Wed the Botkin way, because ebil persecuting gayz!

[Marian the Librarian]

David Botkin, on his public Facebook page:

Pastors: encourage people to do what Nadia and I did with our wedding - no officiator. Nadia and I exchanged vows directly - I read mine to her, she read hers to me. There were witnesses but no-one pronounced us "husband and wife". And I've never had anyone claim that we aren't really married, either.

If the church would stop holding an extra-biblical position on pastors officiating weddings, this would not be a hill for the church to die on.

Now, the pastor could give a sermon on what marriage means, or on the theology of marriage, or any number of things, but he's not "declaring persons to be married".

That said, sodomites will still find places to harass/persecute Christians.

The subsequent comments do answer one question - David and Nadia did get a TN marriage license:

Yes, we did get a license. It's the cheapest, fastest, way to get everything legally setup in the eyes of the State - i.e. name changes, ability to make medical decisions on behalf of the spouse if incapacitated, etc. And in TN they are really picky - they don't recognize "common law" marriages (I've heard of people having to "get married" again after coming to TN - the County Clerks thinks it's kind of funny), but then they also don't recognize sodomite "marriages" or marriages between first cousins, so maybe I don't mind the pickiness.

[Burris]

From those quotes I've learned that somehow marriage equality is persecution against Christians, and that there's some silly reason why David and Nadia Botkin would forgo the officiator and yet still take advantage of all the legal benefits conferred by a marriage license.

Way to take a stand! David Botkin is clearly another Tank Man, whom history will not only vindicate but honour for his sacrifice on behalf of maintaining the fiction that homosexual love is of a lower quality than its heterosexual counterpart.

Here's a handy Bullshit-to-English translation of those comments:

'We didn't use an officiator because we were getting married in the eyes of God and outside the laws that might one day permit consenting homosexual partners to marry. (Psst! And yet despite what we hoped would be an impressive personal sacrifice for the cause of inequity - i.e., this matter of our not getting an officiator - we've obtained a legal document from the state that declares we are married rather than jumping through all the hoops we expect homosexuals to face in exchange for the same benefits.) Behold the manifold horrors of our ongoing persecution!'

[alba]

This ... doesn't even make any sense.

To be perfectly clear, I am 100% for marriage equality and I really cannot understand how allowing consenting adults to marry impacts other people's marriages in anyway, BUT if I did, this wouldn't be my response. If you really feel like TEH GAYZ are harming "proper Christian marriage" by getting married, then isn't doing away with an officiant basically like giving in? It's like saying, "Oh, you guys want this minister to marry you? FINE. Have him. WE don't need him." and basically letting TEH GAYZ steal your officiants.

[happy atheist]

So, in order to distance themselves from the evil gays, they're doing what many gay couples have done through the years, ie having a commitment ceremony. :cray-cray: That'll show 'em.

And then, of course, they get the piece of paper that confers all the legal rights. A bold stand indeed.

[gustava]

What they are saying doesn't make sense to me. The License gives them permission to get married; it has be signed by an Officiant, and returned to the county marriage office, where they will receive a Certificate saying they are legally married.

So either they lied on the License and someone signed it as an officiant, or they are lying on their FB.

Or both.

[Burris]

What they are saying doesn't make sense to me. The License gives them permission to get married; it has be signed by an Officiant, and returned to the county marriage office, where they will receive a Certificate saying they are legally married.

So either they lied on the License and someone signed it as an officiant, or they are lying on their FB.

Or both.

I don't think they're lying; I think they don't recognize that the person who signed their marriage license could be considered an officiant even if he or she was not there to witness / conduct the wedding service.

[FloraKitty35]

Really original Mr. Botkin.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

I... don't get how having an officiant has anything to do with same-sex marriage? Are they saying that because that part of the ceremony isn't in the bible, it's a slippery slope to other things that aren't in the bible? Because it seems to me like the ability to get married without the permission of a particular clergyman is exactly what gay couples are fighting for.

[teacherjane]

I don't understand how they think that not having an officiant would do anything to keep gays from marrying, or protect pastors from marrying gays, or whatever their logic was. I'm very confused about why they think something that mirrors what same-sex couples have been doing forever is going to protect the sanctity of their straight church marriage, but then again, :cray-cray:

[Geechee Girl]

Based on the thread title, I assumed he was taking the position of the Pearls or other Sovereign Citizens. Way to be wishy-washy, David.

[Full enough quiver]

I've always thought the best thing would be for everyone who wishes to get married to register with the state as domestic partners, gay, straight, whatever, you plan to live together, make medical decisions, raise kids, etc, then you are domestic partners. Anyone who wishes to have a religious ceremony may do so, but the domestic partnership is the legal part. The religious ceremony is only for the couples personal beliefs. Obviously, the particular religious institution could choose whether or not to perform ceremonies for gay couples, or divorced couples, whatever their religious convictions happen to be. Legally, everyone would have the same rights, and churches could still be bigots. Everyone wins.

[fundiefan]

David Botkin, on his public Facebook page:

To the bold:

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :head-desk: :headdesk: :angry-screaming: :confusion-scratchheadblue: :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

[Marian the Librarian]

Yes, I thought this might elevate the blood pressure of a few FJ-ers besides myself...and let us not forget, Clan Botkin is also only too happy to play by the ebil US gummint's rules, as it suits them. Their august, academic-sounding "Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences" is registered and recognized as a 501©(3) religious nonprofit by the IRS, and thus exempt from all income tax. Forms 990 and other particulars can be found at Guidestar.org.

[alba]

To the bold:

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :head-desk: :headdesk: :angry-screaming: :confusion-scratchheadblue: :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

Cause, obviously, that's why same-sex couples want to marry. To harass Christians :roll:

[GiggleOfGirls]

The largest religious group I know of that doesn't have officiants for weddings are Quakers and most meetings of the more liberal groups, at least, are happy to have same-sex marriages in their meetings.

So, no officiant doesn't seem to = no gay marriage....

[Four is Enough]

His marriage has nothing to do with a marriage between two of the same sex. He's seeing ebil where there is none. The guy's a doofus.

[hoipolloi]

Hard to believe that a Botkin could be stupider and more fatuous than Geoff, but it looks like David is.

[DaffyDill]

That said, sodomites will still find places to harass/persecute Christians.

Poor, persecuted sanctimonious David. Yeah, that's totally why gay people want to be married. Not to marry the person they love, not to be happy, not to be legally recognised as their partners spouse, but to persecute Christians.

Stupid, irrelevant fool.

[Jasmar]

So he has no objection to lesbians marrying?

[maybeizfundie]

I think he's afraid religious officiants will be forced to officiate at weddings which they object to on doctrinal grounds?

Even so, his "solution" makes no logical sense.

I can't even...

[PearlKrabs]

Poor, persecuted sanctimonious David. Yeah, that's totally why gay people want to be married. Not to marry the person they love, not to be happy, not to be legally recognised as their partners spouse, but to persecute Christians.

Stupid, irrelevant fool.

To the bolded: Right? It's hilarious that Geoffrey Botkin thought his family would take dominion over the nations.

For all of their self-proclaimed amazing education/ upbringing, I have yet to see any Botkin offspring impact the world at all. At least other fundies run for office.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

I think he's afraid religious officiants will be forced to officiate at weddings which they object to on doctrinal grounds?

Even so, his "solution" makes no logical sense.

I can't even...

This is one of those arguments that's so #$%&ing stupid that I have to think that the people who make it are simply arguing in bad faith to rile people up. Clergy decline to marry people all the time. They can do it if the couple aren't members in good standing of the church, if it's a remarriage after divorce, if the minister just plain doesn't like the people. I know a number of folks who had difficulty finding a Catholic priest to officiate their wedding. My cousin wanted her newborn baby to be included in the ceremony and a lot of more conservative priests blanched at that. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ARRESTED OR FORCED TO PERFORM THE CEREMONY. Now if the county clerk had refused to issue a license that would be a different story. But this country has been changing the laws around marriage for a long long time, and-- as the Supreme Court was forced to acknowledge during arguments this spring-- no religious figure has ever, ever, EVER been called in by the authorities for refusing to perform a service.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

Also COME ON do you seriously think that gay couples will be lining up to get married in your crappy church? I feel like most people would prefer that their special day takes place in an environment that is not openly hostile.

[Arete]

He is a nasty little man who is the product of another nasty little man. Poser.

[teachergirl]

So much truth....I hate the Botkins and especially David.... besides his illogical and hateful arguments against gays, he really annoys me when he "encourages" people not to join the military because Christians get persecuted in there......I m married to Army, work for the Army and have the privilege of teaching their children. I amalso the first person to criticize them for a number of things. I hate when people who have no idea about what goes on feel the need to criticize all the while people are overseas fighting for his right to be an ass. I would love to know what he "does" for a living. For all of the ranting and raving about how much better homeschooling is it is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors. These Botkin "men" ride their daddy's coattails. Rant over.