Bunny Trails

[ohio jones]

Having spent a lot of time in Catholic churches I would suggest that lay Catholics generally don't discuss or interpret these sorts of Biblical teachings on their own. They just go along with whatever the church says. Or just ignore the church (i.e. birth control and divorce). That is part of the difference between Catholicism and most Protestant denominations. There is a clear separation between clergy and laity and in Catholicism, church doctrine is the exclusive domain of the clergy.

If you were to press some priest on the subject he would probably cite Cannon Law 1262 which addressed head coverings for both men and women and basically went out of date with Vatican 2. So at this point, removing one's hat in church if you are a man is probably more an issue of church etiquette or tradition than cannon law.

Max, as I recall you've had training in Second Amendment law. Is it a fair summary that the church can ignore scripture, and the lay members can ignore the church?

[Ken]

Having spent a lot of time in Catholic churches I would suggest that lay Catholics generally don't discuss or interpret these sorts of Biblical teachings on their own. They just go along with whatever the church says. Or just ignore the church (i.e. birth control and divorce). That is part of the difference between Catholicism and most Protestant denominations. There is a clear separation between clergy and laity and in Catholicism, church doctrine is the exclusive domain of the clergy.

If you were to press some priest on the subject he would probably cite Cannon Law 1262 which addressed head coverings for both men and women and basically went out of date with Vatican 2. So at this point, removing one's hat in church if you are a man is probably more an issue of church etiquette or tradition than cannon law.

Max, as I recall you've had training in Second Amendment law. Is it a fair summary that the church can ignore scripture, and the lay members can ignore the church?

That is not what I wrote.

What I wrote was that it is the domain of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy to interpret scripture, not the laity. There is a vast amount of cannon law interpreting scripture. None of it written by laity I suspect.

As for lay members ignoring church teachings? That is simply what happens as we all well know. Surveys suggest that about 99% of Catholic women use some form of birth control in defiance of church teachings. What does the church actually do about it? Not very much it seems, other than to preach on the topic on occasion I guess.

[Josh]

However, if you and others here want to cite Pennsylvania law on the subject of marriage. Then the word "marriage" does, in fact, mean a civil contract. That is the actual legal definition of marriage under Pennsylvania law that is relevant to all the different provisions of law that you are citing. And that is the ONLY definition of marriage that is relevant to any provision of the Pennsylvania marriage code.

OK. So can I claim in Pennsylvania that someone is an employee, but also say it's not a state-recognised employee-employer relationship, thus I don't need to comply with any state laws such as get an employment licence or comply with laws that apply to employee-employers?

You seem to be saying we can do that with marriage, because it's a "civil contract" so just be careful not to enter into one. So can I skirt the law by just being careful to not undergo a state-recognised "employment ceremony" and thus pretend my employee is not legally an employee?

[Ken]

However, if you and others here want to cite Pennsylvania law on the subject of marriage. Then the word "marriage" does, in fact, mean a civil contract. That is the actual legal definition of marriage under Pennsylvania law that is relevant to all the different provisions of law that you are citing. And that is the ONLY definition of marriage that is relevant to any provision of the Pennsylvania marriage code.

OK. So can I claim in Pennsylvania that someone is an employee, but also say it's not a state-recognised employee-employer relationship, thus I don't need to comply with any state laws such as get an employment licence or comply with laws that apply to employee-employers?

You seem to be saying we can do that with marriage, because it's a "civil contract" so just be careful not to enter into one. So can I skirt the law by just being careful to not undergo a state-recognised "employment ceremony" and thus pretend my employee is not legally an employee?

Let me repeat myself. I am saying three different and related things.

1. When it comes to Pennsylvania law, marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people.

2. When it comes to the various restrictions and prohibitions in Pennsylvania law such as the requirement to have a marriage license before marriage, those restrictions only apply to the definition of marriage set out in Pennsylvania law. Namely a civil contract between two individuals that is recognized by the state and legally enforceable under the laws of the state.

3. People are perfectly free to use the term "marriage" any way they want in any other context. It just won't carry the weight of being a recognized and enforceable civil contract under Pennsylvania law.

[Josh]

3. People are perfectly free to use the term "marriage" any way they want in any other context. It just won't carry the weight of being a recognized and enforceable civil contract under Pennsylvania law.

You err with #3. For starters, it is illegal for a minister to marry two people without a marriage licence.

He would be free to conduct any other ceremony he wanted; he just can't say he's marrying them or declare them husband and wife.

[Ken]

3. People are perfectly free to use the term "marriage" any way they want in any other context. It just won't carry the weight of being a recognized and enforceable civil contract under Pennsylvania law.

You err with #3. For starters, it is illegal for a minister to marry two people without a marriage licence.

He would be free to conduct any other ceremony he wanted; he just can't say he's marrying them or declare them husband and wife.

No, he could still do so and call it anything he wants. It just would not be a marriage under the definition of the term used by the state.

There is no law against using the word “marriage” any way anyone wants. There is no state marriage language police who go around and tell ministers that they can perform commitment ceremonies or weddings or casamientos or whatever word they want to use as long as they don’t use the word “marriage”. That is nonsense. You yourself are using the term differently than how the state defines it.

What the law says is that if ministers are going to act as an agent of the state and solemnize a civil contract of marriage that will be licensed and recognized under state law then they have to follow the regulations that apply to that process. That is it.

What makes this confusing is that here in the US we allow ministers to act in dual roles. They act as agents of the state when they sign the marriage license issued by the state. And they act as ministers of their faith when they conduct whatever religious ceremony their faith dictates.

In other countries it is less confusing because the civil contract of marriage is separated from the religious ceremony. In most Latin American countries you go to the Federal civil registry to formalize your civil marriage contract and the religious ceremony is completely separate.

[Josh]

No, he could still do so and call it anything he wants. It just would not be a marriage under the definition of the term used by the state.

The statute says that no minister may marry anyone without a marriage licence first.

There is no law against using the word “marriage” any way anyone wants. There is no state marriage language police who go around and tell ministers that they can perform commitment ceremonies or weddings or casamientos or whatever word they want to use as long as they don’t use the word “marriage”. That is nonsense. You yourself are using the term differently than how the state defines it.

By the same token, there's no law against Alex Jones using "Sandy", "Hook", "crisis", and "actor" anyway he wants, right? It turns out that there are indeed language police, though, and the government can actually make saying certain things illegal and have consequences.

What the law says is that if ministers are going to act as an agent of the state and solemnize a civil contract of marriage that will be licensed and recognized under state law then they have to follow the regulations that apply to that process. That is it.

The PA law does not say that.

What makes this confusing is that here in the US we allow ministers to act in dual roles. They act as agents of the state when they sign the marriage license issued by the state. And they act as ministers of their faith when they conduct whatever religious ceremony their faith dictates.

There's nothing confusing about that. The PA law (and my state's law) does not say anything about a minister being an "agent of the state". What the law does say is that before anyone gets married, they must go and get a marriage licence. And it says someone who officiates a marriage, regardless of how or why they're allowed to officiate it, may only marry people who have a marriage licence.

In other countries it is less confusing because the civil contract of marriage is separated from the religious ceremony. In most Latin American countries you go to the Federal civil registry to formalize your civil marriage contract and the religious ceremony is completely separate.

That's nice. We aren't in a Latin American country.

[Ken]

In other countries it is less confusing because the civil contract of marriage is separated from the religious ceremony. In most Latin American countries you go to the Federal civil registry to formalize your civil marriage contract and the religious ceremony is completely separate.

That's nice. We aren't in a Latin American country.

No, but it would be perfectly legal for a couple to get married the same way in the US.

For example, a couple could go to their local district court and get a civil marriage (i.e. a civil contract recognized by the state). And then later in a completely separate ceremony have their minister perform a religious ceremony. Under those circumstances the minister would not be bound by any state law whatsoever because he is not solemnizing a state-recognized civil marriage contract. He is just performing a religious ceremony. And under those circumstances nothing in Pennsylvania state law applies.

Conversely, a minister could perform a completely religious marriage ceremony with no marriage license or civil contract involved. And then later the couple could go to the local courthouse to do a legal civil marriage.

Or a couple could just do one or the other and not both. Just a civil marriage at the courthouse. Or just a religious ceremony in a church or elsewhere.

The law only applies to the civil aspects of marriage, not the religious aspects.

[ken_sylvania]

3. People are perfectly free to use the term "marriage" any way they want in any other context. It just won't carry the weight of being a recognized and enforceable civil contract under Pennsylvania law.

You err with #3. For starters, it is illegal for a minister to marry two people without a marriage licence.

He would be free to conduct any other ceremony he wanted; he just can't say he's marrying them or declare them husband and wife.

No, he could still do so and call it anything he wants. It just would not be a marriage under the definition of the term used by the state.

There is no law against using the word “marriage” any way anyone wants. There is no state marriage language police who go around and tell ministers that they can perform commitment ceremonies or weddings or casamientos or whatever word they want to use as long as they don’t use the word “marriage”. That is nonsense. You yourself are using the term differently than how the state defines it.

What the law says is that if ministers are going to act as an agent of the state and solemnize a civil contract of marriage that will be licensed and recognized under state law then they have to follow the regulations that apply to that process. That is it.

What makes this confusing is that here in the US we allow ministers to act in dual roles. They act as agents of the state when they sign the marriage license issued by the state. And they act as ministers of their faith when they conduct whatever religious ceremony their faith dictates.

In other countries it is less confusing because the civil contract of marriage is separated from the religious ceremony. In most Latin American countries you go to the Federal civil registry to formalize your civil marriage contract and the religious ceremony is completely separate.

There's no law that says ministers can perform commitment ceremonies, etc, but there is a law in Pennsylvania that says they a minister may not conduct a marriage if the couple to be married doesn't have a marriage license. You seem to be arguing that the prohibition against ministers conducting marriages of unlicensed persons only applies in cases where the couple wishes to obtain a marriage license as prescribed by the state. Is that what you're saying?

[ken_sylvania]

Conversely, a minister could perform a completely religious marriage ceremony with no marriage license or civil contract involved. And then later the couple could go to the local courthouse to do a legal civil marriage.

Or a couple could just do one or the other and not both. Just a civil marriage at the courthouse. Or just a religious ceremony in a church or elsewhere.

The law only applies to the civil aspects of marriage, not the religious aspects.

Could - yes. May - no.

I've noticed that criminals can take a gun to a bank and get money. That doesn't mean it's legal.