Yet States today still don't perform "Marriages" --- stop lying ...
Tennessee is one of the least restrictive states in the nation in which to get married. There is no blood test, no waiting period and no witness required. Couples can have a civil ceremony versus a religious ceremony via current and former elected officials who are authorized by law to perform wedding ceremonies. You need to start with the clerk of court. They can tell you where to go from there ID Requirement: Valid Driver's License or Certified Birth Certificate or Valid Passport. Residency Requirement: Do not have to be a resident of Tennessee. If previously married: A copy of Divorce Decree. Application Requirement: Both the bride and groom must appear in person at the time of applying. Fees: $100 unless you receive 4 hours of marriage counseling. If your county approves your counselour and your completed session, you will be given a $60 discount. If your session is not approved by either the counselor or county, you must pay $100 instead of $40. Waiting Period: No waiting period. 3 Days if either applicant is under 18. Blood Tests: No blood test requirement. Under 18: If either party is under the age of 18, they must be accompanied by parents. • If under the age of 16, Tennessee law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry. On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:10:36 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Yet States today still don't perform "Marriages" or grant > "Marriages"......The States "License" what they now refer to as > marriages.....An ecclesiastical function. Again, the term "Marriage" is > religious, no matter how you cut it. > > Try to read, study and educate yourself before you post stupid shit in > these conversations Plain Ol'. > > With regard to "Additional Rights" or "Special Rights". Brine had the > right to marry the same individuals that I had to marry a year ago, (or > even three months ago). Now, Brine has the right to marry an additional > 100 million individuals, based on the redefiniion of the religious term, > "Marriage". > > Trust me on this one, the subject will be revisited. The State of Alabama > has now refused to issue any marriage licenses to any individual. We'll > see how this all pans out in the next year, when prevailing heads come to > the realization that the Supreme Court's ruling is in fact > "unconstitutional"..... > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:55 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > You as a Gay man had the same "Equal Rights" that I had a year ago; > --- > wrong ... he was allowed to marry the person of his choice. > > and now, you have "Additional" rights that I don't have, > --- > equal rights ... not additional rights. > > based on who you choose to hop in the sack with. This is morally > reprehensible when you stop and think about it! > --- > take your xian morals and stick them up your jewish god's asshole. > > As I pointed out earlier in this thread and in other threads, marriage is > an "ecclesiastical/religious" function; > --- > wrong, lawyerboy ... the state controls marriage. > > ALL States, or Nation-States will recognize a marriage which has been > performed under the "Eyes of God", > --- > god has no standing in secular America. > our forefathers warned us about people like you. > > which requires a priest or a minister to acknowledge. > --- > wrong again ... judges perform non-religious marriages. > > Again, in our Nation, States didn't even get involved in "marriage" or > "marriage contracts" until the mid to late 19th Century. Some states > didn't get into the marriage business until the 20th Century. The reasons > for this (within several states) was initially to prevent miscegenation. > Later, I'm sure that local and state governments realized that "marriage" > was another source of income, and began taxing what it termed, "Marriage" > but that's a topic for another day. Today, the government is needed in a > sense, for the dissolution of the contract, and separation of properties. > --- > yes, the government controls marriage. > and that's a good thing considering the religious assholes in this country > who would discriminate against gay, inter-racial and inter-faith marriages. > > By example, prior to 1966, the State of Florida did not license any > marriage that was not performed by clergy. Judges or notaries were not > usually utilized in the contract of marriage in most Southern States. It > was around this time that Florida, (unlike South Carolina and Georgia) > disallowed what is usually referred to as "Common Law Marriage"; (*See* Lee > Marvin) but did begin to acknowledge what it termed, "marriage contracts" > performed by a civil authority and the Florida Legislature codified this > procedure and these contracts by statute. > --- > that was all changed for a damn good reason ... because religious people > persecute those with different beliefs. > > A State "licenses" marriage, because a State cannot "Marry" anyone, > marriage is, and always has been a "religious/ecclesiastical" function! > --- > stop lying ... judges perform non-religious marriages. > also, some people, with no religious affiliations or beliefs, are also > licensed to marry people. > > There was no outcry for same sex marriage ten years ago, twenty years ago, > and especially fifty or one hundred years ago. > --- > because 50-100 years ago your klan was jailing or killing gays who would > have wanted to get married. > > Thus, States adopted the term, "Marriage" when these governmental > entities first got into the licensing business, when in fact the correct > term should have been "Civil Union". There is no distinction between the > two terms from a legal standpoint; but from an ecclesiastical perspective, > there is a world of difference, and thus, one more reason that the Supreme > Court's recent Opinon which redefined the term "Marriage" is > unconstitutional. > --- > opinion noted ... not shared. > religions don't own marriage and never will. Get over it or not. > > Nevertheless, therein lies the solution to the problem. No State, or > local or governmental entity should be in the "Marriage License" business, > but instead, the "Civil Union License" business. > --- > how about we make marriage unnecessary for anyone? > giving that power to the state or the church is fucking insane. > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:34:39 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Good Morning Brine! > > We may disagree, but (as stated in my response to Pluto; you are either > ignoring the issue, and/or are misinformed regarding the issue); this has > nothing to do with "Equality". You as a Gay man had the same "Equal > Rights" that I had a year ago; and now, you have "Additional" rights that > I don't have, based on who you choose to hop in the sack with. This is > morally reprehensible when you stop and think about it! > > As I pointed out earlier in this thread and in other threads, marriage is > an "ecclesiastical/religious" function; ALL States, or Nation-States will > recognize a marriage which has been performed under the "Eyes of God", > which requires a priest or a minister to acknowledge. Again, in our > Nation, States didn't even get involved in "marriage" or "marriage > contracts" until the mid to late 19th Century. Some states didn't get into > the marriage business until the 20th Century. The reasons for this (within > several states) was initially to prevent miscegenation. Later, I'm sure > that local and state governments realized that "marriage" was another > source of income, and began taxing what it termed, "Marriage" but that's a > topic for another day. Today, the government is needed in a sense, for > the dissolution of the contract, and separation of properties. > > By example, prior to 1966, the State of Florida did not license any > marriage that was not performed by clergy. Judges or notaries were not > usually utilized in the contract of marriage in most Southern States. It > was around this time that Florida, (unlike South Carolina and Georgia) > disallowed what is usually referred to as "Common Law Marriage"; (*See* > Lee Marvin) but did begin to acknowledge what it termed, "marriage > contracts" performed by a civil authority and the Florida Legislature > codified this procedure and these contracts by statute. > > A State "licenses" marriage, because a State cannot "Marry" anyone, > marriage is, and always has been a "religious/ecclesiastical" function! > > There was no outcry for same sex marriage ten years ago, twenty years ago, > and especially fifty or one hundred years ago. Thus, States adopted the > term, "Marriage" when these governmental entities first got into the > licensing business, when in fact the correct term should have been "Civil > Union". There is no distinction between the two terms from a legal > standpoint; but from an ecclesiastical perspective, there is a world of > difference, and thus, one more reason that the Supreme Court's recent > Opinon which redefined the term "Marriage" is unconstitutional. > > Nevertheless, therein lies the solution to the problem. No State, or > local or governmental entity should be in the "Marriage License" business, > but instead, the "Civil Union License" business. > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Obviously we will always disagree, you feel equality is special, I don't > ... so I suppose all those Christian denominations that are for equal > rights are wrong and your version is right!!! > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > A couple of "Facts" that you are overlooking Brine; > > First, the week prior to Ms. Davis refusing to place her signature on a > marriage license for same sex couples; wherein the U.S. Supreme Court > unconstitutionally redefined marriage; the Kentucky Constitution, as well > as Kentucky Code defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This > was the law of the land; and will of the 4.4 million Kentuckians who spoke > out on the Kentucky Constitutional Amendment. > > Ms. Davis was in fact an elected Official by the Kentuckians of Rowan > County. This, the same Kentuckians who in fact voted and vociferously were > opposed to the redefinition of marriage. > > "Special Rights" is exactly what has happened here. Prior to the > redefinition of marriage, a Gay man or a Gay woman was able to marry > anyone that they so chose as long as that individual was within the 5,000 > + years of the tenets and definition of marriage, and; providing that the > individual who was his or her partner wanted to be married! The Supreme > Court has now redefined the definition of marriage, where now a Gay man or > Woman can marry someone of their own sex, based on their sexual > proclivities. > > This is discriminatory against me, a single, heterosexual man, in that it > allows for a Gay man to reap certain tax benefits and other privileges that > I am not allowed, based on my sexual tastes. > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since the law of the land changed and she felt so strongly that she could > not uphold the law, she should have quit the job ... if I am unable to do > what my employer requires, my job is forfeit!!! > > How is it "special" to want the same rights afforded others ... why should > a gay person have to jump through hoops and hire lawyers when a union > granted by the state will give them all the same rights? > > The worst argument I heard against gay people getting married was by a > woman on a board who didn't want them to collect social security ... do gay > people NOT pay FICA???? > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > No, what you are advocating is "Special Rights" for Gays. Mark me in the > "opposed" category. > > Ms. Davis by your own admission has persecuted no one. > > You should be ashamed at the hatred, smear and nasty rhetoric that you > have slung against this Christian woman! Shame on you! > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:59 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > How did Ms. Davis, (*e.g.*; "the *fat assed bigoted bitch*") persecute > Gays? > --- > she refused to issue them marriage licenses ... but you know that. > > What is your definition of "persecute"? > --- > denying someone equal rights. > > Get a grip Plain Ol' and stop it with the PC crap! You never used to do > that! What has changed you? > --- > seeing American rights being denied to people because of their sexuality. > That change took place about 10-15 years ago and you need to catch up. > Thank goodness you're not a civil rights attorney. > > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 2:43:50 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > How did Ms. Davis, (*e.g.*; "the *fat assed bigoted bitch*") persecute > Gays? What is your definition of "persecute"? > > Get a grip Plain Ol' and stop it with the PC crap! You never used to do > that! What has changed you? > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Kim Davis has discriminated against no one. Your typical hate filled > extremist (and clueless) post proves my point! "Fat assed bigoted bitch" > says it all Plain Ol'. Continue on with your hate, vehemence, and lies. > --- > she persecuted gays and then disobeyed the courts .... so they sent her > fat bigoted ass to jail with a warning that if she refused to issue > marriage licenses she would be jailed again. > > it's you're klan that persecutes people because of your mythical religious > beliefs and your klan that will end up in court and/or jail for > persecution and bigotry. > open your heart or open your wallet ... lawyer boy. > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 4:02:16 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > LOL! Kim Davis has discriminated against no one. Your typical hate > filled extremist (and clueless) post proves my point! "Fat assed bigoted > bitch" says it all Plain Ol'. Continue on with your hate, vehemence, and > lies. > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:07 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To date, you've yet to produce any Christian who has purportedly > discriminated against or in any way harmed Gays or Transgenders. > --- > does the name kim davis ring a bell? > that fat ass bigoted bitch was sent to jail for persecuting lgbt's. > > You will have a hard time somehow protecting those wacked out Atheists, > Agnostics, and left of center elitists who hate Christians and go on the > attack against them! > --- > defend yourself at all times. > > There is no excuse Plain Ol'; other than to point to the breakdown of the > family, moral decay and the lack of Christianity in these people's lives > that cause them to go on murderous assassinations and terroristic rampages. > --- > lack of xianity? > nobody kills more people than religious myth believing abrahamics. > > the good news! > world-wide, humans are becoming less religious. > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > To date, you've yet to produce any Christian who has purportedly > discriminated against or in any way harmed Gays or Transgenders. You will > have a hard time somehow protecting those wacked out Atheists, Agnostics, > and left of center elitists who hate Christians and go on the attack > against them! > > There is no excuse Plain Ol'; other than to point to the breakdown of the > family, moral decay and the lack of Christianity in these people's lives > that cause them to go on murderous assassinations and terroristic rampages. > > Chris Harper Mercer; > Floyd Lee Corkins; > Amy Bishop; > Andrew J. Stack, > James J. Lee; > Craig Stephen Hicks; > Adam Lanza, > Jared Laughner, > Seung-hui Cho, > > Just to name a few..... > > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:39 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Many more U.S. Christians headed to jail in 2016? > --- > we should jail as many as it takes to insure equal protection to lgbt's > and other minority groups from xian persecution. > > On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 10:22:02 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > *Many more U.S. Christians headed to jail in 2016?* > > Posted By *Greg Corombos* On 12/25/2015 > > The year 2015 witnessed a Supreme Court decision ruling there was a > constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a federal judge jailing a county > clerk for refusing to issue licenses to gay couples and the public > explosion of the transgender movement, but one of the key figures in the > culture wars says 2016 could well be a year of Americans pushing back > against the liberal agenda. > > In June, years worth of political and legal battles found their way to the > Supreme Court. By a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the > court ruled that the equal protections offered in the Constitution ought to > establish a right to same-sex marriage. > > The decision was not surprising given previous rulings by the same > justices, but Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver told WND and Radio > America it was disgraceful nonetheless. > > “Frankly, I don’t think it deserves any respect as the rule of law,” > Staver said. “It’s just the opinion of five justices. However, some people > are playing the games of masquerade and assuming this is what the > Constitution says. That will have a culture-changing impact at every level.” > > Although he refuses to honor the court ruling, Staver knows it is a huge > moment in the battle over American morality. He said the nation has arrived > at a major cultural crossroads. > > “This is a culture clash of unprecedented proportions that we’ve now > entered into. This will continue as we move into the new year,” he said. > “It’s going to come up in every conceivable context private schools, > churches, universities, colleges, you name it. Every institution, every > person of faith will have to address this issue.” > > Staver would know. Weeks after the Supreme Court decision, he became > counsel for Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis, a > born-again Christian, refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual > couples, citing her freedom of conscience and free religious expression. > The federal courts disagreed. > > “Two months after this 5-4 opinion, the first Christian went to jail for > her sincerely held religious beliefs,” Staver said. “Although she was the > first, she certainly won’t be the last. It will not involve only public > employees or public elected officials but certainly the private sector as > well.” > > Staver said the entire Davis saga could easily have been avoided, but the > Democratic governor refused to take action to protect the rights of > conscience. > > “There was no accommodation that was given by the former governor, Steven > Beshear, who is no longer in office. He refused to accommodate her so she > made her own accommodation. When she returned to work, she refused to > violate her conscience, so she removed her name and title from the > license,” Staver said. > > *Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Mathew Staver:* > > Beshear was replaced by tea-party Republican Matt Bevin, who scored a > large upset victory over Democrat Jack Conway. > > "He became elected, in large part, because of the marriage issue and Kim > Davis," Staver said. "He took the side of natural marriage and supports Kim > Davis. He's now been sworn into office, and he's already [issued] an > executive order to protect the religious freedom of Kim Davis and other > clerks like her." > > On Dec. 23, Bevin ordered the removal of clerks' names from marriage > licenses throughout the commonwealth, the very same decision Davis made > unilaterally earlier in the year. > > Staver said the story of Gov. Bevin ought to be a lesson to national > candidates as well. > > "The candidates will have to address this issue. The voters will require > that they address this issue," said Staver, who believes pushing back is a > winning issue for the GOP. > > "The more and more the issue of same-sex marriage and the radical, > so-called LGBT agenda moves forward, the more people will see how > intolerant it is, how coercive it is," Staver said. "Kim Davis is just > Exhibit A in that situation. I think most people will say, 'This is not the > kind of America we want to live in. This is not what we bargained for,' and > they're going to push back." > > Staver also believes the reputation of the nation's courts is in peril. He > said an upcoming ruling in high-profile abortion cases will be critical to > how Americans view the courts. > > "I think it's pushing itself into the realm of illegitimacy," he said. "I > think the same-sex marriage case pushed it across the line. I think if it > goes the wrong way on the abortion or the contraception and the > abortion-inducing drug mandate, I think that will finish off this court and > people will just simply say, 'We're not going to obey people who just > invent the law as they go.'" > > As the gay marriage debate reached a critical moment at the Supreme Court, > the transgender movement also emerged much more publicly in 2015, led by > Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner announcing he identified as a woman > named Caitlyn. Multiple television programs emerged > <http://dateline.radioamerica.org/?p=15655> to highlight the stories of > Jenner and others. > > "It is part of their whole movement to bring out this bizarre 'I think, > therefore I am' concept," Staver said. "We always saw that in philosophy, > but now they're actually trying to make that a reality, that if you think > you're a woman then you ought to be legally recognized and treated as a > woman? It's absolutely absurd." > > Staver said it doesn't take a deep faith to understand the deep flaws in > embracing the movement. > > "You cannot get used to something that pushes in your face and is a direct > collision with your sincerely held religious beliefs and, frankly, > objective, observable reality," he said. > > Staver admits 2015 was a difficult year for cultural conservatives, but he > said there is much more reason for hope than despair. > > "We haven't even begun to see this battle," Staver said. "This battle is > far from over, and, for me, I ultimately believe we will win this battle > going forward." > > URL to article: > *http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/many-more-u-s-christians-headed-to-jail-in-2016/ > <http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/many-more-u-s-christians-headed-to-jail-in-2016/>* > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYjNuOGYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NTExNDYxNzk-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2E0cGlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTE0NjE4MA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
