• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

You mean like how they used to not say anything more than indicate male and female for signing purposes? That sort of change in tradition? I can easily find examples from the 1950s, the 1970s, and other times where the Washington marriage license didn't have anything on it at all about what people are complaining about. No mention of either bride or groom, wife or husband. Only blocks labelled "male" and "female" for where to sign the form.

Okay.
 
LMAO

yes they do you must be young and or from another country churches refuse people all the time hell they refuse STRAIGHT, HETEROSEXUAL WHITE COUPLES for religious reasons.

SOrry you are simply wrong and theres nothing logically or factual to support your staetment

Yes, for religious reasons like cohabitation or having a child. Barring marriage because of an identity is going to be viewed differently.
 
Your point? Making an apology doesnt equal getting in legal trouble.

Churches are not going to apologize for not wedding gays; they're not going to call it a mistake.
 
Like those who are convicted of such for refusing to marry interracial couples or even black couples or white couples? This is a stupid argument. No preacher is ever going to be required to perform a wedding for any couple they don't want to perform one for, whether black, white, Asian, interracial, Catholic, Jewish, atheists, same sex or opposite sex, as long as the 1st Amendment protection of Freedom of religion is in place. Interracial marriage has been legal for decades now and not a single religious clergymen has so much as been sued for refusing to perform a wedding for an interracial couple because everyone knows it won't fly. We even have JOPs who have refused to perform such weddings and still didn't get sued.

Would I get sued for preventing blacks from buying a home on my development?
 
You're wrong. Many churches have refused to marry interracial couples because they are interracial, or black couples because they are black (one just this past year), or Jewish couples because they are Jewish. The main people fighting to keep interracial marriage bans in place were religious organizations in the 1960s. Many claimed, including the first judge in the Loving case, that God intended for the races to remain separate and religious reasons was a main part of why interracial couples should not be allowed to marry.

Maybe in places with Jim Crow Laws where this was enforced.
 
Yes, for religious reasons like cohabitation or having a child. Barring marriage because of an identity is going to be viewed differently.

wrong again because it is already being done based on IDENTITY and its NOT viewed differently its their CONSTITUTIONAL protected right to be able to discriminate so it doesnt matter how people view it.

LOL what facts are you having trouble understanding, again where are you from?
 
“We’ve been quickly moving ahead to change our marriage certificate to make sure it fits for everyone who is going to be using it,” he told Fox News. The words “bride” and “groom” could be replaced with “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” or “Person A” and “Person B,” Church said.
Steve, do you take Adam to be your lawfully wedded Person A?
Adam, do you take Steve to be your lawfully wedded Person B?

Still sounds discriminatory to me. Spouse "A" somehow comes off as superior to Spouse "B." I think the difference in terminology could have some real, substantive life effects.
 
Steve, do you take Adam to be your lawfully wedded Person A?
Adam, do you take Steve to be your lawfully wedded Person B?

Still sounds discriminatory to me. Spouse "A" somehow comes off as superior to Spouse "B." I think the difference in terminology could have some real, substantive life effects.

good thing the vows (religion) or verbiage(legal) of what is being said isnt being changed then, just the form
 
Churches are not going to apologize for not wedding gays; they're not going to call it a mistake.

Again I have to ask what your point is. Their apology had nothing to do with them not getting in trouble. Fact is a church can deny marrying whoever they want for any reason they want because they are a private organization. Same reason the boy scouts can deny homosexuals and atheists from joining.
 
wrong again because it is already being done based on IDENTITY and its NOT viewed differently its their CONSTITUTIONAL protected right to be able to discriminate so it doesnt matter how people view it.

LOL what facts are you having trouble understanding, again where are you from?

What church is banning a marriage based on identity?
 
What church is banning a marriage based on identity?

sorry dont keep the names of churches because i dont care its their right, again i ask what facts dont you understand and where are you from, obviously its not america?
 
Again I have to ask what your point is. Their apology had nothing to do with them not getting in trouble. Fact is a church can deny marrying whoever they want for any reason they want because they are a private organization. Same reason the boy scouts can deny homosexuals and atheists from joining.

The Boy Scouts have been sued plenty over the homosexual policy.
 
sorry dont keep the names of churches because i dont care its their right, again i ask what facts dont you understand and where are you from, obviously its not america?

Can you not read my location right under my name?

And I would get sued for not allowing blacks to buy property on my development. That's not protected free speech, is it?
 
Can you not read my location right under my name?

And I would get sued for not allowing blacks to buy property on my development. That's not protected free speech, is it?

i know what it says but theres no way you are an american or from here


what the heck does your example have to do with churches and freedom of religion? this is why i dont think you are from america you have no clue what you are talking about with this subject.
 
Would I get sued for preventing blacks from buying a home on my development?

You and your property are not a church, conducting a church rite. The ceremony is a rite. The only reason they authorize clergy/church officials to sign the legal license is because it is convenient. It gives the government an official, that they can generally trust, who they don't have to pay to sign a legal document.
 
Steve, do you take Adam to be your lawfully wedded Person A?
Adam, do you take Steve to be your lawfully wedded Person B?

Still sounds discriminatory to me. Spouse "A" somehow comes off as superior to Spouse "B." I think the difference in terminology could have some real, substantive life effects.

No one is required to read from the marriage license when conducting the ceremony. My own marriage license only says "bride" and "groom". Neither of those words were used in the actual words of our ceremony.

The same could be said if the bride is listed first or the groom is listed first on the license. You are looking for something to complain about here.
 
What church is banning a marriage based on identity?

Mormons ban anyone who isn't Mormon from getting married in their church. In fact, the majority of churches wouldn't perform a wedding for a couple where at least one of them wasn't a member of the church.

It's like the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". He had to get baptized as Greek in order for them to get married in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Interreligious Marriage and the Orthodox Church — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Note: "The non-Orthodox Christian partner needed to be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and in water." They will not wed a couple where both are not Greek Orthodox.

There are many religions that will refuse to marry someone of another religion or no religion. That would be refusing to marry someone based on their religion.

And yes, there are still churches in the South that refuse to wed couples because of their race or relative races.
 
Not only this, but the boy scouts isn't actually a church rite, the marriage ceremony is.

The problem with the boy scouts is their tax exempt status and receiving government funds. If they stopped doing both, noone would have a problem with what the boy scouts do and don't do.
 
No one is required to read from the marriage license when conducting the ceremony. My own marriage license only says "bride" and "groom". Neither of those words were used in the actual words of our ceremony.
Great! No reason to change it to Person A and Person B.

The same could be said if the bride is listed first or the groom is listed first on the license. You are looking for something to complain about here.
Not looking to complain. Making fun of those that complain of such things.
 
Not looking to complain. Making fun of those that complain of such things.

Yet you are complaining about Person A and Person B. So, yeah, you are complaining about it. If not, why are you against changing it to reflect a more gender neutral document in light of gay marriage being legal in that state?
 
Taylor said:
Not looking to complain. Making fun of those that complain of such things.
Yet you are complaining about Person A and Person B. So, yeah, you are complaining about it. If not, why are you against changing it to reflect a more gender neutral document in light of gay marriage being legal in that state?
Already answered that.
 
Great! No reason to change it to Person A and Person B.

It's also a good reason not to care if it does change. It makes no difference to those getting married, but it does make the clerk at the office who records those marriages' job easier because he/she doesn't have to worry about mistakes that make a man out of a bride or a woman out of a groom. They can simply not care about gender at all and just list the two people married.
 
Back
Top Bottom