Jedi May Be Allowed To Perform Marriage Ceremonies In Scotland

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jedi May Be Allowed To Perform Marriage Ceremonies In Scotland

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:20PM from the may-the-force-and-love-be-with-you dept.

ceview writes "The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill (Scotland) will allow groups promoting a belief to marry couples according to a report on the BBC. The government said the change was relevant to bodies such as humanists, who are classed as religious rather than non-religious at the moment. Groups such as The Flat Earth Society and Jedi would be allowed to perform such ceremonies."

37 of 196 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing by Rogerborg · 2013-03-20 20:24 · Score: 5, Funny

More seriously yourself take you, be laughed at more you will.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
1. Re:And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing by dintech · 2013-03-20 22:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  However, some in the Jedi organization are not happy about it
Definitions. by SuricouRaven · 2013-03-20 20:28 · Score: 2

It all comes down to what 'religious' means legally. It's hardly a new problem. There are many people now who still hold to some religious belief but openly reject organised religion, and many more who are a member of a group most would call religious but refuse to consider themselves as such. There's even a group within Christianity who refuse to call themselves 'Christian' as they believe the term has become broadened to the point of losing all meaning, and instead call themselves 'Christ-followers.' These things really screw with survey attempts.
It's tricky trying to pin down in law something that is in the process of rapid change.
1. Re:Definitions. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 21:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It all comes down to what 'religious' means legally. It's hardly a new problem. There are many people now who still hold to some religious belief but openly reject organised religion, and many more who are a member of a group most would call religious but refuse to consider themselves as such. There's even a group within Christianity who refuse to call themselves 'Christian' as they believe the term has become broadened to the point of losing all meaning, and instead call themselves 'Christ-followers.' These things really screw with survey attempts.
  It's tricky trying to pin down in law something that is in the process of rapid change.
  Rapid change, or a constant shell game since the dawn of time? (which was scripted by the way, ref. Genesis)
  This is nothing more than religion being rewarded every bit of karma it has ever brought upon this world. Go figure it's a statistical clusterfuck. Mirrors the concept itself.
2. Re:Definitions. by SternisheFan · 2013-03-20 23:04 · Score: 2
  
  speaking of the definitions... do Dark Jedi count as well? How about Sith? i see quite a few crimson lightsabers in the photo from the article. /s?
  Sure, why not? If Scientology is considered a religion, and can be married by the Head Thalian (or whatever passes as the "High Poobah Priest''), then anything goes.
3. Re:Definitions. by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-03-21 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  So dodge the question. License any adult who wants to officiate marriages to do so without any mention of religion. What does religion have to do with it anyway? The officiant's contribution to the process is really only to verify that the two people signing the certificate have given consent, get the witness signatures and ensure that a copy of the certificate makes it back to the appropriate registrar.
4. Re:Definitions. by cusco · 2013-03-21 01:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  One of the issues that may have led to the murder of Pope John Paul I after only 33 days in office (in addition to exposing money laundering in the Vatican Bank and the Curia's relationship with P2) was that he had ordered a world-wide audit of all the church's assets. He intended to return the Catholic church back to Paul's original vision of a simple ministry that aided the poor and downtrodden while spreading its message, which understandably upset some of the priests who currently live in palaces, ride in limos, and sit on the boards of multinational corporations. Some of us noticed that the audit quietly evaporated after his death.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
5. Re:Definitions. by Chris+Mattern · 2013-03-21 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  Why does the state have to be involved in the ceremony at all? Fill out the paperwork, and as far the state is concerned, you're married. Ceremony? Hey, if you want one, knock yourself out. If you don't, that's cool too. None of it needs to be the state's business.
6. Re:Definitions. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-22 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Wasn't a shell game until after the Protestant Rebellion changed "You will be the same religion as the king" to "we'll kill the king and let every preacher who cares to claim to be one battle it out in violent free market". Religions changed very slowly previous to that.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And why not ? by Alain+Williams · 2013-03-20 20:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

The important opinions are of the two people who are getting married. If they choose to have a bit of fun on the day that they dedicate themselves to each other, why should they not do so ? If people claim that the force will help their marriage, they are not making a claim any less rational (or based on evidence) than those that say the same of the god of chrstians, jews, muslims, hindus, ...
The churches like to give us the idea that, somehow, they ''own'' the concept of marriage. People had been getting married years before the churches brought the idea of religion into it.
1. Re:And why not ? by mwvdlee · 2013-03-20 20:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think they are talking about legal marriages, as in the kind that gets written down in some state-recognized document and has bearing on laws.
  People can have whatever party they want and call it a marriage, truth is that these people will still have to go to somebody authorized to handle that administrative part of a marriage.
  Why not just have some sort of certification system. If some person wants to be authorized to make legally binding marriages they can simply apply for certification (whatever that would entail) and go ahead.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
2. Re:And why not ? by Schmorgluck · 2013-03-20 21:12 · Score: 2
  
  People can have whatever party they want and call it a marriage, truth is that these people will still have to go to somebody authorized to handle that administrative part of a marriage.
  In France, any marriage has to be handled by a mayor in order to be officially recognized. Whatever party or religious ceremony people want to have is completely besides the point.
  This makes it unnecessary for the government to put into law what is a religion and what isn't. As such, separation of Church and States works as a separation of concerns.
  
  --
  There's nothing like $HOME
3. Re:And why not ? by mrvan · 2013-03-20 21:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In the netherlands a civil servant has to do the administrative part, but you can apply to become a "extraordinary civil servant" in order to perform marriages, which sounds similar to the certification system. I think the only legal requirements are the yes-saying, the witnesses, and the signing of the official document.
  In general, religious people marry twice, once "for the law", and once "for the church", with the latter being the festive ceremony and the former akin to getting a new passport. When our crown prince and princess Maxima got married they did so first in front of the mayor, and then in a a protestant ceremony in the "new" church on the dam. Since the latter ceremony has no legal status whatsoever, you can celebrate it in any way you want (including protestant ;-)).
4. Re:And why not ? by Sockatume · 2013-03-20 22:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Scotland's already pretty liberal about what's permitted in non-religious ceremonies. You just need an authorised registrar, an approved location, and the inclusion of certain critical marriage-activation phrases in the ceremony.
  http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/getting-married-in-scotland/what-form-does-a-marriage-ceremony-take-in-scotland.html
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
5. Re:And why not ? by rapiddescent · 2013-03-20 23:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  you can get married at all sorts of locations in Scotland - some really cool like the vaults under Edinburgh and in all sorts of buildings. As it happens we got married at Stirling Castle and had full run of the place which was a great laugh, she didn't like the idea of getting wedding photos straddling the huge cannons. I thought it would be funny. she not.
  You may be aware - Scotland is due to have a referendum in 2014 to become an independent country and leave the rest of the UK. Whilst Scotland has it's own parliament and is a "country" - it is still controlled by a "union of parliaments" by Westminster, London. If Scotland votes yes then Scotland will be able to finance herself and make her own decisions. One of the key plans is to have a written constitution, although we helped write the USA's constitution, we were never allowed to have one by the UK. Scottish attitudes towards the human rights convention and the EU in general are quite different to that of the UK.
  It is worth noting that there is a massive campaign of hate from the Unionist (i.e. "British") entities in Scotland which includes the state broadcaster. Scotland gets endless documentaries on "why Britain is great" etc and the BBC is heavily biased towards the Union.
6. Re:And why not ? by Sockatume · 2013-03-21 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  While I support increasing our country's autonomy, I think that becoming a sovereign nation in this decade would render us only nominally independent, removing our political influence over the UK while retaining our economic and social dependence upon it. Functional independence first, then nominal independence. Not the inverse, which if I'm reading the SNP's timeline right, is what we're trying to achieve.
  That's a whole other argument though.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Excellent by AmiMoJo · 2013-03-20 20:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Anything that makes a mockery of the privileged position religions enjoy is a good thing. I'm a humanist but would never consider myself part of an organization, let alone a religious one with special legal powers.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because the Jedi code forbids it! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 20:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Jedi's are not permitted to love!
1. Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! by Gavagai80 · 2013-03-20 21:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life, so you might say we're encouraged to love.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
2. Re: Because the Jedi code forbids it! by wonkey_monkey · 2013-03-20 21:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  *force choke*
  I've never heard it called that before, but if you can't get married I guess it's the only option.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! by SuricouRaven · 2013-03-20 21:21 · Score: 2
  
  You make them sound like hippies.
4. Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! by margeman2k3 · 2013-03-20 21:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You make it sound like you've never seen episode 2.
  I envy you.
Could it be true? by slashmojo · 2013-03-20 20:53 · Score: 2

Does this mean there are actually females of the Jedi persuasion as well?! The mind boggles.
Perfroming them? Fine. by skine · 2013-03-20 20:55 · Score: 2

I guess I'm fine with Jedi performing the marriages, so long as they don't get married themselves.
It's just a contract by srussia · 2013-03-20 20:55 · Score: 2

What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:It's just a contract by TFAFalcon · 2013-03-20 21:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What business do religions have with marriage? Marriage is simply a legal agreement between two people that carries certain benefits and obligations. Why do religions keep insisting that they are somehow empowered to decide who can get married and how? And if some religions are allowed to conduct marriages, then why not let every religion do it? It's not like any of them are more 'real' then the others.
2. Re:It's just a contract by srussia · 2013-03-20 21:13 · Score: 2
  
  What business do religions have with marriage?
  Nothing, if the persons involved do not wish to participate in any religion. The key difference: religious involvement is voluntary, state involvement not so much.
  
  --
  Set your phasers on "funky"!
3. Re:It's just a contract by Ottibus · 2013-03-20 21:34 · Score: 2
  
  What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?
  Because most states provide differential taxes & benefits based on marital status.
  It is the same reason that the state defines who is an adult (and many other things).
4. Re:It's just a contract by Sockatume · 2013-03-20 22:09 · Score: 2
  
  The same authority it has in overseeing other long-term contracts? You need a licence to be a bank and give someone a mortgage.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
5. Re:It's just a contract by TFAFalcon · 2013-03-21 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  They want the chance to have that legal marriage. And why shouldn't they?
"groups promoting a belief" by Chrisq · 2013-03-20 22:07 · Score: 5, Funny

I look forward to the first Unix promotion group wedding. Probably followed by an Apple Fanbois civil partnership.
I think it's disrespectful by BlueCoder · 2013-03-20 22:41 · Score: 2

Disrespectful to both recognize and to perpetrate a supposed Jedi religion. Not that the logic of the belief system is any less valid but rather the fact that it started by definition it was made up. I am agnostic. Atheism is a belief if not a religion in it's own way.
Who really believes these people really host these beliefs rather than being tongue and cheek believers?
1. Re:I think it's disrespectful by Raumkraut · 2013-03-20 23:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You say that like it's not feasible, from a religious perspective, that the concepts behind the Star Wars universe were divine inspiration bestowed upon mankind by some supernatural Force.
  That is, after all, no different to the root source of religious "knowledge" quoted by most (if not all) religions. The only difference is that other religions generally started with oral traditions and writing books, rather than going straight to cinema.
2. Re:I think it's disrespectful by silanea · 2013-03-21 00:21 · Score: 2
  
  [...] rather the fact that it started by definition it was made up. [...]
  And that sets Jediism apart from other religions because...?
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
3. Re:I think it's disrespectful by SillyHamster · 2013-03-21 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  You say that like it's not feasible, from a religious perspective, that the concepts behind the Star Wars universe were divine inspiration bestowed upon mankind by some supernatural Force.
  That is, after all, no different to the root source of religious "knowledge" quoted by most (if not all) religions. The only difference is that other religions generally started with oral traditions and writing books, rather than going straight to cinema.
  If you call George Lucas a prophet, I will force choke you over the Internets.
Re:All religions are made up by hackula · 2013-03-21 01:19 · Score: 2

For instance, they don't believe that Darth Vader had existed -- that would just be weird ...
You may not believe in James Earl Jones, but I assure you, he does believe in you...
Boy... for someone claiming uncertainty... by denzacar · 2013-03-21 02:11 · Score: 2

...about the whole god thing, you sure get uppity about "fake" religions easily.
You sure you're not a closeted god believer, pretending to be agnostic cause you heard that's practically the same as that atheism thing that all cool kids with big brains do, but still kinda safer should it turn out that there is a god?
Or possibly simply a troll?
See... Cause only those who give serious credence to the "my god is one and only god and he's a special god and real and not like all those other fake gods other people believe in"-thing get uppity about "fake" religions and "lack of respect".
Agnostics on the other hand go "I don't know. Who knows? Maybe they're right? Who can really know?"
And atheists go "God? Nope. Religion? Silly."
So, really, you sure you're not a pedophile?
With all due respect... naturally.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens