Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • OK, I applause your actions, which are probably the best thing you can do at your scale, etc. but I've something to point out. Being French, I still find weird that priests and ministers are still allowed to marry people. And IMVHO I think one of the roots of the problem is here: in a country without proper separation of church and state, there is some blurring between religion and law, and that's typically what happens in this whole marriage thing. In France, priests can't marry people since the IInd R
    • I will admit that it's a bit of an odd situation. "Legal" marriage in this country has nothing to do with religion (in theory), so the idea that only certain government workers and religious ministers can fill out the paperwork (the ceremony is superfluous from a legal standpoint) is a tad odd. It is, essentially, a contract. Boeing doesn't need a Reverend officiating over their contract signing with their union, though I confess that it would possibly make things more amusing :)

      • First- great job. :-) Along with Schwern [perl.org]'s description, you've given me a good picture of what my friends Bonnie and Sara have been up to- other than being photographed on national news.

        About the odd situation of law and marriage- a different perspective is found among the Quakers. We've [quaker.org] been marrying people without ministers for 300-odd years- because as a faith, we don't have ministers. (Or, more accurately, we don't have laity.) One of the community responsibilities is marrying people. Everybody at the ceremony signs the wedding certificate. Long before, during, and long after the wedding, a small committee (yes, that's actually the word we use) is responsible for meeting with the couple and helping with any concerns they (or the committee) might have about the marriage.

        So it's an example of an intentional community taking care of what we think really matters to us and to God. As opposed to leaving it to the State.

        I've been told that the English Quakers were the originators of marriage licences (as opposed to marriage banns) but I might be confusing that a bit.

        And I'm happy to say that many quaker groups [quaker.org] have been marrying same-sex couples for over fifteen years.

        --

        -DA [coder.com]