Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well I kinda think he can :>
Not by virtue of being a mechanic (I was careful to include that).
And yeah, I'm happy for anyone to be the guy, girl, computer terminal or ewok upfront; have your wedding performed however you see fit, I say.
- presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses. I don't see the need for anyone to be a state-sanctioned guest at a wedding.
That's fine. I guess what I would say is: IF an official marriage celebrant role is required, that role does not get afforded to a church official automatically, just because they happen to be members of the clergy or whatever.
Alternatively, if you do want to have marriages overseen by an authenticated person, then the registration process to become a marriage celebrant should have ZERO reference to religion.
It shouldn't, regardless.
-
That's something that Jesus wasn't s'posed to have, init?
inri.
-
for me that's crossing the line from acceptance of "marry whoever and however the f*ck you want" to actively dictating how someone should (or shouldn't) get marriage because you dislike their religion.
I want to be married by my mechanic. Should he, by virtue of being a mechanic, be able to grant me a civil marriage? No. That doesn't mean I'm being dictated to as to how I marry.
The point of the state should simply be "sign the contracty bit and give it to us". I see no need for anyone to have to manage that process - if you choose to have Father Whosawhatsit do it then all power to you.
I think Deborah largely agrees with this. Except the bit father Whosawhatsit does is purely Church ceremonial/Church custom based. Which, of course, means a lot to you if you sincerely believe in all that religious stuff.
-
the imams, many of whom are stupid old men, grossly out of touch...
Seriously be happy when that lot die off, too.
-
How to find Gio's missing hour a week to watch tele?
-
Anyone wanting elaboration on Bart's answer to the jigsaw puzzle, see here.
-
Brent,
Yeah, once you clarify the situation in your head, that one resolves pretty quickly.
I know the answer to the guard one, I'd actually heard it before so will leave that for others.
-
Don't hurry people, Andy. I'm still waiting for Dave to explain why he used quotation marks around the word "witness":
seven if you count the police "witness".
...and I asked that a lot earlier than you.
-
Quite, 3410.
I think many of those campaigning against the law change, such as Family First, were happy to see this case being portrayed as a 'test case' on s59. They were hoping this would show the law was an ass, because the police had felt the need to charge someone for 'flicking his boy's ear'.
Then it turned out the charges were reasonable; witnesses saw him punch his kid in the face, and another witness said he admitted this action.
However, we're stuck with the case being seen as a test for s59. Only now they don't want it to be seen that way, and in fact are a little embarrassed that they encouraged it as a cause celebre, and so now they're getting somewhat petulant.
-
Just watched Sunday. Pretty one sided going for the sympathy vote for Mason.
What did he say about the face punch?
Was he asked about the statement to the police officer where he admitted hitting one of his children? Is he claiming it's a false statement by the officer?