Adrian Peterson says he's 'not with' gay marriage

[skidadl]

There are tons of non-fundamentalist churches around, EZ. Lots of theologically liberal churches would do this. There is probably one in your small town. I know in even mid-sized towns there are plenty. Larger cities have MANY.

Metropolitan Community Churches are everywhere. They are gay friendly churches. They marry often.

Unitarian Universalism would definitely do it.

Lots of Methodist churches have openly gay ministers.

That is a very short list but the options are fairly vast besides that. Even some mainstream would agree to marrying folks without a license.

 

[EZ22]

Then I'm wrong, but I bet most mainstream churches that benefit from government tax exemptions won't do it. I know first hand because with my first marriage, we misplaced out marriage certificate a day before our wedding. After looking for it for hours we called the lady who was marrying us (and she wasn't even affiliated with a church) and she said she wasn't allowed to marry us without a license.

We found it, so it didn't matter.

 

[Texas Ace]

I'd say he's just a fucking moron looking at some of his quotes in the past.

A guy who would be slinging crack if he hadn't of won the athletic genetic lottery.

Way to go to the extreme and generalize the guy while racially profiling him.

So, because he's black it automatically means he'd be selling drugs if he wasn't good at football? By all accounts, AP is a generally good guy....it's not like we're talking about Pacman Jones here.

And the guy is from Palestine, which I'm guessing you've never visited. Well, I have, and I can tell you that slinging crack on the streets isn't going to be happening much in that area.....unless crack dealers like hanging out on farm roads.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Way to go to the extreme and generalize the guy while racially profiling him.

So, because he's black it automatically means he'd be selling drugs if he wasn't good at football? By all accounts, AP is a generally good guy....it's not like we're talking about Pacman Jones here.

And the guy is from Palestine, which I'm guessing you've never visited. Well, I have, and I can tell you that slinging crack on the streets isn't going to be happening much in that area.....unless crack dealers like hanging out on farm roads.

When did the Palestinians get their own country?

 

[Texas Ace]

When did the Palestinians get their own country?

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but I'm going to say he is from Palestine Texas just in case.

 

[skidadl]

Then I'm wrong, but I bet most mainstream churches that benefit from government tax exemptions won't do it. I know first hand because with my first marriage, we misplaced out marriage certificate a day before our wedding. After looking for it for hours we called the lady who was marrying us (and she wasn't even affiliated with a church) and she said she wasn't allowed to marry us without a license.

We found it, so it didn't matter.

Truth. Most mainstream churches wouldn't do it.

 

[Smitty]

I agree, except for the fact that people give me money to do their divorces...

They'd give you even more money to sort out all their issues if the government didn't standardize it in a pretty little package of legal rights called "marriage."

The need for lawyers to sort out who is getting what would be even greater. Probably the best argument against uninvolving the government. But for such a religious institution, I think it's the right thing.

But just because the concept of packaged legal rights known as "marriage" went away doesn't mean property rights would go away. Doesn't mean custody rights would go away. Etc.

 

[Smitty]

I feel like the reason a church won't marry you without a marriage license is strictly BECAUSE of government involvement.

You think the Catholic Church would abandon an eons-old sacrament because the government stepped back? Not fricking likely.

 

[Clay_Allison]

They'd give you even more money to sort out all their issues if the government didn't standardize it in a pretty little package of legal rights called "marriage."

The need for lawyers to sort out who is getting what would be even greater. Probably the best argument against uninvolving the government. But for such a religious institution, I think it's the right thing.

Also there would be a need for lawyers on the front end because more people would get prenuptial agreements to prevent the above noted mess from happening.

 

[Smitty]

Also there would be a need for lawyers on the front end because more people would get prenuptial agreements to prevent the above noted mess from happening.

Exactly.

 

[townsend]

Also there would be a need for lawyers on the front end because more people would get prenuptial agreements to prevent the above noted mess from happening.

Would that be so bad? Having lawyers walk you through a legally binding contract,(that's tantamount to a business merger) seems to make a lot more sense than having a spiritual leader (or Elvis impersonator) do it.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Would that be so bad? Having lawyers walk you through a legally binding contract,(that's tantamount to a business merger) seems to make a lot more sense than having a spiritual leader (or Elvis impersonator) do it.

I think it would overall be an improvement. Approaching marriage from a legal standpoint objectively without generations of baggage would make it a lot more fair for all parties concerned.

 

[Smitty]

Right. Contract to your own rights, like a will ("I give Steve the rights to my bank account for as long as we reside in the same house") and let the churches handle the "marriage." If you find a church to marry you, well, the Baptists can pin it all on those crazy Episcopalians or whoever. You wouldn't see right wingers going around decrying contracts.

 

[L.T. Fan]

You folks haven't touched on common law marriage statutes in the various states. Contracts can be very iffy in those circumstances. The initial legal debates will center around whether there is a marriage and if so the individual protective contracts could take a back seat to statutes.

 

[Carp]

Why are we even talking about the legal issues...I thought this was about the social and religious aspects of a marriage?

 

[L.T. Fan]

Why are we even talking about the legal issues...I thought this was about the social and religious aspects of a marriage?

Marriage is a legal issue as well . In our system they are inseparable.

 

[Smitty]

Why are we even talking about the legal issues...I thought this was about the social and religious aspects of a marriage?

The reason why governments recognize "marriage" is to package a certain amount of rights to two citizens choosing to enter that arrangement. Property rights mostly.

If the government stopped recognizing marriage, how would the law deal with it when people wanted to buy a house together? In many states, married people are "Tenants by the entireties" (which means that they both own 100% of the property). In other jurisdictions this is called "Joint tenancy with right of survivorship." When "married" people buy land, this is the default ownership arrangement.

Non-married people default to "Tenants in Common" which means each person owns 50% of the property, it is a completely different legal concept, and they have to specifically indicate in a deed if they want it to be different.

So if the government stops recognizing marriage, there will be the need for lawyers to pick up the slack in helping people specify what they want when they purchase property together because there is no more "marriage default." The default can be accomplished by specifying it in a deed, but it requires more work.

 

[Carp]

All great points, but when I asked why someone would get married if they don't like the government involvement the response I got was the social and religious aspect of it. This is all legal chitter chatter, having nothing to do with social or religious interests.

 

[EZ22]

Marriage is a legal issue as well . In our system they are inseparable.

I would high five you but I don't want you to throw out your hip.

 

[EZ22]

All great points, but when I asked why someone would get married if they don't like the government involvement the response I got was the social and religious aspect of it. This is all legal chitter chatter, having nothing to do with social or religious interests.

I think the point is that you pretty much can't get married without having the government involved. I mean unless you want to convert and become a Druid or something.