Jedi May Be Allowed To Perform Marriage Ceremonies In Scotland

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."

Comments

And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing

[Rogerborg]

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

Re:And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing

[dintech]

However, some in the Jedi organization are not happy about it

And why not ?

[Alain Williams]

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.

Re:And why not ?

[mwvdlee]

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.

Re:And why not ?

[mrvan]

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 ;-)).

Re:And why not ?

[Sockatume]

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

Re:And why not ?

[rapiddescent]

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.

Excellent

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Because the Jedi code forbids it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jedi's are not permitted to love!

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it!

[Gavagai80]

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.

Re: Because the Jedi code forbids it!

[wonkey_monkey]

*force choke*

I've never heard it called that before, but if you can't get married I guess it's the only option.

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it!

[margeman2k3]

You make it sound like you've never seen episode 2.
I envy you.

Re:It's just a contract

[TFAFalcon]

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.

Re:Definitions.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"groups promoting a belief"

[Chrisq]

I look forward to the first Unix promotion group wedding. Probably followed by an Apple Fanbois civil partnership.

Re:I think it's disrespectful

[Raumkraut]

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.

Re:Definitions.

[cusco]

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.