[Vision2020] Lobbying Activity
Phil Nisbet
pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 5 07:18:28 PST 2006
Doug
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does the actions of the state to
take a religious institution and gain ownership of what is a religious rite
seem to interest you? I would think that a ban on all state control of the
institution of marriage would be more up the alley for anybody who wanted
the government out of people's lives.
What business does government have in regulation of the religious rite of
marriage? By allowing marriage to become a civil union, attaching benefits
to the practice, we have made marriage lose its value and turned it into a
matter of civil torts no different than limited liability corporations.
As far as I am concenred, they do not need to extend marriage 'benefits' to
gay couples, they need to remove those benefits from hetrosexual couples.
Get government out of the marriage business, it never belonged there in the
first place.
Phil Nisbet
>From: heirdoug at netscape.net
>To: thansen at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lobbying Activity
>Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:47:35 -0500
>
>
>Tom,Tom,
>
>You seem to state in your post that you have a consern for any one lobbying
>the legislature and holding a 501 3 c status. youe appear to have a deep
>interest in the love and accuracy of the Code. Maybe you could add this to
>your "It's just the Code" section of your Not in the Palouse Not Ever
>(Update # 85)
>
>from the state statute of the Idaho Code section 32:
>
>TITLE 32 (Idaho Code)
>DOMESTIC RELATIONS
>
>CHAPTER 2
>MARRIAGE -- NATURE AND VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE CONTRACT
>
>32-201. WHAT CONSTITUTES MARRIAGE -- NO COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE AFTER January
>1, 1996.
>(1) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract
>between a man and a woman, to which the consent of parties capable of
>making it is necessary. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must
>be followed by the issuance of a license and a solemnization as authorized
>and provided by law. Marriage created by a mutual assumption of marital
>rights, duties or obligations shall not be recognized as a lawful marriage.
>(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section requiring the
>issuance of a license and a solemnization shall not invalidate any marriage
>contract in effect prior to January 1, 1996, created by consenting parties
>through a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties or obligations.
>
>32-202. PERSONS WHO MAY MARRY.
>Any unmarried male of the age of eighteen (18) years or older, and any
>unmarried female of the age of eighteen (18) years or older, and not
>otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating
>marriage. Provided that if the male party to the contract is under the age
>of eighteen (18) and not less than sixteen (16) years of age, or if the
>female party to the contract is under the age of eighteen (18) and not less
>than sixteen (16) years of age, the license shall not be issued except upon
>the consent in writing duly acknowledged and sworn to by the father, mother
>or guardian of any such person if there be either, and provided further,
>that no such license may be issued, if the male be under eighteen (18)
>years of age and the female under eighteen (18) years of age, unless each
>party to the contract submits to the county recorder his or her original
>birth certificate, or certified copy thereof or other proof of age
>acceptable to the county recorder. Provided further, that where the female
>is under the age of sixteen (16), or the male is under the age of sixteen
>(16), the license shall not issue except upon the consent in writing duly
>acknowledged or sworn to by the father, mother or guardian of such person
>if there be any such, and upon order of the court. Such order shall be
>secured upon petition of any interested party which petition shall show
>that the female minor under the age of sixteen (16), or the male minor
>under the age of sixteen (16), is physically and/or mentally so far
>developed as to assume full marital and parental duties, and/or that it is
>to the best interest of society that the marriage be permitted. A hearing
>shall be had on such petition forthwith or at such time and upon such
>notice as the court may designate. The judge shall secure from a physician
>his opinion as an expert as to whether said person is sufficiently
>developed mentally and physically to assume full marital duties. If said
>court is satisfied from the evidence that such person is capable of
>assuming full marital duties and/or that it is to the best interest of
>society, said court shall make an order to that effect, and a certified
>copy of said order shall be filed with the county recorder preliminary to
>the issuance of a marriage license for the marriage of such person and said
>order of the court shall be the authority for the county recorder to issue
>such license.
>
>32-209. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN OR OUT-OF-STATE MARRIAGES.
>All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the
>laws of the state or country in which the same were contracted, are valid
>in this state, unless they violate the public policy of this state.
>Marriages that violate the public policy of this state include, but are not
>limited to, same-sex marriages, and marriages entered into under the laws
>of another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of
>the marriage laws of this state.
>
>CHAPTER 3
>SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE
>
>32-303. BY WHOM SOLEMNIZED. Marriage may be solemnized by either a
>current or retired justice of the supreme court, a current or retired court
>of appeals judge, a current or retired district judge, any federal judge,
>the current or a former governor, lieutenant governor, a current or retired
>magistrate of the district court, mayor, priest or minister of the gospel
>of any denomination. To be a retired justice of the supreme court, court of
>appeals judge, district judge or magistrate judge of the district court,
>for the purpose of solemnizing marriages, a person shall have served in one
>(1) of those offices and shall be receiving a retirement benefit from
>either the judges retirement system or the public employee retirement
>system for service in the judiciary.
>32-304. FORM OF CEREMONY. No particular form for the ceremony of marriage
>is required, but the parties must declare, in the presence of the person
>solemnizing the marriage that they take each other as husband and wife.
>
>
>RCW 26.04.010 (Washington Code)
>Marriage contract -- Void marriages.
>(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each
>attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.
>(2) Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has
>not attained the age of seventeen years is void except where this section
>has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the
>parties resides on a showing of necessity.
>NOTES:
>Finding -- 1998 c 1:
>(1) In P.L. 104-199; 110 Stat. 219, the Defense of Marriage Act,
>Congress granted authority to the individual states to either grant or deny
>recognition of same-sex marriages recognized as valid in another state. The
>Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for purposes of federal law as a
>legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides
>that a state shall not be required to give effect to any public act or
>judicial proceeding of any other state respecting marriage between persons
>of the same sex if the state has determined that it will not recognize
>same-sex marriages.
>(2) The legislature and the people of the state of Washington find that
>matters pertaining to marriage are matters reserved to the sovereign states
>and, therefore, such matters should be determined by the people within each
>individual state and not by the people or courts of a different state."
>[1998 c 1 § 1.]
>Intent -- 1998 c 1:
>(1) It is a compelling interest of the state of Washington to reaffirm
>its historical commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between
>a man and a woman as husband and wife and to protect that institution.
>(2) The court in Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn. App. 247 (1974) held that the
>Washington state marriage statute does not allow marriage between persons
>of the same sex. It is the intent of the legislature by this act to codify
>the Singer opinion and to fully exercise the authority granted the
>individual states by Congress in P.L. 104-199; 110 Stat. 219, the Defense
>of Marriage Act, to establish public policy against same-sex marriage in
>statutory law that clearly and definitively declares same-sex marriages
>will not be recognized in Washington, even if they are made legal in other
>states." [1998 c 1 § 2.]
>RCW 26.04.020
>Prohibited marriages.
>(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
>a. When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time
>of such marriage;
>b. When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than
>second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules
>of the civil law; or
>c. When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.
>(2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's
>sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
>daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her
>father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's
>son, brother's son or sister's son.
>(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in
>another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not
>prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), (1)(c), or (2) of this
>section.
>RCW 26.04.070
>Form of solemnization.
>In the solemnization of marriage no particular form is required, except
>that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the
>minister, priest, or judicial officer solemnizing the same, and in the
>presence of at least two attending witnesses, that they take each other to
>be husband and wife.
>RCW 26.04.240
>Penalty for unlawful solemnization -- Code 1881.
>Any person who shall undertake to join others in marriage knowing that he
>is not lawfully authorized so to do, or any person authorized to solemnize
>marriage, who shall join persons in marriage contrary to the provisions of
>*this chapter, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not
>more than five hundred, nor less than one hundred dollars.
>
>
>If some one states over and over that they are "married for 12 years" but
>have not filed in the particular state and if that some one was married by
>a clergy of sorts from another state and if that clergy officiated a
>ceremony for the couple and they happened to be a homosexual couple then
>the couple could not claim to be married, could they. They could only refer
>to their relationship in other terms.
>
>Just want to have the code speak for us all!
>
>lemeno, Doug!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Just an item of local interest from the US Department of the treasury,
>Internal Revenue Service website at:
>
>http://apps.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
>
>"Lobbying Activity
>
>In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a
>substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation
>(commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some
>lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
>
>Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local
>council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills,
>resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of
>appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative,
>constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include
>actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
>
>An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if
>it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a
>legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing
>legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
>legislation."
>
>"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
>safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
>sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body thoroughly used
>up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"
>
>Take care, Moscow.
>
>Tom "Just Looking Under Some Rocks" Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>"I think one of the best ways to support education is to make successful
>private schools like Logos prosper through tax exemption."
>
>- Donovan Arnold (July 11, 2005)
>
>___________________________________________________
>Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
>Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
>http://mail.netscape.com
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list