partnership."
>>

>> Well, *legal* status for a marriage has to be granted by someone who
>> is *legally* authorized to do it.
>>
>> Marriage in the USA is a legal contractual union. The church
>> goings-on, if any, are just fancy and often expensive window dressing.
>
> Hmm. What business is it of governments to attempt to interfere in and
> classify the personal relationships of friends, couples, intimate
> acquaintances, life partners, lovers, accidental parents, and serial
> philanderers? If two people want to enter into a formal contract to
> share their property, let the law govern it. But if they want to vow
> mutual fidelity before God, it seems not to be a matter for the secular
> authority.

There are several things that are influenced by a legal marital status
-- taxes, for one. Choosing medical treatment options for an
incapacitated spouse is another. There are more.

Then there's the issue of not everyone believing in a mythical being
that one should make vows to and expect guidance from.

<snip>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

franzi <et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> writes:

> Hmm. What business is it of governments to attempt to interfere in and
> classify the personal relationships of friends, couples, intimate
> acquaintances, life partners, lovers, accidental parents, and serial
> philanderers? If two people want to enter into a formal contract to
> share their property, let the law govern it. But if they want to vow
> mutual fidelity before God, it seems not to be a matter for the
> secular authority.

I think this is getting into political discussion of what "should" be,
rather than discussion of the usage. But I want to go one more level.

At the very least, there are a HUGE number of ways that the formal
recognition of the status "married" affects legal standing and
relationships with the government. I'm not here arguing that those are
right, or the only way to handle the issues; I'm merely suggesting that
making a drastic change will require figuring out how all these things
need to be handled from scratch. I'm also not arguing that that's a bad
idea; I'm a bit inclined to thinking it's a good idea. But it's a huge
project, and will be tremendously contentious to actually do.

In the USA marital status is legally attached to child custody and
visitation rights, inheritance (especially in the absence of a will),
payment of government benefits (including veteran's benefits and social
security as well as welfare programs), automatic medical powers of
attorney, immunity from having to testify in certain cases in court,
benefits offered by employers, and even the ability to be a visitor in
the hospital. And no doubt lots of other things I haven't even thought
of.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:30:45 +0000, franzi
<et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>I still haven't worked out why British government policy (presumably
>civil service policy in fact) is that family members and opposite-sex
>couples should be excluded from civil partnerships. Discrimination is
>bad, innit.

Civil partnerships were invented to allow same-sex couples to have an
equivalent to marriage. The reason for this invention rather than simply
extending the definition of marriage seems to have been to avoid an
unholy battle with religious people[1]. It allows couples in partnership
to consider themselves as married while the religious people consider
them not to be married.

Allowing opposite-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships would
muddy the waters and enrage some of the religous people by effectively
demonstrating that civil partnerships are indistinguishable from
marriages.

Politics is the art of the possible, innit?

The second point in your comment is about the possibility of family
members or friends linking their lives and property legally in a manner
similar to that of married or CP'ed couples. There are, for instance,
older people who have set up home together for companionship and
practical convenience. Some of those have wondered why they should not
be able to legally register this arrangement and gain the same legal
benefits as couples who are married or in civil partnerships.

[1] FSVO "religious people".

[DanS.]

Can you explain why you think this is the best option among all?
Marriage and domestic partnerships are repressive, and a government
premised on liberty would stay as far away from them as humanly
possible. However, that "humanly possible" caveat is a bugger. They
actually must recognize marriage to facilitate the family structure upon
which our society is based. Essentially, marriage is our first
obligation to society, and a government of the people, by the people and
for the people, must recognize it. Every child born will one day join
this society. As such, every child born is as much a social obligation
as it is an obligation of the mother and father.

You can't separate government from marriage. To assert so is ignorance.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

And now, if you'll join with me to see every one annulled, it would be
helpful.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

There is no reason for any of us to recognize the unions, none
whatsoever. It is being shoved down our throats against our will. A
few people who don't want to seem disagreeable will assent to the gays
beseeching, but in private will quickly declare their complete support
for traditional marriage.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

That's a fairly shallow understanding of it. Even the justices on the
Supreme Court hadn't arrived at a complete definition of the union. It
is commonly understood as a contract, but that is only part of the picture.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

There exists such a process. It is called gifting, buying and selling
of property between two unique and separate economic entities, which gay
couples, in fact, are.

> But if they want to vow
> mutual fidelity before God, it seems not to be a matter for the secular
> authority.
>
> I still haven't worked out why British government policy (presumably
> civil service policy in fact) is that family members and opposite-sex
> couples should be excluded from civil partnerships. Discrimination is
> bad, innit.

Marriage is culturally defined, but remains a social necessity,
therefore not a social construction, that's why. We don't join people
in incestuous relationships -- simple as that.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

Tax breaks, treatment of estates, and all those things gay people
classify as "rights" indeed follow marriage and family, which is not a
right, but a specific set of obligations. Since marriage is not a
right, those things are neither not rights.

> Then there's the issue of not everyone believing in a mythical being
> that one should make vows to and expect guidance from.

You can define marriage without religion. So, your worries are
alleviated, I would hope.
>
> <snip>
>
>


--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Skitt]

Exactly. That's what I was talking about. It's the religious part that
is superfluous.

[DanS.]

Well, not if you believe in a creator. I'm just saying the whole gay
side argument that it is a religious construction is false.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Skitt]

Yes, well, there's the rub -- I don't believe in a creator, and
therefore also not in any religion. I am married, though, and not
because I made any vows or promises to anyone other than my wife.

[DanS.]

That's one way to look at it, but a slightly flawed way. Since marriage
(the trigger) isn't a right, the incidents that follow are not rights,
but part and parcel of the institution.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

You also made them to the whole of society. (I don't know if you have
kids, I'm presuming you do.) You agree to take care of your family and
bring your children up in some manner in which they will be productive
members of society, and contribute thereto. They will then have learned
from this set of duties, and carry on much of the tradition.

No, marriage is no more an island than any one man is.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:37:35 UTC, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
> now pronounce you man and wife."

I have attended church weddings in Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Virginia, and don't
recall hearing the equivalent statement in any of those states.

--
John Varela

[Skitt]

Yeah, I do have a son and a daughter. The youngest just turned 47.
They are doing fine.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Are you saying that there's no reason for there to be a notion of
civil marriage in the law, recognizing rights and responsibilities of
two people with respect to one another or merely that the state
shouldn't have the right to deputize private citizens to declare, as
deputies following legal guidelines, that a marriage has been entered
into?

Or am I reading you wrong, and you're saying that there's no reason to
recognize unions that aren't of the particular flavor approved of by
your particular brand of "tradition"? In that case, I agree, except
insofar as they may also be civil marriages and you may have some duty
to treat them as such, whether they consist of two men, people of
different races or religions or castes, people not married by a rabbi,
people who have been sterilized, people who married after divorce, or
whatever else bothers you about the union.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You gotta know when to code,
SF Bay Area (1982-) | Know when to log out,
Chicago (1964-1982) |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |You don't write your program
| When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |There'll be time enough for writin'
| When you're in the queue.

[Peter Moylan]

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>
>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>
>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>
> Good!
>
> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
> marriages.
>

> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
> partnership."

When I married in Belgium I discovered that the custom there was to have
two wedding ceremonies, one civil and one religious. Since we didn't
feel the need for a religious ceremony, the wedding at the town hall was
sufficient for us, but it left us unmarried in the eyes of every religion.

The present Australian system is that a legal marriage - that is, one
that will be recognised by civil law - is one that has been conducted by
a registered marriage celebrant. Many marriage celebrants are people who
have no connection with any religion. As a practical matter, though,
most ministers of religion get themselves registered as marriage
celebrants, to save people the trouble of having two ceremonies. The
celebrant then uses whatever form of marriage that is normal for that
religion, and the marriage is still recognised by law provided that the
celebrant also includes the formalities required by civil law. The main
relevant formality is one of signing a book at the conclusion of the
ceremony.

Anyone is free to choose a religious wedding that is not at the same
time a civil wedding, provided that they can find a minister of religion
who will agree to it. In practice, though, there's no point. The law as
it stands at present applies rules like division of property and child
maintenance to de facto couples in the same way as if they had been
formally married. In a recent change to the law, the couple doesn't even
have to have been living together, provided that they are recognised
socially as a couple.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Jeffrey Turner]

On 12/23/2011 8:34 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>
>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>
>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>
> Good!
>
> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
> marriages.
>
> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
> partnership."

Bah! Get religions out of marriage. It's a contract. You want the
wedding at a church, that's up to you, but the marriage isn't religious.

--Jeff

[Jeffrey Turner]

Half the justices on the supreme court are morons.

--Jeff

[DanS.]

No, I'm talking about gay unions, civil partnerships, whatever isn't
marriage proper (b/t a man and woman).

>
> Or am I reading you wrong, and you're saying that there's no reason to
> recognize unions that aren't of the particular flavor approved of by
> your particular brand of "tradition"?

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Follow me on this:

Duty 1.) the woman has a duty to nurse the baby, change its diapers
(don't get ahead of me with the women's liberation thing here yet) ...
Duty 2.) either a.) society as a whole can take care of the woman/child
couple, or b.) the father can. And since society had no say in the
union producing a child, "b" is the rational choice.

Duties 1 and 2 are negotiable and, for the most part (though not
completely so) the "private" portion of the marriage.

Duty 3.) falls on society as a whole, including the husband and wife, to
formally (civilly) recognize this marriage as valid and vital to the
continuity of society.

Thus, the man and woman are bound by duties 2 and 3, and 1 and 3
respectively. Additionally, as a government of, by, and for the people,
the government is bound by duty 3.

None of these duties are premised on romantic love making this
definition completely cross-cultural in adaptation.

Therefore, marriage proper is not engendered by the contract/ceremony,
but rather by the three duties of marriage, that in effect, form a
natural contract that we recognize because we are rational beings and
not suicidal.

Marriage is a form of government and a social contract, but it is not
premised on rights, but rather on duties and obligations.

Gay people can contract to be intimate, but they don't trigger any of
the duties of marriage, and we are therefore not bound to, uh ... bind
them in a union.

You're free to find a flaw in my logic, but I won't hold my breath.
I've been arguing this quite a while.

>In that case, I agree, except
> insofar as they may also be civil marriages and you may have some duty
> to treat them as such, whether they consist of two men, people of
> different races or religions or castes, people not married by a rabbi,
> people who have been sterilized, people who married after divorce, or
> whatever else bothers you about the union.
>


--

Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

On 12/23/2011 9:34 PM, DanS. wrote:
> Duty 1.) the woman has a duty to nurse the baby, change its diapers
> (don't get ahead of me with the women's liberation thing here yet) ...
> Duty 2.) either a.) society as a whole can take care of the woman/child
> couple, or b.) the father can. And since society had no say in the
> union producing a child, "b" is the rational choice.

I forgot to address the women's lib thing. The and woman are whole
capable to define the tasks involved in duties 1 and 2 since this
portion of the union is mostly a private function.

This leaves open the possibility for women's lib people to advance their
agenda so long as it doesn't involved liberal governmental intrusion
into the home.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

They started defining the union as wholly a right in Skinner v. Oklahoma
in 1942, so you'll have to go back a few court majorities on that.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

On 12/23/2011 8:50 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>>>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>>
>>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>>
>>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
>> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
>> marriages.
>>
>> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
>> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
>> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
>> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
>> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
>> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
>> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
>> partnership."
>
> When I married in Belgium I discovered that the custom there was to have
> two wedding ceremonies, one civil and one religious. Since we didn't
> feel the need for a religious ceremony, the wedding at the town hall was
> sufficient for us, but it left us unmarried in the eyes of every religion.
>

I don't know where in the Bible it says you have have to have a
ceremony. In fact, Jesus said to the woman at the well she was
"married" to five men ... as she was a prostitute, I don't think she had
ceremonies ... but rather just had sexual relations with them.

I would guess you're married in the eyes of every religion if they
interpret doctrine correctly.

> The present Australian system is that a legal marriage - that is, one
> that will be recognised by civil law - is one that has been conducted by
> a registered marriage celebrant. Many marriage celebrants are people who
> have no connection with any religion. As a practical matter, though,
> most ministers of religion get themselves registered as marriage
> celebrants, to save people the trouble of having two ceremonies. The
> celebrant then uses whatever form of marriage that is normal for that
> religion, and the marriage is still recognised by law provided that the
> celebrant also includes the formalities required by civil law. The main
> relevant formality is one of signing a book at the conclusion of the
> ceremony.
>
> Anyone is free to choose a religious wedding that is not at the same
> time a civil wedding, provided that they can find a minister of religion
> who will agree to it. In practice, though, there's no point. The law as
> it stands at present applies rules like division of property and child
> maintenance to de facto couples in the same way as if they had been
> formally married. In a recent change to the law, the couple doesn't even
> have to have been living together, provided that they are recognised
> socially as a couple.
>


--

Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

I've heard it from preachers. I don't pay that much attention, maybe
they don't all do it.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:34:17 -0500, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Thank you, but no.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[David Hatunen]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:34:39 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana,
>>> I now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>
>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>
>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>
> Good!
>
> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
> marriages.

That's fine if all the participants want is a religious ceremony, but if
they want to be married in the eyes of the law then the officiating
clergyman is acting by the authority of the state and must be in a
position authorized by the state to perform legal marriages.

It's obviously a different matter if the marriage takes place in a
jurisdiction that requires a civil ceremony for it to be legal. In that
case the bride and groom can have their six year old child read the
ceremony, or the bride and groom just do it together by exchanging vows`.

> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
> business

The only reason the government is in the "marriage business" is that the
law bestows certain rights and obligations on a legally married couple.

> and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
> ceremonies.

If one is hung up on the idea that "marriage" must be a religious state
that makes sense. Otherwise, to me, to whom it doesn't, there is no
difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage except to waffle
in hopes the religious people shut up.

> Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
> partnership."

I thought that was what the Roman Catholics already do.

--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:15:02 -0500, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

That depends where you live. The _European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms_[1] includes:

Article 12
Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
found a family, according to the national laws governing the
exercise of this right.

>the incidents that follow are not rights,
>but part and parcel of the institution.

The fact that they are part and parcel of the institution does not
prevent them from being rights.

[1] Commonly referred to as the _European Convention on Human Rights_.
There is an international court associated with the Convention, the
_European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)_. This is a type of supreme court
for the countries which are subject to the Convention.
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/Homepage_En/

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:34:17 -0500, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>

>Marriage is a form of government and a social contract, but it is not
>premised on rights, but rather on duties and obligations.
>

Surely a right is the other "end" of an obligation?

If A has an obligation to do X for B, then B has a right for A to do X
for B.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Dec 23, 12:58 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote in messagenews:jd201f$8a5$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> > I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage business
> > and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which religious
> > communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as marriages,

> > according to their own criteria . . .
>
> Note that in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition governments are not
> "in the marriage business" because they did not create marriages.
> Marriages were recognized before governments existed in their
> recognized form (as distinct from the effective power of a king
> or lord.)  All governments did was to propose solutions to the sorts
> of particular roblems marriage gave rise to.  The institution was
> up to the 20th century widely accepted as an autonomous (and
> prehistoric) institution.  All governments did was prescribe who might
> perform the ceremony (only Anglican priests, for one interval
> in Engllish history, regardless of the religion of the marriage
> partners) or how a marriage might be dissolved.  More generally,
> governments usually adopted local religious doctrine prescribing
> who was eligible to marry whom.  Not until the 20th century did
> anyone suggest legislatures were competent to define what
> marriage was or ought to be.

According to Wikipedia, bigamy became a civil crime in England and
Wales in 1603.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy_Act_1603

Later in the century, the legislatures of some English colonies in
North America forbade marriages between free people and slaves and
then between between whites and blacks.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robin Bignall]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:30:45 +0000, franzi
<et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote

>>Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>>>>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>>>
>>>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>>>
>>>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>>>
>>> Good!
>>>
>>> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
>>> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
>>> marriages.
>>>

>>> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
>>> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
>>> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as

>>> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
>>> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
>>> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
>>> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
>>> partnership."
>>>

>>> Perce
>>
>>Well, *legal* status for a marriage has to be granted by someone who is
>>*legally* authorized to do it.
>>
>>Marriage in the USA is a legal contractual union. The church
>>goings-on, if any, are just fancy and often expensive window dressing.
>

>Hmm. What business is it of governments to attempt to interfere in and
>classify the personal relationships of friends, couples, intimate
>acquaintances, life partners, lovers, accidental parents, and serial
>philanderers? If two people want to enter into a formal contract to
>share their property, let the law govern it. But if they want to vow
>mutual fidelity before God, it seems not to be a matter for the secular
>authority.
>

>I still haven't worked out why British government policy (presumably
>civil service policy in fact) is that family members and opposite-sex
>couples should be excluded from civil partnerships. Discrimination is
>bad, innit.

As far as family members are concerned, it's the case of the two sisters
and inheritance tax that has driven HMG and the EU to an unfair
conclusion, IMO. The sisters are, like many, in a property-rich,
cash-poor situation, and when one of the sisters die the other will be
forced to sell the house they've lived in since birth in order to pay
inheritance tax, which would not apply if they were married until both
bit the dust.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1906767/Sisters-cannot-inherit-house-they-have-lived-in-since-birth-European-Court-rules.html
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[DanS.]

I'm talking about a philosophical argument. Laws can and are rewritten
all the time. This usually occurs when philosophical bases for them
develop and change. No one, except maybe the most remote civilization
follow the actual natural laws of marriage. Most have developed
cultures about marriage.

>> the incidents that follow are not rights,
>> but part and parcel of the institution.
>
> The fact that they are part and parcel of the institution does not
> prevent them from being rights.
>
> [1] Commonly referred to as the _European Convention on Human Rights_.
> There is an international court associated with the Convention, the
> _European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)_. This is a type of supreme court
> for the countries which are subject to the Convention.
> http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/Homepage_En/
>

You're basing your argument on flawed doctrine. I'm sorry.


--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

On 12/24/2011 7:04 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:34:17 -0500, "DanS."<dslaug...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Marriage is a form of government and a social contract, but it is not
>> premised on rights, but rather on duties and obligations.
>>
> Surely a right is the other "end" of an obligation?
>
> If A has an obligation to do X for B, then B has a right for A to do X
> for B.
>

It is the flip side of the moral coin. It is debatable whether voting,
for example, is a right or a duty. I don't think within our cultural
boundaries, people would deny a couple marriage, but that makes it a
"right" within the cultural bounds ... it is debatable whether or not
such a definition of marriage would make it a true right.

Most civilized cultures grew up about marriage. You have clanships,
tribes, even the nobility in Europe. The Federalist Papers, in the US,
said the "cornerstone" of a republic is the lack of a nobility.
However, the family remains the framework for the social order.

We are simply at a crossroads in the cultural dialogue. We've failed to
recognize that by departing from monarchical government, we've
jeopardized the very basis of society. Gay "marriage" is just a symptom
of the counter-cultural movement, it isn't the cause. It may be what
was necessary for us to recognize that with our individualism, we yet
have some social duty.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Sproz]

Dan, we did this to death a year or so ago. You define marriage
(approximately) as that state which couples enter into in order to
have children. Your assertion that marriage is not a right, and
everything that follows from this assertion, is predicated upon this
definition of marriage.

You can indulge in whatever sophistry you wish, but the fact is that
few if any jurisdictions define marriage in the way you do, so your
argument is entirely irrelevant to those jurisdictions. And it's the
right of marriage under those jurisdictions, not your approval, that
gay couples seek.

Mark

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 12/24/11 02:33 pm, DanS. wrote:

> We are simply at a crossroads in the cultural dialogue. We've failed to
> recognize that by departing from monarchical government, we've
> jeopardized the very basis of society. Gay "marriage" is just a symptom
> of the counter-cultural movement, it isn't the cause. It may be what was
> necessary for us to recognize that with our individualism, we yet have
> some social duty.

I always said that the North American Rot set in when the colonists
revolted against the God-ordained monarchy (so George III was a loony,
but he would have been superseded).

Perce
(dual-citizen OzBrit -- aka "Ten-pound Pom" or "Whingeing Pommie
bastard" -- in exile in US Midwest)

[DanS.]

I wouldn't suggest that we abandon all things republican, but we can
certainly shore up our justice system to defend against further "Rot"
(if I got your meaning).

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:23:32 -0500, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>

That's rich coming from a person who posts nothing but religious
claptrap.

[DanS.]

I predicate the need for the institution of marriage on reproduction.
That is very different from "that state which couples enter into in
order to have children."

No, we must recognize natural marriage. Whatever other cultural
developments arise about it, are simply that: cultural trappings. I
give the ceremony and contract to be intimate no weight in my definition.

> You can indulge in whatever sophistry you wish, but the fact is that
> few if any jurisdictions define marriage in the way you do, so your
> argument is entirely irrelevant to those jurisdictions. And it's the
> right of marriage under those jurisdictions, not your approval, that
> gay couples seek.

It's just a matter of getting the word out. That's where this whole
thing is at right now. They are indeed legal arguments, and humbly, I'd
submit, I was the first to put it into writing clearly and distinctly.
So, of course it isn't a law anywhere yet. It has never been recognized
as such.

>
> Mark


--
Yours,
Dan S.

[R H Draney]

DanS. filted:

>
>On 12/24/2011 2:58 PM, Sproz wrote:
>>
>> Dan, we did this to death a year or so ago. You define marriage
>> (approximately) as that state which couples enter into in order to
>> have children. Your assertion that marriage is not a right, and
>> everything that follows from this assertion, is predicated upon this
>> definition of marriage.
>>
>I predicate the need for the institution of marriage on reproduction.
>That is very different from "that state which couples enter into in
>order to have children."

So you consider childless marriages an abomination?...r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[DanS.]

Of course not. But just because we can, and have recognized them does
not mean that we must, whereas we must recognize unions that bear children.

Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage, denying
marriages to those unable to bear children is a perfectly valid reason.

I don't pretend to say whether or not such a practice is a good idea or
not, but it is valid.

Now, old people that can't bear children, you might ask next, why we
should recognize. The reason is for the purposes of extended families
and inheritances. The third duty of marriage, mentioned elsewhere in
this thread, transfers the majority of its burden to extended family.
However, such a scenario leads to a theory of clanships, and leaves the
confines of theory of marriage.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Dr Nick]

"DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,

No we didn't.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:07:47 +0000, Dr Nick
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

>"DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>
>No we didn't.

Blood tests used to be a requirement to obtain a marriage license in
some US states. The tests were to determine if one or both of the
applicants had a venereal disease. The laws required anyone who did
have a venereal disease to obtain treatment.

You would think it was an unnecessary requirement since people did not
need to be married to have intercourse, but - in those days - there
were more women who remained virgins before marriage. The laws
protected them from men who had more experience before marriage.

I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
and that it was one of the rarer blood types.

[DanS.]

On 12/25/2011 2:07 AM, Dr Nick wrote:
> "DanS."<dslaug...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>
> No we didn't.

We had them here when I was a kid (the 70s).

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Skitt]

tony cooper wrote:
> Dr Nick wrote:

>> "DanS." writes:

>>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>>
>> No we didn't.
>
> Blood tests used to be a requirement to obtain a marriage license in
> some US states. The tests were to determine if one or both of the
> applicants had a venereal disease. The laws required anyone who did
> have a venereal disease to obtain treatment.
>
> You would think it was an unnecessary requirement since people did not
> need to be married to have intercourse, but - in those days - there
> were more women who remained virgins before marriage. The laws
> protected them from men who had more experience before marriage.
>
> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>

I was married in 1960, 1978, and 1991, in the state of Nevada. I don't
remember having had a blood test in connection with any of those marriages.

My last of my very few blood tests was in around 1985, but it was
botched, the doctor said. The cholesterol result was improbably low. I
didn't submit to retesting. Those were my drinkin' days, and I probably
dissolved whatever cholesterol there should have been. ;)

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Leslie Danks]

Skitt wrote:

[...]

> My last of my very few blood tests was in around 1985, but it was
> botched, the doctor said. The cholesterol result was improbably low. I
> didn't submit to retesting. Those were my drinkin' days, and I probably
> dissolved whatever cholesterol there should have been. ;)

Between 20% and 25% of the cholesterol synthesised by the body is made in
the liver. Perhaps your liver was too busy with detoxification to attend to
its other duties.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Dr Nick]

I know. "We" didn't used to have them. If DanS. wants to speak for the
whole of humanity on morals he needs to speak for all of them on matters
of fact first.

[Skitt]

Dr Nick wrote:
> tony cooper writes:
>> Dr Nick wrote:

>>> "DanS." writes:

>>>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>>>
>>> No we didn't.
>>
>> Blood tests used to be a requirement to obtain a marriage license in
>> some US states. The tests were to determine if one or both of the
>> applicants had a venereal disease. The laws required anyone who did
>> have a venereal disease to obtain treatment.
>>
>> You would think it was an unnecessary requirement since people did not
>> need to be married to have intercourse, but - in those days - there
>> were more women who remained virgins before marriage. The laws
>> protected them from men who had more experience before marriage.
>>
>> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
>> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
>> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>
> I know. "We" didn't used to have them.

Oy!

> If DanS. wants to speak for the whole of humanity on morals he
> needs to speak for all of them on matters of fact first.

--

[DanS.]

Drinking causes extraordinarily high triglycerides. If you drank
anything like I did, as much as 10 times what is normally considered
"high." Your body metabolizes alcohol like a fat. Their high levels
mask the cholesterol test, so I've been told.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[DanS.]

You're not very attentive when you read, are you. I don't think
anything to which I attest is based on my opinion.

For one who frequents a group of English professors, you'd think you'd
want to work on that.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[the Omrud]

A pint? That's very nearly an armful.

--
David

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:41:12 -0500, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Wha? That second sentence is as hard to work out as a knot in a
shoelace, but it seems like you are saying that nothing you attest to
is based on your own opinion. That, of course, is completely false.
Most of what you write is based on your own opinions.

>For one who frequents a group of English professors, you'd think you'd
>want to work on that.

If there's an English professor who is a regular reader of this group,
I don't know who it is. That is, a professor of English. There is at
least one English professor, but she is not in her university's
English department.

[DanS.]

Not as it specifically relates to what the poster to which I was
responding asserts I purport.


--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Peter Moylan]

DanS. wrote:
> On 12/24/2011 6:58 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

>> That depends where you live. The _European Convention for the Protection
>> of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms_[1] includes:
>>
>> Article 12
>> Right to marry
>> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
>> found a family, according to the national laws governing the
>> exercise of this right.
>>
> I'm talking about a philosophical argument. Laws can and are rewritten
> all the time. This usually occurs when philosophical bases for them
> develop and change. No one, except maybe the most remote civilization
> follow the actual natural laws of marriage. Most have developed
> cultures about marriage.

At least the laws are consistent within a country, and to a large extent
between countries. The definition of "natural" varies from person to person.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Moylan]

DanS. wrote:
> On 12/23/2011 9:34 PM, DanS. wrote:
>> Duty 1.) the woman has a duty to nurse the baby, change its diapers
>> (don't get ahead of me with the women's liberation thing here yet) ...
>> Duty 2.) either a.) society as a whole can take care of the woman/child
>> couple, or b.) the father can. And since society had no say in the
>> union producing a child, "b" is the rational choice.
>
> I forgot to address the women's lib thing. The and woman are whole
> capable to define the tasks involved in duties 1 and 2 since this
> portion of the union is mostly a private function.
>
> This leaves open the possibility for women's lib people to advance their
> agenda so long as it doesn't involved liberal governmental intrusion
> into the home.
>
I'm puzzled by this last sentence. Are you saying that intrusion by a
liberal government is unacceptable, but intrusion by a repressive
government is acceptable?

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:48:33 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You lost me. Where is "a pint" mentioned?

[Peter Moylan]

At this rate you're never going to get those shoes off.

[DanS.]

On 12/25/2011 7:02 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> DanS. wrote:
>> On 12/24/2011 6:58 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>>> That depends where you live. The _European Convention for the Protection
>>> of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms_[1] includes:
>>>
>>> Article 12
>>> Right to marry
>>> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
>>> found a family, according to the national laws governing the
>>> exercise of this right.
>>>
>> I'm talking about a philosophical argument. Laws can and are rewritten
>> all the time. This usually occurs when philosophical bases for them
>> develop and change. No one, except maybe the most remote civilization
>> follow the actual natural laws of marriage. Most have developed
>> cultures about marriage.
>
> At least the laws are consistent within a country, and to a large extent
> between countries. The definition of "natural" varies from person to person.
>

I'm referring to definition I delineate elsewhere in this thread. It
describes cross-cultural "natural" marriage. It is based on facts and
not opinion ... unless you want to go into a metaphysical and Kantian
debate, that is.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:48:33 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<chuckle>

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[DanS.]

On 12/25/2011 7:05 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> DanS. wrote:
>> On 12/23/2011 9:34 PM, DanS. wrote:
>>> Duty 1.) the woman has a duty to nurse the baby, change its diapers
>>> (don't get ahead of me with the women's liberation thing here yet) ...
>>> Duty 2.) either a.) society as a whole can take care of the woman/child
>>> couple, or b.) the father can. And since society had no say in the
>>> union producing a child, "b" is the rational choice.
>>
>> I forgot to address the women's lib thing. The and woman are whole
>> capable to define the tasks involved in duties 1 and 2 since this
>> portion of the union is mostly a private function.
>>
>> This leaves open the possibility for women's lib people to advance their
>> agenda so long as it doesn't involved liberal governmental intrusion
>> into the home.
>>
> I'm puzzled by this last sentence. Are you saying that intrusion by a
> liberal government is unacceptable, but intrusion by a repressive
> government is acceptable?
>

Feminist philosophy, such as that of Susan Moller Okin, seeks to
restructure the family so that women receive equal billing for their
domestic tasks with the man's paid labor outside the household.

She stops short of saying this should be regulated by the government.
She calls herself a "liberal" (to be read akin to classically liberal).

One can see how easily government could get repressive if it starts
regulating household domesticity "fairness." However, there is really
no clear answer from Okin as to how such a level of fairness could be
accomplished without government intrusion. She died very young, so we
are left to figure it out ourselves.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Leslie Danks]

tony cooper wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:48:33 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 25/12/2011 17:12, tony cooper wrote:

[...]

>>> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
>>> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
>>> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>>
>>A pint? That's very nearly an armful.
>
> You lost me. Where is "a pint" mentioned?

Here:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH6dfp8rqpo>

15 min 34 sec (start listening at 14:50).

You're welcome.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 12/25/11 05:48 pm, the Omrud wrote:

>>>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>>>
>>> No we didn't.
>>
>> Blood tests used to be a requirement to obtain a marriage license in
>> some US states. The tests were to determine if one or both of the
>> applicants had a venereal disease. The laws required anyone who did
>> have a venereal disease to obtain treatment.
>>
>> You would think it was an unnecessary requirement since people did not
>> need to be married to have intercourse, but - in those days - there
>> were more women who remained virgins before marriage. The laws
>> protected them from men who had more experience before marriage.
>>
>> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
>> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
>> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>
> A pint? That's very nearly an armful.

Yes... as long as it's an Imperial Pint rather than one of these wimpy
US 16-ounce ones.

Perce

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 12/25/11 07:24 pm, DanS. wrote:

>>>> Duty 1.) the woman has a duty to nurse the baby, change its diapers
>>>> (don't get ahead of me with the women's liberation thing here yet) ...
>>>> Duty 2.) either a.) society as a whole can take care of the woman/child
>>>> couple, or b.) the father can. And since society had no say in the
>>>> union producing a child, "b" is the rational choice.
>>>
>>> I forgot to address the women's lib thing. The and woman are whole
>>> capable to define the tasks involved in duties 1 and 2 since this
>>> portion of the union is mostly a private function.
>>>
>>> This leaves open the possibility for women's lib people to advance their
>>> agenda so long as it doesn't involved liberal governmental intrusion
>>> into the home.
>>>
>> I'm puzzled by this last sentence. Are you saying that intrusion by a
>> liberal government is unacceptable, but intrusion by a repressive
>> government is acceptable?
>>
> Feminist philosophy, such as that of Susan Moller Okin, seeks to
> restructure the family so that women receive equal billing for their
> domestic tasks with the man's paid labor outside the household.

I recall that a few decades ago in Australia some politician(s)
suggested the introduction of a "homemaker's allowance" for married
women who stayed home and looked after children or took care of other
household duties. The "feminists" ware appalled at the idea of women
being bribed to give up the idea of getting "real jobs."

Perce

[John Varela]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:19:40 UTC, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I, for one, am not going to chase back through the thread looking
for the definition you don't want to repeat.

So I'll provide my definition: "natural" marriage means a
relationship of one or more men with one or more women for the
purpose of procreation. Such relationship may but need not have some
sort of religious significance.

That definition would serve for genus homo for the last million
years or so.

--
John Varela

[DanS.]

Well, my definition is based on duty. It also explicates the public and
private properties of the institution. It's up there somewhere.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Dr Nick]

Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> writes:

> Dr Nick wrote:
>> tony cooper writes:
>>> Dr Nick wrote:
>>>> "DanS." writes:
>
>>>>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>>>>
>>>> No we didn't.
>>>
>>> Blood tests used to be a requirement to obtain a marriage license in
>>> some US states. The tests were to determine if one or both of the
>>> applicants had a venereal disease. The laws required anyone who did
>>> have a venereal disease to obtain treatment.
>>>
>>> You would think it was an unnecessary requirement since people did not
>>> need to be married to have intercourse, but - in those days - there
>>> were more women who remained virgins before marriage. The laws
>>> protected them from men who had more experience before marriage.
>>>
>>> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
>>> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
>>> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>>
>> I know. "We" didn't used to have them.
>
> Oy!

What, for missing quotes. OK:

I know. "We" didn't "used to have" them.

Better?

[Dr Nick]

"DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 12/25/2011 7:05 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> DanS. wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2011 9:34 PM, DanS. wrote:
>>>> Duty 1.) the woman has a duty to nurse the baby, change its diapers
>>>> (don't get ahead of me with the women's liberation thing here yet) ...
>>>> Duty 2.) either a.) society as a whole can take care of the woman/child
>>>> couple, or b.) the father can. And since society had no say in the
>>>> union producing a child, "b" is the rational choice.
>>>
>>> I forgot to address the women's lib thing. The and woman are whole
>>> capable to define the tasks involved in duties 1 and 2 since this
>>> portion of the union is mostly a private function.
>>>
>>> This leaves open the possibility for women's lib people to advance their
>>> agenda so long as it doesn't involved liberal governmental intrusion
>>> into the home.
>>>
>> I'm puzzled by this last sentence. Are you saying that intrusion by a
>> liberal government is unacceptable, but intrusion by a repressive
>> government is acceptable?
>>
> Feminist philosophy, such as that of Susan Moller Okin, seeks to
> restructure the family so that women receive equal billing for their
> domestic tasks with the man's paid labor outside the household.

You don't need much "feminist philosophy" for that. I hold down the
job, bring in the money. She does the domestic stuff and organises the
children. As old fashioned as you can get, but it certainly feels like
an equal partnership to me.

> She stops short of saying this should be regulated by the
> government. She calls herself a "liberal" (to be read akin to
> classically liberal).
>
> One can see how easily government could get repressive if it starts
> regulating household domesticity "fairness." However, there is really
> no clear answer from Okin as to how such a level of fairness could be
> accomplished without government intrusion. She died very young, so we
> are left to figure it out ourselves.

So no call for governments of any hue to do any intrusion. Could you
explain the relevance of this to your concern about liberal governments
intruding into the home?

[DanS.]

I guess it would be "so called" liberal government. However, they
already spend a considerable amount of time in the homes of those who
engage in child neglect, abuse, spousal abuse, and if you live in
government housing, it is almost out of control.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Dr Nick]

That's a "no" then?

[DanS.]

If I'm not mistaken, then, you've incorrectly worded your question. I
can explain it relative to the theory of marriage. Certainly, a woman
makes up half a marriage. And, just as certainly, liberal government
has its merits. However, when a man and woman join in matramony, they
are no longer only two individuals, but rather three (including the
child) that comprise an economic unit. A government premised on liberty
and the individual (such as liberal governmental theory would purport to
be), can scarce afford to spend an inordinate amount of time in the home.

The theory of marriage isn't exactly liberal in nature. There are
public aspects to marriage, and the whole of society has a stake in each
natural marriage.

I don't understand your confusion, I must admit. I never said, "So no
call for governments of any hue to do any intrusion" as you somehow seem
to be interpreting something here.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[Dr Nick]

Vast paraphrase - and apologies to others for not snipping, but I'm
leaving in what I'm paraphrasing.

You said: "so long as it doesn't involved liberal governmental
intrusion into the home"

Peter said: "Are you saying that intrusion by a liberal government is

unacceptable, but intrusion by a repressive government is acceptable?"

You quoted a "feminist philosopher" and said that "She stops short of

saying this should be regulated by the government."

This wasn't an answer to Peter's question of course - which was asking
about your views on the intrusion by Government, not on what someone
else was calling for. Not was it even someone else calling for
Government intrusion, as you specifically noted yourself.

So I commented on this: "So no call for governments of any hue to do any
intrusion."

You replied with a paragraph that I can't paraphrase as I don't
understand it, but which didn't appear to be about you, or anyone else,
asking for any Government to do any intrusion.

Hence my 'So that's a "no" then?' which triggered a response that,
again, I can't see the relevance of (nor, to be honest, understand) but
which talks about the theory of marriage (something neither Peter or I
have asked you about in this subthread) and then says you don't
understand my question.

So here it is again. It's not my question, of course, it's Peter's:

"Are you saying that intrusion by a liberal government is unacceptable,
but intrusion by a repressive government is acceptable?"

[the Omrud]

On 26/12/2011 07:18, Dr Nick wrote:
> Skitt<ski...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Dr Nick wrote:
>>> tony cooper writes:
>>>
>>>> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
>>>> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
>>>> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>>>
>>> I know. "We" didn't used to have them.
>>
>> Oy!
>
> What, for missing quotes. OK:
>
> I know. "We" didn't "used to have" them.
>
> Better?

The fault is "didn't used" which should be "didn't use". This seems to
have become rather commonly seen.

--
David

[the Omrud]

Sorry, I couldn't resist it. Somebody has linked you to the source -
it's AB Negative which triggered the association.

The sketch is seared into our memories. I bet there's not a Brit here
who couldn't recite significant chunks of it, word for word.

--
David

[LFS]

My goodness, given his extensive knowledge of British cultural icons,
I'm amazed that Mr C doesn't know it.

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:23:32 -0500, "DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 12/24/2011 6:58 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:15:02 -0500, "DanS."<dslaug...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/23/2011 11:08 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:34:39 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
>>>> <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here, the
>>>>>>> preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana, I
>>>>>>> now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good!
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
>>>>> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes to
>>>>> marriages.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
>>>>> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
>>>>> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
>>>>> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
>>>>> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
>>>>> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
>>>>> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
>>>>> partnership."
>>>>>
>>>> The situation in the UK is that religious leaders are authorised by law
>>>> to conduct marriages. I understand that some are _ex officio_
>>>> authorised, others are individually authorised.
>>>>
>>>> The reason, surely, for the involvement of the civil authorities,
>>>> governments, is that a marriage is a contract defined, at least partly,
>>>> in law. Marrying or entering into a civil partnership triggers a whole
>>>> raft of legal rights and responsibilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's one way to look at it, but a slightly flawed way. Since marriage
>>> (the trigger) isn't a right,

>>
>> That depends where you live. The _European Convention for the Protection
>> of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms_[1] includes:
>>
>> Article 12
>> Right to marry
>> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
>> found a family, according to the national laws governing the
>> exercise of this right.
>>
>I'm talking about a philosophical argument. Laws can and are rewritten
>all the time. This usually occurs when philosophical bases for them
>develop and change. No one, except maybe the most remote civilization
>follow the actual natural laws of marriage. Most have developed
>cultures about marriage.
>

>>> the incidents that follow are not rights,
>>> but part and parcel of the institution.
>>
>> The fact that they are part and parcel of the institution does not
>> prevent them from being rights.
>>
>> [1] Commonly referred to as the _European Convention on Human Rights_.
>> There is an international court associated with the Convention, the
>> _European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)_. This is a type of supreme court
>> for the countries which are subject to the Convention.
>> http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/Homepage_En/
>>
>
>You're basing your argument on flawed doctrine. I'm sorry.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

You originally asked what clergy of the Church of England said when they
pronounced a newly-married couple man and wife and by whose authority they
said it.

Nothing much philosophical about that. I

[Steve Hayes]

This is way beyond English usage. Perhaps you should have asked your original
question in another newsgroup.

[tony cooper]

My knowledge base doesn't include iconic BBC broadcasts dating back to
1961. However, if my local public broadcasting station continues to
have financial woes, I expect they will start picking up that show set
in Ambridge with the 1951 premier.

[Skitt]

Dr Nick wrote:

> Skitt writes:
>> Dr Nick wrote:
>>> tony cooper writes:
>>>> Dr Nick wrote:
>>>>> "DanS." writes:

>>>>>> Just like we used to have blood tests to qualify for marriage,
>>>>>
>>>>> No we didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Blood tests used to be a requirement to obtain a marriage license in
>>>> some US states. The tests were to determine if one or both of the
>>>> applicants had a venereal disease. The laws required anyone who did
>>>> have a venereal disease to obtain treatment.
>>>>
>>>> You would think it was an unnecessary requirement since people did not
>>>> need to be married to have intercourse, but - in those days - there
>>>> were more women who remained virgins before marriage. The laws
>>>> protected them from men who had more experience before marriage.
>>>>
>>>> I was married in 1964, and - if I remember correctly - that was the
>>>> first time I ever had a blood test. I found that I was AB Negative
>>>> and that it was one of the rarer blood types.
>>>
>>> I know. "We" didn't used to have them.
>>
>> Oy!
>
> What, for missing quotes. OK:
>
> I know. "We" didn't "used to have" them.
>
> Better?

No. See The Omrud's answer.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Dan1213]

On Dec 26, 3:38 am, Dr Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

> "DanS." <dslaughREM...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On 12/26/2011 2:48 AM, Dr Nick wrote:

> >> "DanS."<dslaughREM...@yahoo.com>  writes:

>
> >>> On 12/26/2011 2:24 AM, Dr Nick wrote:

Liberal government is the kind that tries to protect all the basic
liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It
doesn't try to over regulate and is premised on the individual, and
not on groups.

Marriage is a repressive institution. It binds two people in a
(supposedly) lifelong union, and demands universal recognition of this
union (with an untold number of iterations). Marriage, and any form
of government that springs forth out of it, is not liberal in nature,
because it is not premised on the individual, but rather on a group
(the family).

Now, none of this is to say that marriage cannot fit into a liberal
society so long as government respects the culture of marriage. It
(today's government) isn't in the home more than necessary (at least
not usually). Though its respect for marriage culture is slipping
(e.g. no-fault divorce, gay "marriage"), it still registers marriages,
at least.

I hope that clears things up.

[Dan1213]

On Dec 26, 6:21 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:23:32 -0500, "DanS." <dslaughREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 12/24/2011 6:58 AM, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:15:02 -0500, "DanS."<dslaughREM...@yahoo.com>

You are correct. Then the conversation took the (sadly predictable)
turn towards contemporary issues. What befuddles you in this?

[Dan1213]

On Dec 26, 6:23 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

I didn't take it there. But, the purpose of threaded discussions is
so you can opt out of branches you find unsavory or uninteresting.
You're welcome to do so.

[Steve Hayes]

Nothing.

When the topic drifted away from English usage I referred to a blog post of
mine where I discusse4d the "contemporary issues"

http://methodius.blogspot.com/2006/09/state-should-get-out-of-marriage.html

but I wouldn't post them on aue because most of them have little to do with
either English usage or food.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"DanS." <dslaug...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 12/23/2011 8:48 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "DanS."<dslaug...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>

>>> On 12/23/2011 1:07 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>>>> "Percival P. Cassidy"<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/23/11 01:18 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you folks say at the end of the wedding ceremony? Here,
>>>>>>> the preacher says, "So, by the power vested in me by the State of
>>>>>>> Indiana, I now pronounce you man and wife."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Church of England? Her Majesty the Queen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good!
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that some clergy in the US have expressed objections to the
>>>>> system that makes them in effect government officials when it comes
>>>>> to marriages.
>>>>

>>>> They're certainly not forced to, mereley allowed to. Unless they make
>>>> a declaration in front of witnesses, in a form that explicitly states
>>>> that they are empowered to create a legal marriage and intend to do so
>>>> (and sign the wedding license), the marriages they perform won't be
>>>> legally recognized, but that's allowed.

>>>>
>>>>> I have long held that governments should get out of the marriage
>>>>> business and establish something like "domestic partnerships," which
>>>>> religious communities would then be free to recognize (or not) as
>>>>> marriages, according to their own criteria and using their own
>>>>> ceremonies. Similarly, religious communities would be able to decide
>>>>> that persons were still married (and therefore not permitted to
>>>>> remarry), despite the government's termination of the "domestic
>>>>> partnership."
>>>>

>>>> Except for the fact that they're both called "marriages", that's
>>>> pretty much the way it works now. My rabbi has performed weddings for
>>>> gay couples, which aren't legally recognized by the state of
>>>> California, and these couples are considered to be married, for
>>>> religious purposes. And Orthodox rabbis frequently refuse to marry
>>>> women who have been divorced but have not obtained a get.
>>>>
>>>> Allowing those officiating religious ceremonies to also do the legal
>>>> part merely simplifies the process for couples that are going to have
>>>> a religious ceremony anyway and cuts down on the number of state
>>>> employees needed to perform civil ceremonies. But on the whole I
>>>> agree with you that it would be a good idea to more explicitly
>>>> decouple the two notions. Unfortunately, the wording is littered
>>>> throughout the various legal codes, so such a change would almost
>>>> certainly have to be effected by wording that says that wherever
>>>> "married" is encountered, it should be read as "in a partnership",
>>>> wherever "unmarried" is encountered, it should be read as "not in a
>>>> partnership", etc.
>>>>
>>> There is no reason for any of us to recognize the unions, none
>>> whatsoever. It is being shoved down our throats against our will.
>>> A few people who don't want to seem disagreeable will assent to the
>>> gays beseeching, but in private will quickly declare their complete
>>> support for traditional marriage.
>>
>> Are you saying that there's no reason for there to be a notion of
>> civil marriage in the law, recognizing rights and responsibilities
>> of two people with respect to one another or merely that the state
>> shouldn't have the right to deputize private citizens to declare,
>> as deputies following legal guidelines, that a marriage has been
>> entered into?
>
> No, I'm talking about gay unions, civil partnerships, whatever isn't
> marriage proper (b/t a man and woman).
>>
>> Or am I reading you wrong, and you're saying that there's no reason
>> to recognize unions that aren't of the particular flavor approved
>> of by your particular brand of "tradition"?
>
> Marriage is the union of a man and woman.

That would be a "yes" to my last question, then. Or perhaps "No, but
you shouldn't call them 'marriages'".

> Follow me on this:

[Details of how Dan's tradition justifies it's restrictions on what
constitutes a "marriage" snipped.]

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |A little government and a little luck
SF Bay Area (1982-) |are necessary in life, but only a
Chicago (1964-1982) |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/