grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 18:37:57 GMT -5
Actually I think the MI law just says that judges and other officials can't sign licenses, they would still be issued by the clerks.
So apparently MI doesn't care about the religious liberty of the city clerks being cruelly forced to issue pieces of paper.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 26, 2015 18:44:22 GMT -5
Precisely, and this also just further proves what people have said in that the left uses the courts to force change onto people when they can't get their way with proper procedure. You know, because that whole constitution thing just keeps getting in their way Oh that dastardly, annoying Constitution! It just keeps standing in the way of forcing citizens to conform to someone else's cherished religious beliefs
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 18:46:42 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure taking your case to the Supreme Court is the proper procedure when you feel your constitutional rights are being infringed by the government.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jun 26, 2015 18:50:30 GMT -5
grumyhermit: From what you posted in the quoted text below, the government (including municipal & judicial officials) would be responsible for issuing licenses. It says nothing about not being able to perform wedding ceremonies.
Just how are clerks being "cruelly forced"?
If it's a clerks job to issue marriage licenses, then that's a part of their job description - and they take on that responsibility when they take the job.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 18:53:14 GMT -5
The bit about the judges and other municipal officials not being allowed to sign licenses was in the full article, I was just responding to kittensavers post.
The cruelly forced but was just sarcasm on my part. I agree. Your job is to push paper, push the paper. It was also more of a sideways reference to some of the news coming out of Texas where the governor is vowing to fight so the clerks don't have to violate their religious beliefs by issuing licenses.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 19:14:41 GMT -5
In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, some Michigan lawmakers have proposed a set of bills that could road-block same-sex couples seeking to marry.
This week, state Rep. Todd Courser, R-Lapeer, introduced three House bills that would end government involvement in performing weddings and require that all marriage certificates be signed by a religious leader. www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2015/06/19/gay-marriage-legislation-religion-michian/29018125/
Wow! just....wow! Talk about sour grapes. "It may legal for them to get married, but we're going to make it very, very difficult for them because....uh...um....God."
"trap law" logic. make abortions harder. make voting harder. make marriage harder. i think these laws will be declared unconstitutional. you can't require someone to sign their name to something they disagree with.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 19:15:50 GMT -5
Not even remotely shocked. For all their cries of fear about the evil left trying to strip them of their rights, the right is always the ones leading the charge. And how is FORCING people to get a religious officiant to sign off not a direct violation of the persons first amendment right? I mean seriously. the thing is they are not only on the wrong side of the law, on the wrong side of individual freedom, but they are on the wrong side of history. they can fight that battle if they wish, but it is obviously at their own peril.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 20:23:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 19:16:05 GMT -5
I'm just going to steal that too mmhmm... I'm getting tired over here...
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 26, 2015 19:17:36 GMT -5
I'm just going to steal that too mmhmm... I'm getting tired over here... Consider it yours.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 19:17:47 GMT -5
I can assure those who are concerned about this ruling because they feel religious institutions will be forced to perform gay marriages that I will bellow just as loudly against that as I have bellowed in favor of gay marriage. As long as said religious institution doesn't have its hand out for government funds, they should not be required to perform marriages that are contrary to their teachings. Anyone I know who has supported gay marriage feels the same way I do. as Tennesseer pointed out earlier, only 4% of the US public agreed with interracial marriage 65 years ago. who in their right minds would argue that today?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 19:20:18 GMT -5
Not even remotely shocked. For all their cries of fear about the evil left trying to strip them of their rights, the right is always the ones leading the charge. And how is FORCING people to get a religious officiant to sign off not a direct violation of the persons first amendment right? I mean seriously. the thing is they are not only on the wrong side of the law, on the wrong side of individual freedom, but they are on the wrong side of history. they can fight that battle if they wish, but it is obviously at their own peril. Sadly, that doesn't seem to bother them. I fully expect them to fight this, just like they are still battling on abortion and the ACA. I almost feel badly for them; they are going to be so mired fighting lost causes I don't know how they are going to put together a non-ridiculous platform in time for 2016.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jun 26, 2015 19:22:11 GMT -5
Actually I think the MI law just says that judges and other officials can't sign licenses, they would still be issued by the clerks. So apparently MI doesn't care about the religious liberty of the city clerks being cruelly forced to issue pieces of paper. not to worry, Texas is going to cover that angle. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the high court’s decision. “The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature,” he said in a statement Friday. “Five justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States. “Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling flawed and cautioned all county clerks and justices of the peace about immediately issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples. “Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace,” Paxton said. amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-06-26/breaking-same-sex-marriage-legal-scotus-rules
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 19:26:13 GMT -5
Actually I think the MI law just says that judges and other officials can't sign licenses, they would still be issued by the clerks. So apparently MI doesn't care about the religious liberty of the city clerks being cruelly forced to issue pieces of paper. not to worry, Texas is going to cover that angle. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the high court’s decision. “The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature,” he said in a statement Friday. “Five justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States. “Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling flawed and cautioned all county clerks and justices of the peace about immediately issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples.“Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace,” Paxton said. amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-06-26/breaking-same-sex-marriage-legal-scotus-rulesOh good, for a second I was worried. You can always count on Texas. I did have to laugh though that Austin and Houston were like, screw that, come on down!
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jun 26, 2015 19:31:22 GMT -5
not to worry, Texas is going to cover that angle. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the high court’s decision. “The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature,” he said in a statement Friday. “Five justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States. “Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling flawed and cautioned all county clerks and justices of the peace about immediately issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples.“Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace,” Paxton said. amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-06-26/breaking-same-sex-marriage-legal-scotus-rulesOh good, for a second I was worried. You can always count on Texas. I did have to laugh though that Austin and Houston were like, screw that, come on down! I'm not surprised that Houston and Austin were all in. I mean Austin's motto is "keep Austin weird". And I grew up in Houston and didn't know Liberal was a bad word until I moved to Georgia. Heck, I didn't even know I HAD to have a religion until I moved to Georgia.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 20:23:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 20:21:54 GMT -5
That's too bad. Now we'll see the slow but sure erosion of religious liberty. You do realize this ruling actually ADDS TO "religious liberty"... right? Now people aren't forced to abide by the Christian "one man + one woman" belief (a belief that's not actually Biblically based... since the Bible specifically allows polygamy).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 20:23:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 20:40:16 GMT -5
Pretty sure religious colleges have always been allowed to set their own standards regarding student behavior and dress. There are some around here that kick you out if you hold hands in public with a member of the opposite sex, and no one has ever questioned that rule. Hence why I said "slow but sure." Meaning while that might not be the case now, who can say 5 to 10 years down the line? "Who is to say"? How about the First Amendment? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.This ruling actually brings marriage a little closer to being in line with the First Amendment... because every "law" making it "one man + one woman" was actually religiously based... and therefore in violation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 20:45:00 GMT -5
the thing is they are not only on the wrong side of the law, on the wrong side of individual freedom, but they are on the wrong side of history. they can fight that battle if they wish, but it is obviously at their own peril. Sadly, that doesn't seem to bother them. I fully expect them to fight this, just like they are still battling on abortion and the ACA. I almost feel badly for them; they are going to be so mired fighting lost causes I don't know how they are going to put together a non-ridiculous platform in time for 2016.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 20:46:26 GMT -5
Actually I think the MI law just says that judges and other officials can't sign licenses, they would still be issued by the clerks. So apparently MI doesn't care about the religious liberty of the city clerks being cruelly forced to issue pieces of paper. not to worry, Texas is going to cover that angle. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the high court’s decision. “The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature,” he said in a statement Friday. “Five justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States. “Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling flawed and cautioned all county clerks and justices of the peace about immediately issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples. “Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace,” Paxton said. amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-06-26/breaking-same-sex-marriage-legal-scotus-rulesthis isn't from the Onion?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 20:47:28 GMT -5
That's too bad. Now we'll see the slow but sure erosion of religious liberty. You do realize this ruling actually ADDS TO "religious liberty"... right? Now people aren't forced to abide by the Christian "one man + one woman" belief (a belief that's not actually Biblically based... since the Bible specifically allows polygamy). word.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 20:23:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 20:50:31 GMT -5
It may not take fifty years for the rewrite to occur. It may take as little as ten or twenty, especially if they see some sort of opportunity to get ahead of others and attempt to redeem their rottenness. A lot of the support for getting antiretroviral treatments available in Africa came from churchy folks who had been on the wrong side of history a decade before. I don't think that they did this just to inflict their special brand of impracticality regarding condoms and sex work on others. A guilty conscience was also driving them. Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Not to be picky... but... you do know we don't have "universal healthcare" yet... right? And with the recent Obamacare ruling, having it just got pushed back further.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2015 20:52:19 GMT -5
Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Not to be picky... but... you do know we don't have "universal healthcare" yet... right? And with the recent Obamacare ruling, having it just got pushed back further. i am not so sure, Richard. there was no way UHC was getting through THIS congress, so it might not have accelerated it, but it didn't delay it, either, imo. it is a horribly flawed law. 1/3 of the nation wants more, 1/3 wants less, and 1/3 likes it as it is. i am in the first category.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 20:23:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 20:55:47 GMT -5
Hey - if you had asked me in 2000 or 2001 if I thought that by 2015 we'd have a black president, universal healthcare and marriage equality for gay citizens I would not have believed it. Things can happen quicker than you think . . . Precisely. I know it may seem absurd now that churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings, but given the recent history of court rulings, can you blame people for being skeptical? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the courts will rule that religious institutions can refuse gay marriage when the inevitable lawsuit comes (and it WILL come). But I'm not hopeful that judges nor many of you will defend the rights of the faithful. I will defend the rights of "the faithful" when it applies to their rights and ONLY their rights (like it would in a lawsuit to force gay marriage in a church). This ( secular gay marriage) wasn't about their rights.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jun 26, 2015 21:00:17 GMT -5
not to worry, Texas is going to cover that angle. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the high court’s decision. “The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature,” he said in a statement Friday. “Five justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States. “Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling flawed and cautioned all county clerks and justices of the peace about immediately issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples. “Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace,” Paxton said. amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-06-26/breaking-same-sex-marriage-legal-scotus-rulesthis isn't from the Onion? Sadly, no it's not. Austin, TX, June 26, 2015 – Today, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made an official opinion request to Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton on marriage and religious freedom. Lt. Gov. Patrick made the follow statement below: “This past session, the legislature passed protections for members of the clergy who could be pressured into performing marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Similar First Amendment protections must be extended to others who might encounter similar pressure for same sex marriages. My request for opinion asks Attorney General Paxton to provide guidance to county clerks and Justices of the Peace who face this conflict of conscience.” See the link here to the statement on the request. The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to rule today or Monday morning, June 29th, on the historic marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, deciding the issue of same sex marriage for the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky and the decision could likely impact other states as well. Texas Values President Jonathan Saenz issued the following statement: “We commend Lt. Gov. Patrick on his leadership and timely concern for protecting the religious freedom of Texans. You don’t surrender your First Amendment rights just because you work for the government. All Texans should be free to believe and should not be forced by the government to violate their sincerely held religious belief that marriage is between one man and woman.” txvalues.org/2015/06/26/tx-lt-gov-to-ag-provide-guidance-on-clerks-who-refuse-gay-marriage-on-religious-grounds/
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jun 26, 2015 21:05:45 GMT -5
Here's the Texas gov'n statement straight from the Office of the Gov'n webpage AUSTIN – Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, Governor Greg Abbott today issued a memo to all state agency heads directing them to respect and preserve Texans religious liberties and First Amendment rights. “Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government. Renewing and reinforcing that promise is all the more important in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Governor Abbott wrote in the memo. “The government must never pressure a person to abandon or violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding a topic such as marriage. That sort of religious coercion will never be a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and it will never be ‘the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.’” Governor Abbott went on to say that, “as government officials, we have a constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the religious liberty of every Texan.” The Governor concluded by writing that this order “applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations.” gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21133#.VY3y14yFE7E.facebook
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,828
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Jun 26, 2015 21:06:29 GMT -5
I think I'll bookmark this thread. In a few years when there are cases in the courts for religious institutions to be forced to perform ssm and you're all passionately arguing for it and swearing up and down its not an encroachment of cf religious liberty, I'll point you to this thread. If you're the last one here, make sure you turn off the lights. POTD!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 20:23:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 21:16:15 GMT -5
This is also an issue of states rights, and the ability of the citizens to decide what the definition of marriage is. Just unilaterally declaring it the law of the land may damage the growth of support for gay marriage, if that's your goal. Actually it was... and it wasn't. Per the reciprocity clause of the Constitution: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.(and I'm a firm supporter of States' Rights... when it actually apples to them) Once it became legal in one state, ALL OTHER STATES are required (per the above clause) to acknowledge, and accept as valid, gay marriages performed in the state where it was legal. If all states HAD acknowledged gay marriages performed in other states, they could have avoided this ruling requiring them to perform them too. That's where they screwed up. By ignoring the reciprocity of out-of-state "gay marriage" they forced SCOTUS's hand.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 26, 2015 21:22:32 GMT -5
I knew oppositions like those coming out of Texas were coming, but it still makes my eye twitch.
For all their support of sincerely held religious beliefs, and protecting religious liberty, I have to wonder if they would be as supportive of a Muslim DMV clerk that refused to issue a woman a drivers license, or a Jewish grocery store clerk that refused to sell pork, or a Christian judge that refused to grant a divorce.
The government doesn't force you to work as a clerk issuing marriage licenses. If you can no longer in good conscience do that now that same-sex marriage is legal, please feel free to find a job that you can perform with a clear heart.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,828
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Jun 26, 2015 21:24:22 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,498
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 26, 2015 21:29:49 GMT -5
Someone will complain about the cost of the colored lights.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,890
|
Post by haapai on Jun 26, 2015 21:30:48 GMT -5
Actually I think the MI law just says that judges and other officials can't sign licenses, they would still be issued by the clerks. So apparently MI doesn't care about the religious liberty of the city clerks being cruelly forced to issue pieces of paper. Sounds like someone in Lansing is particularly pissed at my county clerk. She performed the first same sex marriages in the state and today she waived the usual 3-day waiting period for marriage licenses. She was probably performing marriages at 10:15 AM. You go, Barb!
|
|