Back on post 27988; it’s North Carolina and Charlotte. I am an idiot on occasion.:smack::smack:
The Republican thought is still ugly.
Not that Charlotte has an inferiority complex or anything. They’re a world-class city, just ask them! Did you know the Secretary of Transportation is a former Mayor? They hosted the 2012 Democratic National Convention!
The marriage would be recorded in the office of the judge of probate and the Office of Vital Statistic. No change is being made to the actual record of a marriage; it removes the requirement that the judge issue a license in advance, and that the document be filed by “the person who performs the marriage”.
The bill prevents that. It separates the religious and civil marriage (unfortunately, I can’t copy the text):
“A civil and independent or religious ceremony … may be conducted … which … will have no legal effect on the validity of the marriage.”
“The requirement of a ceremony of marriage to solemnize a marriage is abolished.”
I find this a progressive change. One might suspect opposition is just a knee-jerk reaction, because, having read the bill, I can see no reason to oppose it.
Which are staffed by clerks who can claim the religious freedom to refuse to record the marriages of homosexuals. It’s Christians all the way down.
Staff who currently manage the documents. This bill, which separates legal and ceremonial aspects of a marriage, does not change which state employees manage the records.
There is no change in how a marriage is recorded, other than that no preliminary marriage license is required and no officiant is necessary to file the paperwork.
Please, point to the section of the bill which gives you concern that this would somehow limit the rights to marriage of anyone. I cannot find it; I cannot even find a restriction on what county the paperwork needs to be filed before being sent to the Office of Vital Statistic.
I think this is a very good idea, and that opposition to it would be foolish.
OK. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
The law requires me to record my marriage at a local or state government office. I walk in, I ask a clerk to record my marriage. She looks at my form and sees two male names, deduces this is a gay marriage, and refuses to accept my form or record my marriage.
Any time there is human interaction between the public and an agent of the government, there is an opportunity for that agent to claim religious freedom and discriminate against homosexuals. How do you propose to record the form without any interaction between the public and the government?
Ah, yes. The State employee who decides even touching the “wrong” paperwork violates his/her religion.
Excellent plan. We can call the neighborhoods, oh I dunno… how about ghettos?
How about doing it all on-line, entirely automated?
How would you detect fraud?
“My religious beliefs forbid me from coding systems that will be used to allow gingers to marry”…
“My religious beliefs prevent me maintaining servers that will host systems that will be used to allow Boca Juniors fans to adopt innocent children”…
Check the date on that story. It’s from 2011.
Damn.
Trump: “I’ll let the Heritage Foundation pick my Supreme Court nominees.”
The gift that keeps on giving.
I think that this is the link you want for that:
What, the Heritage Foundation?! Not even the Federalist Society?! At least they’re lawyers!
I thought maybe E-DUB was exaggerating a little for comic effect with his post. The way one does in the Pit. But, nope! That’s really what Trump said. He is going to release a list of 5-10 names of judges now, and if he gets any SCOTUS picks as President, he will pick his nominee from that list. He’s going to pre-commit to a list of potential SCOTUS nominees to allay fears on the right wing that he’ll pick liberal justices. And that list of 5-10 Justices-in-Waiting is being developed by Heritage, “and other groups”.
Here’s the part in his press conference where he unveils Heritage Foundation’s role in his master plan: - YouTube
Imagine the furor if Obama had reached a similar deal their opposite number.
Well, for the record, we progressives are NOT happy with Merrick Garland. Prior decisions he has made on the appelate court indicate he is a big fan of Citizens United as it stands. Actually, one of the decisions he made EXPANDED the scope of what Super PACs could do as far as raising money is concerned. He will probably defend abortion rights … maybe … and he has made decisions that made the NRA get all itchy on the trigger finger, but that’s about it. There’s nothing progressive about him.