Tennessee banned Internet ministers

[FatherBill]

Fellow Dudes,

I've been trying to post about this. This just ticks me off. I don't know who these zealots think they are. But this is the U.S.A. NOT Russia, China or some other country. We have Freedom of Religion in this country like it or not.


Tennessee banned Internet ministers from performing weddings. I can't post a link to it. So you'll need to do a search about it.

Father Bill

[Masked Dude]

Here are a couple articles about it:

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2019/jul/01/state-defends-tennessee-binternet-ordained-mi/497894/

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/13/739043318/tennessee-lawmakers-aim-to-ban-weddings-by-internet-ordained-ministers

First: I don't know the political leanings of the URLs I posted. So I have no idea the content on the rest of the site (and won't discuss it anyway).

Second: I know a judge paused that ban. The main concept is that the ULC (which is the official church of the Church of the SubGenius) just allows anyone over the age of 13. In the past, they even let people ordain their pets.

Now, here's my two copper coins on the issue. Does not reflect this site or the Dudeist church, but is just my opinion.
This won't stick. There is a push to separate church and state, and to me that's a good thing. I don't think the governments can really make this happen. The main reason is that the big churches, like Catholicism, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, Baptists, Methodists, etc are trying to keep their hold on what's a "real minister." In some circles, they're saying it's a move to push out pagans and such. I just think it's them thinking they have the monopoly on what's real religion.

I think this will end well for us who aren't ordained by a Big Church. As much as I don't like the ULC, they have a point. IANAL, but I studied law. The First Amendment religion part only affects the federal government, so states can establish religions. However, when it comes to this issue, I don't think Tennessee will prevail. They can legally prohibit one church (as my state of North Carolina does by prohibiting the ULC from officiating), but I don't think they'll be able to keep a blanket ban on all non-mainstream ordinations. When you look at Torcaso v Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961) that tried to ban atheists from holding public office, it doesn't look good for The Volunteer State.

[BikerDude]

Who is the Government to say one way or the other.
Fuck em.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29oMZ0rDYmM

[Masked Dude]

Technically they do have a say in how marriages are handled. The legal concept is that marriages are an amalgamation of two entities, both of which may hold property. Should that amalgamation later dissolve, then who's to say what property goes to whom? I understand we should be allowed to marry whoever we want, but the actual contract of marriage is a legal and civil affair because otherwise property rights would be absolutely chaotic.

For instance, here's an actual case from my professor: She is an attorney, specializing mostly in real estate and real property. A local major sports team had a player who had been traded away to another team. He was selling his house, and my professor was involved in it. (I can't remember if she was his attorney or the buyers'.) On signing day, he said something his wife moving something. Everyone stopped. The real estate agent, buyers' attorney, his attorney, and the bank rep all stopped. He had bought the house while single but could not legally sell the house without his wife also approving and signing the paperwork. Why? This is a tenancy by the entirety state, meaning as soon as his marriage became legal, he and she both owned the house as one entity.

What if the wife didn't approve? Can you imagine the problems the buyers would have faced if the wife suddenly said no, she didn't approve? Who owns the house? The athlete and wife? The new buyers? The new bank with the mortgage? The real estate company?

What about when one spouse dies. Does the spouse have any legal rights? Without the government being involved, it depends on everything. The deceased spouse's family, the fed, the state, the county, the city, the hospital or nursing home or hospice, the insurance companies, etc. Not the living spouse unless the government set aside policies. What if the dead spouse's family are extreme religious types who are 100% opposed to cremation, yet the dead spouse eschewed their religion. Without government laws on marriage, then that person's last wishes mean exactly jack and shit.

That's why the government has a vested interest and an obligation to have a hand in marriages. Honestly it solves a lot of problems.

Now.... that's just property. A thing. Imagine when pets and kids are involved. Maybe now people see why yes, it is a government issue.

[BikerDude]

I think they should make common law marriage nationwide.
That would solve the whole thing.
If both people say they are married, then they are married.

The original concept of a "common-law marriage" is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally recorded with a state or religious registry, or celebrated in a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married, and organizing their relation as if they were married, acts as the evidence that they are married.

But the matrimonial industrial complex will never let that happen.