Why Do Wedding Officiants Need to Be Ordained?

No, ship's captains are not empowered to officiate at weddings. Other than that, the rules and regulations regarding who may serve as a wedding officiant vary from state to state, and even within some states. In some jurisdictions notaries are authorized, in others, the county or city clerk. In some states you can effectively declare yourself married by simply filling out the proper paperwork. Judges are often on the list of approved officiants, and then of course there's clergy. But who defines "clergy"?

In Nebraska, where I reside, the law refers to "preachers of the gospel", which would seem to rule out ministers from any religion other than a Christian denomination, but in practice, Nebraska makes no attempt to decide who is a "real" minister & who isn't, and rabbis, imams and ministers ordained online are all recognized, or at least ignored. In fact, Nebraska Statute 42-114 states that if someone says that they're authorized to perform marriages and the couple believes that the officiant is authorized to perform marriages, then the marriage is valid. Part of me wishes they would excise "preachers of the gospel", but the other part of me just wants to leave well enough alone!

There are several states that have a narrow definition of who is authorized to officiate a wedding ceremony that specifically rules out ministers ordained online. These rulings have in general been spurred by court cases where someone is attempting to invalidate a prenuptial agreement or avoid alimony by claiming that being married by an online minister means that theirs was not a valid marriage. In most cases the legislation isn't unambiguous, and in some states there are contradictory court rulings. The big question is: why is this a subject in which the state has an interest?

In some religions, marriage is a sacrament that is to be consecrated by that religion's holy man or woman. In others, it's a matter of the minister, as representative of their religion, giving his or her blessing or approval for the marriage. In those cases, it makes sense to have an officiant who is in sync with the couple's faith, but that should be the business of the couple; the state should have no role in deciding whether a particular minister is in fact in sync with the couple. Of course, in most places there are secular options. As I mentioned above judges, active or retired, can usually officiate, as well as other designated government representatives.  But for many people, weddings done by a judge or city clerk lack the warmth and uniqueness that they are looking for. In many places, including my own state, the alternative is either a professional officiant who isn't affiliated with any church, or a friend or relative who has received an online ordination.

For those who aren't looking for a spiritual blessing on their union, but just want to have a nice ceremony, why should the  credentials of the officiant be an issue that the state takes note of? In most cases the couple isn't looking for counselling, in fact they're probably looking to avoid counselling! What can a minister who was ordained in an established denomination offer a couple that a professional, experienced officiant can't? There's the possibility that a seminary graduate has had some training in how to conduct a wedding, but possibly not. And considering that the government should constitutionally have no role in religion, why are some state governments and state courts making judgments as to which ordinations are valid and which are not?

I would propose that all references to religious affiliation be removed from marriage statutes and that a marriage be registered and considered valid if the paperwork was filled out correctly. Professional wedding officiants could still operate as they do now, but without the necessity of getting the online ordination. It might even reduce the number of inexperienced friends and relatives performing wedding services - now, anyone who gets an online ordination thinks that they are now qualified to officiate a wedding, when in fact they are only legally authorized to officiate a wedding, the ordination doesn't give one a magical ability to write coherent and smooth-flowing services, or become an effective public speaker.

It's probably not going to happen any time soon, but government should get out of the wedding business, other than issuing the licenses.

Anti-Discrimination Ordinances

The other day a video was posted on Facebook showing a City Council meeting where testimony for an anti-discrimination measure was being discussed and public testimony received. The video was seven years old, but the issue is still relevant. A local landlord and business owner was testifying against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance - his arguments boiled down to two things: religious freedom and the ability of businesses to run their operations without fear of lawsuits.

Before I discuss his points, I'll review the concept of "protected class" as it applies to anti-discrimination laws. Many people believe that some people are in a protected class, and that by being part of that protected class one has extra legal protections. For example, one of the protected classes is "race". Ask the average person what this means and they'll say that a person who is a part of a minority race (i.e. Black, Native American, etc) can't be fired, at least not without a lot of extra paperwork. The incorrect assumption in this example is that "protected class" refers only to the minority. What it does mean is that no one can be discriminated against because of race. Everyone can be categorized by race, even the majority. The same goes for gender - the protected class isn't "women", the protected class is "gender", which everyone has (at least according to traditional definitions). It is true that some businesses will walk on eggshells to avoid lawsuits by minority members, this is their choice and does not reflect the way the laws are written. No one "belongs to a protected class", it is a protected classification or category that cannot be used against you.

One of the arguments that opponents of broadening anti-discrimination laws bring forth is that requiring them to treat people that they disapprove of equally tramples their own religious freedom. Few would argue that it would be acceptable to discriminate in hiring or housing against someone because they were black (although it surely happens), yet religious justifications were among the many rationalizations used by segregationists over the years, even going back to condoning slavery on biblical grounds. More often than not the religious argument is merely a cover for basic, unvarnished bigotry when simply declaring oneself to be a bigot is unacceptable. The premise of the argument that "preventing me from discriminating is discriminatory" or "condemning my bigotry is bigoted" stands on an extremely shaky foundation.

One of the things that has become obvious to me in over 40 years working for various businesses in different industries, is that the fear of a lawsuit is often the only thing that motivates a business owner to "do the right thing". The business owner testifying in the video that I referred to brought up how he thought that discrimination lawsuits were often frivolous and retaliatory and that he never discriminates. He may very well be unique. Every business that I have ever worked for said all the right things, ran the sexual harassment seminars and punished discrimination and harassment when they had no other choice. One of the companies with whom I associated was a local grocery chain. They had clear guidelines about sexual harassment and discrimination. However it became clear that their policies were for the sole purpose of preventing lawsuits when the company continued to do business with several outside contractors and consultants who engaged in sexual harassment of the company's employees. They were in no danger of a lawsuit if a complaint was lodged against someone outside the company, so they took no action because they didn't have to. As much as we'd like to believe that everyone will always do the right thing, most businesses don't operate that way.

There really is no good reason not to support laws and ordinances that outlaw discriminatory behavior by businesses. The arguments against them, despite being couched in terms of leadership, religious freedom, capitalism and mom's apple pie, and just excuses to engage in bigotry.

Forgiveness

I've been thinking a lot about the concept of forgiveness lately. When do we forgive? How do we forgive? How often do we forgive? Can we forget once we forgive? Does forgiveness imply being free from consequences? The major religions have spent time talking about forgiveness; one holy man suggests that people "sin no more", but also to forgive "seventy times seven". Not being an adherent of any of the major religions I have had to formulate my own take on forgiveness.

To me, forgiveness is the process whereby we "set at naught" a harmful action that someone has taken against us or against someone that we care about in order to provide a "second chance" to repair the relationship. That means acting as if the harmful action had not taken place when interacting with that other person. That is the external manifestation of forgiveness, a benefit to the person who is in need of forgiveness. That's the easy part. The difficult part is to mentally treat the offender as if the offense had not happened, getting rid of any anger and resentment that the offense had caused. This is a benefit to the forgiver as well; carrying around a lot of resentment and anger cannot be healthy.

In my opinion forgiveness cannot be truly offered if remorse is not present. I'm defining remorse as an honest recognition of the wrongness of the offending action and a pledge to discontinue those actions. If you "forgive" someone who has no remorse for their harmful actions, you are not forgiving them, i.e. offering them an opportunity to heal the rift in your relationship, you are merely enabling them, giving them cover to continue their hurtful actions. A saying that I have heard several times recently is "I forgive, but I don't forget". This gets right to the heart of the matter. I can forgive you if I believe that you are remorseful, but by remembering the offense I protect myself by not allowing a continual cycle of offense/forgive/re-offend. By not forgetting I allow myself to see a pattern if one occurs.

I am proposing no "etched in stone" rule, or suggesting that only one "second chance" should be offered. Every situation is different. In my own life I do not require an apology from those who have wronged me, only that the harmful actions, those things that have caused a need for forgiveness, cease.

We all make mistakes. We all do and say things that cannot be undone or unsaid. If a person is truly remorseful and has truly embarked on a new path, then we should recognize a genuine change. Forgiveness is a way to heal past hurts, but it shouldn't be a way to allow those who would harm us to continue their harm.

Audience Participation

There was an article the other day about an artist that I had never heard of flying off the handle when her audience didn't respond enthusiastically enough during a performance. In an expletive-filled tirade she stopped the song and complained loudly about the lukewarm response, referring to how much work she put into the song.

It's understandable that a singer would be upset that her work of art that she put so much time, love & energy into (although the online comments suggest maybe not so much of any of those) would be received so tepidly. I've heard musicians complain about people talking during their performances (this I understand - I go to a show to listen to music, not the loud opinionated guy on the next bar stool). On the other hand when I'm experiencing live music, I didn't sign on to become part of the entertainment.

Back in my younger days I used to attend Twisted Sister shows. There was a band that insisted on audience participation. Not only were you goaded into the expected responses, but if you happened to be quietly standing in the back, you were singled out for abuse. Not something that was all that enjoyable. I've also been at shows where the audience was lectured for clapping on 1 & 3 instead of 2 & 4 (2 & 4 is correct, right?). Okay, I get how off-beat clapping can throw a band off, but hey, I'm not the musician here!

But the truth is that there are a variety of different ways in which people express their appreciation for music. Singing the chorus when encouraged to do so, dancing, cheering, (clapping on 2 & 4), "putting your hands in the air", yelling the appropriate response when the singers asks "is everyone doin' alright?" are all traditionally acceptable. How about shutting the hell up during an acoustic or otherwise quiet song? Taking non-obtrusive photos (that's what I like to do), and sharing them with the band, buying some merch, or just thanking the band after the show for a great show. All of these things, in their own way, express admiration and appreciation for the performance.

Just like every musician is unique, and there are a variety of musical genres, every fan is a unique and there are a variety of ways to to express enthusiasm and love for music.

Saving Seats

 Saving seats. When is it okay? When is it not? When is it a sign of douchebaggery? I'm thinking about it this morning because I'm sitting in a locally owned coffee shop, and across from me is a man who has been here for at least an hour, "saving" four tables for friends who have not arrived yet. (As I was typing this, one friend showed up) I've seen him do this before (in fact every time I have been in here on a Sunday morning). On this particular morning it hasn't caused any problems, since there are other booths and tables available, and no one has been unable to find a seat due to this man's actions. In this case no harm has been done by the seat-saving. Everybody gets a seat and Mr. Early-Bird-Seat-Saver has been able to ensure that all of his friends will be sitting together. But I've been in here during other times when there were absolutely no other seats in the place, the only unoccupied chairs were the fifteen that were being saved. Now, in this case, if I was to walk in, and find no seats available, I would not feel guilty about grabbing one of the "saved" tables, but I would surely be risking a confrontation. In a case like this, you have to be willing to take the bull by the horns and tell the saver that you're taking his "saved" table and damn the consequences.

While looking for some images to accompany this post, I came across several articles about saving seats on Southwest Airlines. As anyone who has flown on Southwest knows, you don't get assigned seats. You can pay a premium for early boarding, but it's first-come, first-seated. But some people, travelling with their family, have found a way around this. They pay for one premium early boarding ticket and then save as many additional seats as they need. Southwest doesn't have a policy against doing this, and their website is full of complaints about the practice. I wonder what the flight crew would do if a fed-up passenger simply sat in a "saved" seat and refused to relinquish it? Just like in the coffee shop, you'd have to be willing to risk some confrontation and act without asking permission.

A lot of the images that I found dealt with seat-saving in church. That reminds me of an incident a few years back when I was at a week-long event put on by a Christian group. The evening service took place in a giant tent and went on for several hours; it included not only the sermon, or teaching, but music, announcements, and awards presentations. This usually meant that the need for a bathroom break would be assumed. The rule was, that if you had to get up, your bible saved your seat. One evening my family and I decided that we wanted to try to sit up front, so we were close to first in line waiting for the doors to open. When they did, we were surrounded by a stampede of people racing to the front to claim their seats. Somehow we safely made it to the front of the tent, just as a man, loaded down with about a dozen bibles, pushed in front of us and slammed down a bible on every seat in the front row of that section. When the dust had cleared, the tent was only about 10% full, but miraculously, every seat was saved.

My final example involves my favorite live music venue. There's a guy, who because he has the time to do so, saves a table for his friends most nights. This is not usually a problem, since by show time the table is usually more than full. But for some of the more popular shows he has been observed saving multiple tables. If that isn't bad enough, he then goes to the bar, taking up a bar stool as well. More often than not, he'll go across the street, where they have a wider variety of beer. I have to admit that I've saved tables and bar stools myself, but (1) I stay with the table; I don't leave the bar for hours and (2) if the people I am saving the space for don't show up by show time I give the space up to someone else. I've actually made a lot of friends by inviting last minute arrivals to sit with me. It's frustrating to show up for a band an hour before the show and find out that every seat is saved, but that there's very few people physically in the bar.

Let me propose a few seat saving rules:

1. Saving more than one table is prohibited
2. If the seats are not at tables (i.e. bar stools, theater style seating) saving more than one seat is prohibited
3. At least one person must stay with the table (exceptions: bathroom breaks or quick runs to get something to eat - food must be brought back to the saved seat or table)
4. Once the event (concert, church, movie) starts, all claims to saved seats expire
5. In all situations where you pay a premium for early admittance saving seats in prohibited (see Southwest Airlines example above) - this would also apply to situations where purchasing tickets prior to a deadline gets you early admittance (Exception: you may save seats for any others who are also eligible for early admittance

Show up early or stand!

Whiteness

Ooh...let's talk about racism...and white privilege...and rape culture...said very few people...ever.

Despite my observation that Twitter can be a real sewer, partly because you can't delete nasty things that people say to you, I've learned a lot about racism and misogyny and their nemesis, privilege, white, or male, or hetero or cisgender or anything else that is ascendant in our culture.

Let's start with white privilege.

No, let's back up and start with whiteness.

Whiteness is an invented concept. Go back far enough and people didn't talk about being white. The ancestors of today's white people, the inhabitants of Europe, didn't consider themselves a homogeneous "race". The Germans would be very insulted to be equated with the Italians and everyone would be insulted to be put in the same category as the Irish! It wasn't until coming into contact with people with less-advanced military technology, who coincidentally had darker-hued skin color, that the concept of whiteness as a characteristic of superior peoples came about. This differentiation between white and non-white was used as the pretext for colonizing and enslaving the "lesser races". It is interesting to me that to the early European-descended Americans, who were largely from the British Isles and Northern Europe, not only were Native Americans and Africans not white, but Italians and other Southern and Eastern Europeans weren't white either. Amazingly, the Irish who came over in the late 1800's weren't white either, despite the absolute pallor of the typical Irishman.

Even when slavery was outlawed, there was an assumption that former slaves and other blacks were somehow inferior, and that the Indians were just savages. It took another hundred years for non-whites to be legally granted equal rights, and then after a long fight. So there was a long history of white privilege in this country, it is in our national DNA.

White privilege doesn't mean that you didn't work for what you have or that anybody handed anything to you "for free". It also doesn't mean that you're county club privileged either. What it does mean is that just because you are part of that vast, amorphous category dubbed "white" you are the cultural default. No one assumes that you're breaking into your own apartment because you're white, you aren't pulled over in certain neighborhoods because you're white, you don't have to demonstrate that you're "one of the good ones" because you're white. This doesn't mean that you won't get pulled over for unfathomable reasons, or you'll never get fired from a job or shot by the police or wrongfully convicted, but these things will not happen simply because you're white. You aren't the victim (or recipient, if you don't like the "V" word) of racism, defined, for the purpose of this blog post, as institutional and systemic bigotry and prejudice against a group. It's more than just "I don't like people from that group", it's "I don't like people from that group and I'm going to use my power and influence to prevent them from getting any influence and power themselves". It goes even further than that. When the foundations of a society are rooted in racism, it doesn't go away because people say it's gone away. It doesn't even go away in individuals, not completely, when the surrounding culture is steeped in so many racist assumptions.

Something very specific that I've learned is that for a white person who doesn't consider himself to be a racist, the response "but not all white people" is not very helpful. (Similar to the "not all men" battle cry that many of us men reflexively throw out when we hear about the Kavanaughs of the world). The other response "how is that racist?" is similarly unhelpful. It implies that you are dismissing the perception, solidified by years of similar experiences, of the person of color who sees what you said as racist. Something to remember is that you can say or do racist things, even if you do not believe yourself to be a racist. The fact that what you said wasn't intended to be racist doesn't mean that it wasn't. Humbly, without defensiveness, ask to have it explained to you, or at least do some introspection and see if you can figure it out for yourself. Pro tip: just because you framed it as a joke doesn't make it less offensive!

Of course a common rejoinder is that some people throw out "the race card" when it's really their behavior, without respect to race, that's the problem. Sometimes the wielder of that particular "card" just wants to excuse their bad behavior by putting the onus back on the white person. Sometimes you have to dig deep to find out why they think the way they do. Are your hurt feelings over being called a racist more important than a person's day after day being treated as less than a person? It's pretty easy to assume racism when it's not when most of the time it is.

Racism won't go away by wishing it away, or by pretending that it's not structural, or thinking that it hasn't infected us, or that most white people haven't benefited from it.

Happy Holidays

Probably as a result of unfollowing people who consistently post idiotic things on Facebook,  I saw only a minimum of posts about how there's some ill-defined War on Christmas. This supposed war allegedly prevents people from saying 'Merry Christmas' or at least shames people who say it. The problem with this so-called War on Christmas is that it's entirely fictional. It's true that some retailers ask their employees to say "Happy Holidays" around this time of year, rather than "Merry Christmas", but it's to be inclusive, not out of some hatred for Christmas. Some of the few comments on social media that reflected a belief that this "war" existed were not from people with whom I'm personally acquainted. One guy commented that he was tired of not being able to say "Merry Christmas", another related questionable information about how in his neck of the woods, Minnesota, there's an all-out frenzy against all aspects of the Christian side of the holiday season. I guess I must be sheltered from the worst of this anti-Christian intolerance. In my whole life I have only once encountered someone who was offended at the words "Merry Christmas". This was about fifteen years ago when I was spending my Monday nights down at Duggan's Pub. A drinking buddy of mine, a devotee of Asatru, Norse Paganism went on a rant one night when I said "Merry Christmas", not because the words themselves offended him, but because he thought that I, as a pagan, was being hypocritical by wishing him, another pagan, good wishes in regard to a Christian observance. Literally no one else that I have met in person was offended by the words "Merry Christmas", and I know many non-Christians.

What I have experienced first hand, and heard about second hand, was people who have been offended at the words "Happy Holidays", or who, when hearing the words "Merry Christmas" from a businessperson, went on a rant about they're sick of no one being able to say "Merry Christmas". My youngest son, a convenience store clerk, has several times this year been the recipient of verbal abuse for saying "Happy Holidays". A few years ago I fielded a call at my place of business from someone who was so happy that one of our holiday ads said "Merry Christmas", taking the opportunity to disparage anyone who said "Happy Holidays". When I worked for UPS I encountered something similar. So, in my own experience, even saying "Merry Christmas" triggers some of these people into an often abusive rant about people who say "Happy Holidays". One of the stupidest things I've seen online was a tweet by the big-haired recent college grad who's claim to fame was posing with a semi-automatic weapon on her campus. This morning she posted a video of herself saying "It's 'Merry Christmas', not 'Happy Holidays' PC libs" and shot up a sign that said "Happy Holidays". Aside from the weirdness of shooting up a handmade sign, the mindset that thinks that It's "Merry Christmas" as if there are no other midwinter holiday observances tells you all that you need to know.

No one, outside of a few nut-jobs is literally offended at the words "Merry Christmas", is offended that you are saying them to him or her, is trying to ban them from store ads, or to stop people from publicly celebrating Christmas. What some people are doing is insisting that the religious aspects of Christmas (and c'mon, if you don't realize that Christmas has had it's religious roots largely commercialized out of it over the last few generations isn't paying attention or is living in a "Christian Nation" fantasyland) be kept out of official government displays and observances and that retailers consider other groups and be inclusive by saying "Happy Holidays".

Christmas, while still a religious observance for Christians, has become a secular holiday, and has become filled with secular and pagan traditions that have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The secular traditions have swamped the traditions and observances of other cultures (Hanukkah is a great example - Jewish parents have long had to battle the influence of Christmas traditions overshadowing Hanukkah observances - it's not "The Jewish Christmas") and even minimized the Christian core in favor of gift-giving, trees and Santa Claus. If you're going to get righteously indignant, get worked up about that.