News & Notes

Smaller items in the news the past few days which deserve a mention.

Southern Baptists are adapting to changing conditions to survive, according to today's Washington Post.  Hmmm, sure sounds as if they're EVOLVING.  Don't tell Mike Huckabee about this.

Pennsylvania has lost one super delegate after Anna Burger of SEIU moved to Washington.  DC picks up one and PA loses one.  We now have 29 super delegates to the national convention.  It's time to begin looking to see where they stand and whom is supporting whom.

Gov.Rendell signed the new Open Records bill into law.  Pennsylvania now has entered the 20th century in this regard.

Marriage is in the news again.  Republicans in Harrisburg are resurrecting the state marriage amendment to the constitution officially establishing a caste system based on rights between gays and straights.  Maybe they should also then adjust the tax rates to justify their bigotry.  The ACLU is also suing to defend the rights of those being married by internet sanctioned preachers.  Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned about this but I don't understand how someone who becomes a minister by sending a fee over the internet should be able to perform marriage rights.

Tad Decker, former head of Gaming in the state, criticized the State Police for failing to provide information that Louis DeNaples was, allegedly, a bad guy.  Stupid is as stupid does, on both sides here.  This entire affair reminds me of Dumb and Dumber.

Both the Philly Inquirer and Allentown Morning Call are cutting staff.  It's becoming tougher and tougher for newspapers to compete with the internet.

Congressman Patrick Murphy stood his ground and defended his principles honorably this week when he was the lone "NO" vote on a resolution congratulating the New York Giants on their Super Bowl win.  Thanks for standing up for all Eagles fans!

Comments

[LeeLevan]

The Politico has a report of who PA's superdelegates currently support; however, it has only 26 superdelegates listed. See http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/.

[DC 93]

"Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned about this but I don't understand how someone who becomes a minister by sending a fee over the internet should be able to perform marriage rights."

John,

Here is the patently plain facts about marriage, from a civil perspective. People go to the Register of Wills, or other designated county office in PA and obtain, for a fee, a marriage license. At this point, the soon to be wedded couple have obviously put forth a legal document with their intentions of getting married, aka entering into a civil domestic partnership with all the legal implications thereto.

So, now they've got a certain time period to exercise this "marriage" license. So, they go find a JP or minister, mayor, or any of the other "allowed" persons to marry them and such.

Where people like Larry Medaglia get their knickers in a twist, is that they want to be able to say who is a qualified clergy or person to perform the actual marriage ceremony. Truthfully, I'm not sure you even need to have a "marriage ceremony", so much as you have to certify the marriage license has been executed and filed in the proper time frame, from the civil point of view.

From a religious point of view, who the fuck is the state or Larry Medaglia to tell me or anybody who the fuck is qualified to be an officiant, at a religious marriage ceremony?! I say nobody and really that is the cold hard truth.

He's crying it could be a fraudulent marriage. How?! The people who wanted to get married obviously got a damn marriage license to begin with, then how could it be a fraud, unless the bride or groom committed fraud on the marriage license application and such, then it is on the bride and groom not the officiant.

I don't right give one damn, and neither should the state, as to who performs marriage ceremonies for people. It is their collective individual liberties and choices as to where and who marries them, and I applaud the ACLU for fighting this case.

You purists and your congregation only faiths, what about Pagans/Wiccans, who don't by general definition have congregations in many cases? or other faiths that do not per se have any standing congregation. It is not enough to just say to them, well then you have to get married by some public authorized official, no, bullshit! The whole damn thing about caste system for gay and straight marriage is somewhat rolled into this whole notion of who can and cannot perform marriage ceremonies, think about it. If gays did have the right to marriage or civil unions in the state, but none would or could perform the ceremony because of legitimiacy standards for officiants of marriage ceremonies, then you'd still be withheld from enjoying your rights, in that case.

It really ticks me off that straight only marriage is not enough for these morally rabid alleged conservative (government not in peoples' lives) morons, but now they want to make sure that they corner the market on who is authorized to marry people.

I don't think so!

[John Morgan]

Thanks for explaining the process. Since I'm legally prohibited from benefiting from the rights all of you can enjoy I'm not familiar with the process.

[DC 93]

Been married, done that, divorced too, cautiously approaching the idea in any future relationship.

[Joyful Alternative]

In Pennsylvania, you don't need any officiant whatsoever to marry. You get a special form from the county courthouse, same place you get the marriage license, and then marry each other however you please with two witnesses.

Unfortunately, this applies only to two people of different genders.

[DC 93]

Joyful,

Thank you for that clarification. So, basically, I was correct in my assertion that people like Larry Medaglia and others of his thinking on the issue of marriage, would not only love to see a consitutional amendment in the state or federal system banning any and all gay marriage, but to also make it so that only certain persons would be allowed to officiate weddings, thereby adding a 2nd layer of "protection" against the possibility of gay marriage.

This sickens me and I'm very much heterosexual and can't stand the ugly name and pall that people like Larry and countless others have cast over the rest of the heterosexual community.

[John Morgan]

The important issue here is that marriage is a legal entity entered into by two people. It is not a religious matter unless the couple opts to have a member of the clergy ordain it as such. They, however, act as agents of the state by performing the ritual.

In its essence, though, this is purely a legal contract entered into by two consenting adults who should not need to be of opposite genders. Insisting on that creates two separate classes of citizens under the law with separate classes of rights. That is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Joyful Alternative]

Yep, it's a legal thing. We had premarital counseling by my pastor, and if he'd been available, he could have performed the ceremony, but marriage is not a sacrament in my denomination, and "weddings" are a big waste of money.

It's filing a notice at the county courthouse that we are an official couple who are obligated to each other and have certain rights and duties.