Interesting video from 2012 – Missouri pastor's surprising take on gay rights

[BlaqueKatt]

We already have language separation.

The civil construct is marriage, as is reflected in hundreds of thousands of laws across the US alone.

Whatever various religions want to call it is up to them.

normally it's called a "wedding ceremony"

sorry I get irked by the conflation of the terms, just for this reason.

[Mental_Mouse]

About American government (rambly)

Anyone able to clarify this for me please?

As noted above, marriage rules are mostly handled state-by-state, and sometimes at even more local levels. There is a set of Federal (national) rules, but most of those apply to direct Federal (not state) territory, which is mostly Washington D.C. itself.

It's worth noting that in the U.S., social progress and "rights" are deeply constrained by the federal/state/local structure of government. Theoretically, the federal government can try to declare new standards from the top, but if there isn't local support, they will be stymied or overwhelmed by pushback from below. In practice, any major change has to come from below: first local sentiment builds to the state level, then individual states start breaking with federal policy. Eventually, either enough states "go over" to either force a change at the federal level, or interstate relations come into play and the minority states start needing to deal with the fact that they're not on the same page as the rest of the country (and they need to do business with other states).

This process has been on display several times since the Civil War (where it essentially failed outright): Both the beginning and end of alcohol Prohibition, voting and civil rights for women, racial civil rights, and others. It's currently happening on at least two major fronts: Gay rights (including marriage), and the pushback on the Drug War, primarily regarding hemp/marijuana.

However, it's worth noting that even after a change takes hold, local control means there can be pockets of resistance remaining -- for example, many states still have "dry counties", where alcohol can't be sold. Similarly, enforcement of racial and gender protections is markedly uneven -- there are whole states that are actively subverting or undercutting the federal rules, and others where enforcement is spotty at best.

Changes at the federal level can start with any of the three branches of government:
(1) The Supreme Court has lifetime terms, which normally makes it the most "conservative" (least changeable) branch, but it's also composed of only nine people, and that can produce surprises.
(2) Congress is supposed to be the most responsive to public opinion, since all members face re-election every 2 or 6 years (the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively). Gerrymandering and machine politics protect a lot of the Congressfolk, but they can still be replaced if their "safe" constituency changes position.
(3) The Executive Branch is trickiest: The President gets elected every 4 years, and can only serve twice (technically, 10 years, which covers partial terms due to assassinations and such). But the President's primary power is through the bureaucracy that actually performs government functions -- all those departments and agencies, including the several Armed Forces. Technically the President can "smite" the bureaucracy -- they appoint the chief officials, and can order those officials to do purges or major rearrangements. But they need Congressional approval for those appointments... and more importantly, if you purge a bureaucratic agency too harshly, you break it. The agency loses institutional memory, and the new people won't have the standing relationships (favors given, personal aquaintance, etc.) with other agencies and outside groups. So it loses both expertise and power. So the bureaucracy itself has a certain amount of power to impede or encourage changes, simply from the sheer number of Federal employees involved.

[Rapscallion]

As noted above, marriage rules are mostly handled state-by-state, and sometimes at even more local levels. There is a set of Federal (national) rules, but most of those apply to direct Federal (not state) territory, which is mostly Washington D.C. itself.

Basically, what I wanted to have confirmed is that to perform a wedding as an officiator, you needed to have approval/licence from the state authority, right?

Rapscallion

[Mental_Mouse]

Basically, yeah.

Basically, what I wanted to have confirmed is that to perform a wedding as an officiator, you needed to have approval/licence from the state authority, right?

In general, the marriage license itself is issued by a government official: City clerk, judge, mayor, governor, president , etc, who could also perform a marriage directly. A "license to perform marriages" amounts to the authority and responsibility to receive a blank or partly filled-in marriage license, and fill it out as proxy for those officials. The job includes:
(1) Perform various tests for suitability and provide any mandated counsel.
(2) Certify the signed oaths and witnessings.
(3) Submit the resulting paperwork back to the gov't as "this is done".

"Tests for suitability" (my wording, I forget the official phrase) include issues of consent and competency, age requirements, and prohibitions on incest or bigamy. Other tests have gone by the wayside (race, "good character", livelihood), or remain controversial (disease, genetic conditions, and of course gender). In modern times, most of these are reduced to the couple simply confirming that their marriage does indeed follow the rules, but some places still do require a "doctor's note" covering medical issues.

[Rapscallion]

Thanks. See, my thought is that since the state sanctions that some people can conduct marriage services and without that permission the marriage isn't legal, and the state has to look after the aftermath of a failed marriage (divorce courts etc), then religions do not own marriage, especially not its definition.

My local MP is against gay marriage and all about the separate but equal (if I remember his website on this correctly). He's been hanging around various public places of late and I'm sort of hoping that I'll accidentally see him in the future and be able to explain why his religious claims of the rectitude of his bigotry are bullshit.

Rapscallion

[Mental_Mouse]

also there's sometimes common-law marriages.

Well, there actually is way to get married without state involvement, at least in a few jursdictions: "Common-law marriage" essentially means that if a couple has been living together and "acting married" (including representing themselves as such), for some given length of time, they can be recognized as having a "common-law marriage". Note that this is fairly scarce in the U.S., and the legal conditions are much stricter than the layman's idea of what the phrase means.

[Estil]

Don't forget about 1 Timothy insisting that women should not have authority over men and must be quiet/submissive. I don't see the hardcore preachers insisting on that part. :P

This is exactly what I figured all along (and also how I feel regarding the main reason I'm pro-life...that we are making the same mistake regarding unborn children). But seriously, name for me any moment in history where a country/nation/tribe/whatever insisted on denying basic human rights (as was done then regarding race and more recently sexual orientation) to a group of people...and the side on denying those basic rights was ever on the right side of history.

Now that whole "LGBT's are nothing but rotten no good sinners destined for hell if they don't turn or burn!" may have been eh, understandable back when it was believed that sexual orientation was a free will lifestyle choice, but after the 90s or so when science pretty much proved that LGBT's are born that way and that them being LGBT is no different than being born black/white/brown/etc, then it should've been obvious that those who were against LGBT rights were dead wrong. Seriously, we know better now. Please those who continue to insist LGBTs are gonna burn in hell, you're gonna end up like those guys in the history books who protested against integration or women's suffage or slavery or whatnot. You know, the ones that are perceived now as the "bad guys"/"villians" of history? :P

And on that note, was "being on the wrong side of history" at all a concern in the late 60s when segregation was dying (well as something you could openly support politically I mean) or did people just not have that term back then?