Posted on 03/03/2004 7:41:33 PM PST by William McKinley
Looking for a hard copy.
Bill OK'd limiting who can perform marriages
After reaffirming Utah's ban against same-sex marriage, lawmakers now are moving to limit who can perform marriages.
House members Tuesday approved 45-26 a bill that restricts marriage powers to clergy, county clerks and specified elected officials, including the governor, House speaker and Senate president.
The measure already has passed the Senate and now goes to Gov. Olene Walker for final action.
Sponsoring Sen. Carlene Walker, R-Cottonwood Heights, said the idea for the bill was brought to her by an unidentified person who had observed marriages performed by people designated by county clerks.
"A marriage is a special thing," said Walker. "There is an authority factor that should be present."
Critics of Senate Bill 157 questioned what was driving the quest to restrict marriage authority.
"I've never seen a worse example of a solution looking for a problem," said Rep. Scott Daniels, D-Salt Lake City.
"If somebody wants their neighbor to perform the marriage, what's wrong with that? Why do we want to control people in this fashion?" asked Daniels. "Why do we care?"
-- Dan Harrie
I think we have two different things here.
Gay couples and supporters descended on the Capitol, waving signs -- "End the Legislative Session Hate Free" -- in an unsuccessful to keep the Senate from approving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Senate returned the bill to the House for further consideration. If approved there, it will be on the November ballot.
Legislators already had sent Walker the Marriage Recognition Policy, which would put the gay marriage ban in state law. Walker hasn't said whether she'll sign it. The governor has no say on constitutional amendments.
--------------
Gay couples and supporters descended on the Capitol, waving signs -- "End the Legislative Session Hate Free" -- in an unsuccessful to keep the Senate from approving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Senate returned the bill to the House for further consideration. If approved there, it will be on the November ballot.
Legislators already had sent Walker the Marriage Recognition Policy, which would put the gay marriage ban in state law. Walker hasn't said whether she'll sign it. The governor has no say on constitutional amendments.
GMTA
So, how are they going to define "clergy"?
Pretty much any definition the come up with -- that will have any "teeth" insofar as preventing "any joe off the street" from performing marriages -- will offend at least some bona fide religions.
The problem isn't with who performs "marriages". Regulating "who" can perform a wedding ceremony is like regulating guns. It won't stop crime.
It is "civil war", though. Various units of government disregarding the law of the land, cutting themselves off from the rest of the country, doing what they want, how they want, with total contempt for the rule of law, because they no longer recognize any law above themselves.
Did you watch the fall of the Soviet Union on television? Well now you get to watch it again, with only a few differences. Remember, what you're watching now are only the initial "shots" being "fired". The revolutionaries are becominging increasingly emboldened with each victory, and so far, it's been pretty much a rout as far as they're concerned. Wherever they place their feet, the land is theirs. Even the one rebel who had charges filed against him is thumbing his nose at them, and continuing in his rebellion.
No real action to stop him was taken, nor is it likely to be taken, IMO. The "enemy" (i.e., the rest of the country) seems too scared to do anything to stop them as they establish their new order.
And that's exactly what's happening, make no mistake. They're establishing a new order. Not by changing the laws, but by force of will. They've simply announced that they're taking over, and will be doing things their way, and if we don't like it, that's tough $#!+.
Don't peg your hopes on a Constitutional amendment. It would take years, and the outcome is far from certain. But do fear the "solution" that's likely to be proposed before too long -- a Constitutional Convention.
If that happens, then stick a fork in us.
That's what it is for them. They confuse dysfunctional sex with unconditional love. They don't know the difference. They think love IS kinky sex.
NAMBLA says they "love" their victims, too.
You know, some people pay taxes and some don't. That's not equality. Either everyone pays or no one pays. That's the only way to end the tax discrimination.
Yeah, that's the scary part of this whole thing. It's not the gay marriage thing -- the issue could be anything -- it's that we've elected people that have chosen politics as a career and will do or say anything to keep their careers.
My grandfather was the mayor of a small town in Oregon once. He didn't get the job because he decided he was going to make a career of politics; he took the job because it was his turn to be mayor. Every adult male took his turn every year and then went back into private life.
We've gotten away from governing ourselves and turned to McGovernment to cure every little ill. We just couldn't be bothered. Better to have the wife get a job to pay more taxes to have everything taken care of (or so we thought) than to take care of the niggling details of life ourselves (like raising kids).
Now we've got a segment of the population that's decided it's above the law, and that segment of society is our government. That's not anarchy--it's totalitarianism.
Hey now, that's an interesting angle!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.