Welcome admin !

It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:53 pm
Pathway:  Board index General Buddhist Discussion Mahayana Buddhism

Minimal ordination?

Discussion of general East-Asian Mahayana Buddhism, Sutras & Shastras.

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Nonin on Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:28 pm

Avisitor wrote:
Nonin wrote:I sign the marriage license on the officiant's line, so it's street legal. I've married people and signed the necessary license in Nebraska, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Iowa.

Hands palm-to-palm,

Nonin


Thank you for that information.
I was never sure about that.

Oh, wait .. sorry, another question
Was it the Buddhist organization you belonged to that granted this power to legally marry two people or was it the state??
I was never sure how priest got their right to marry people either.
I know that there are some organizations that do this granting of power to marry people .. through the internet .. don't know how legal that is??


Marriage ceremonies have two forms, civil and religious. Religious weddings need no civil authority's recognition to be binding. Civill weddings need no religious authority's recognition to be binding. If those couples who go through a religious wedding ceremonies want their marriage to be civilly and legally recognized, they have to file the papers with the state, county, or other government entity.

I am a fully authorized Soto Zen Buddhist priest. All Buddhist denominations, Zen or otherwise, have wedding ceremonies that priests, nuns, or monks can perform if asked. As has been stated in this thread, different states, counties, and municipalities have laws and rules that anyone asked to perform a wedding ceremony has to abide by. It's the couple being married's choice whether they want their marriage to be recognized legally or not. I have married gay couples in two different states. In one it was legal; in the other, it was not. In the first, there was no marriage license. In the second, there was one. I signed it as the officiant, and it was filed in the county in which the wedding occurred.

Hands palm-to-palm,

Nonin
Soto Zen Buddhist Priest. Transmitted Dharma Heir of Dainin Katagiri Roshi.
Abbot and Head Teacher, Nebraska Zen Center / Heartland Temple, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
http://www.prairiewindzen.org
User avatar
Nonin
Teacher
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Avisitor on Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:05 pm

Thank you Nonin
That was very helpful.
Disclaimer: There is no intent to be offensive in my posts. None was intended and none should be interpreted as such.
Sorry, got a message that I was not being PC.
User avatar
Avisitor
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:43 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Avisitor on Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:25 pm

HePo wrote:
AVisitor wrote:
So yeah, New York State does recognize common law marriages.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

NCSL is NOT a legal services organization. If you have questions about the circumstances leading to common law marriage, including the duration of cohabitation, please contact an attorney, a legal services organization, or the clerk of court near you.

That was their disclaimer


The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ from state to state. Nevertheless, all states—including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries—recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in jurisdictions that permit it

That was in their first paragraph

This is just a repeat of the one above. No credit for this one.


They defined the term common law marriage and where it is legal but they never said it was not recognized in New York State.


If a common law marriage happens in another state and you move to a state that does not recognize it ...
"you are still married (since states all recognize marriages that occurred in other states). However, this is murky legal territory and we don’t recommend experimenting with it!"

So even if the state says it doesn't recognize it, it can still mean the couple is married with all the legal rights.

HePo wrote:That means all these websites have got it wrong, really?
Until you can provide a serious source - i think you have got it wrong.

These websites aren't wrong. But, I don't think you bothered to read them very carefully.
The wording is put in such a way to say one thing and mean another ... often the way lawyers tend to do so as to cover their ... butts

HePo wrote:also
Was it the Buddhist organization you belonged to that granted this power to legally marry two people or was it the state??
I was never sure how priest got their right to marry people either.
I know that there are some organizations that do this granting of power to marry people .. through the internet .. don't know how legal that is??

was answered in my previous post and by Meido (Illinois) and Nonin (MN, etc)

That question wasn't addressed to you. And I had wanted the clarification from Nonin.
However if you wish to stick you nose into it ... What Meido said .. wasn't perfectly clear to answer my question.
So I went directly to a very good source. Why fault me for wanting to ask??
I don't blame you for being wrong.

In 1989, when Mr William Hurt and ex-girlfriend went to court over common law marriage, why did the courts allow it to go to court if the statues say the State doesn't recognize common law marriages??
Disclaimer: There is no intent to be offensive in my posts. None was intended and none should be interpreted as such.
Sorry, got a message that I was not being PC.
User avatar
Avisitor
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:43 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby HePo on Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:16 am

AVisitor wrote:
In 1989, when Mr William Hurt and ex-girlfriend went to court over common law marriage, why did the courts allow it to go to court if the statues say the State doesn't recognize common law marriages??


Because as you quoted in your post above
Nevertheless, all states—including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries—recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in jurisdictions that permit it.

The girlfriend claimed to have been in a common law marriage in South Carolina, which is one of the nine states that has NOT abolished the contract of common-law marriage.


i did actually mention this in my previous post
New York state has not recognized common law marriage since 1933. (except for out of state recognised common law marriage)


Does it make sense now?
HePo
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Avisitor on Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:42 am

HePo wrote:New York state has not recognized common law marriage since 1933. (except for out of state recognised common law marriage)

Does it make sense now?

No Thanks for Not correcting your statement.

Whose to say where one had a common law marriage in one state or another?
The law is the law. However, I have seen it twisted so many times to suit whoever is interpreting it
Last edited by Avisitor on Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Disclaimer: There is no intent to be offensive in my posts. None was intended and none should be interpreted as such.
Sorry, got a message that I was not being PC.
User avatar
Avisitor
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:43 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby HePo on Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:32 am

AVisitor wrote:
HePo wrote:
New York state has not recognized common law marriage since 1933. (except for out of state recognised common law marriage)
Does it make sense now?


Thanks for correcting your statement.

Sorry, but I do not remember correcting that statement.
I had posted the original statement (page 1 of this thread) before you mentioned William Hurt.

The above quote should have been (you skipped one line)
AVisitor wrote:
HePo wrote:
i did actually mention this in my previous post
New York state has not recognized common law marriage since 1933. (except for out of state recognised common law marriage)

Does it make sense now?



Thanks for correcting your statement.


AVisitor wrote:
In New York State, one is said to have a common law marriage after six months of co habitation in a marriage type living style.

You still believe this to be the case?
HePo
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Avisitor on Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:06 pm

HePo wrote:
Avisitor wrote:
In New York State, one is said to have a common law marriage after six months of co habitation in a marriage type living style.


You still believe this to be the case?


Yes, cause I know of actual people (heterosexual couples) who were recognized by the state and by the banks and other financial institutions as being married even when they were not "officially" married.
Simply because they held themselves out as being in a marriage. Filed taxes as married. Opened bank accounts as being married. Lived together as married. Had babies as married.
So, even though it may say on record that New York State does not recognize common law marriages, the practice is quite different from the statement you had made.

Would your words then represent the truth??
Or would the actual cases of couples who are in common law marriages with all the rights and privileges be the truth??

Follow the letter of the law if you wish and prize your letter of the law above everything
But it doesn't change what is really happening.


Edit: In the case of Mr William Hurt and ex-girlfriend, the lawyers actually did have a decision on whether they were married in New York State through common marriage.
It was defeated. Then the lawyers went onto the time when Mr. hurt and company were filming "The Big Chill" in South Carolina. Were they married? It was also defeated.
So, does that mean that New York doesn't recognized common law marriages?? Yeah, it does. But, not all cases are like Mr. Hurts where he denies being in a marriage.
But, to me, if you have a baby together and live together and do all the stuff married people do then one should do the right thing. Take responsibility for your actions.
But hey, if you wish to then you can use the law to fight being in a common law marriage. You'll win like Mr. Hurt did. Would you have done the right thing??
Morals or letter of the law?? There is lots to discuss. But, I think this is just a side track here.
Disclaimer: There is no intent to be offensive in my posts. None was intended and none should be interpreted as such.
Sorry, got a message that I was not being PC.
User avatar
Avisitor
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:43 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby TonyD on Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Thanks everyone for your comments, though I didn't really mean to trigger a debate about marriage here. I was really asking more about lay ordination, if that term really even means anything?? The officiating at marriages thing is just incidental. :)

Gassho
TonyD
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Caodemarte on Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:39 am

Ordination literally means to become a priest. As a householder you can become a priest, but then by definition you are no longer lay. So there can be no lay ordination in the English language. There are lay with authorization to teach a given relgion, but as lay they do not perform priestly functions, such as performing certain rituals, etc.

If you want to share the Dharma or meditation as a lay person then I would beg you to learn it first by sustained practice and study under the direction of an authorized teacher (priest or lay) and teach only with that person's permission.
Caodemarte
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:18 am

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Meido on Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:14 am

TonyD wrote: I was really asking more about lay ordination, if that term really even means anything?? The officiating at marriages thing is just incidental. :)


Monastic or priest ordination in Japanese Zen is called shukke tokudo ("leaving home, attaining the way"). But in some places zaike tokudo ("staying at home, attaining the way"), a different ceremony in which laypersons take refuge in the Three Treasures and receive lay precepts, is called in English "lay ordination". So this might be a source of confusion. In any case, the latter does not confer any ability - or obligation - to guide others or conduct ritual.

~ Meido
明道禅徹
The Rinzai Zen Community: http://www.rinzaizen.org
Korinji monastery [臨済宗 • 祖的山光林禅寺]: http://www.korinji.org
Madison Rinzai Zen Community/Ryugen-ji [機山龍源寺]: http://www.madisonrinzaizen.org
http://rinzaiheartland.blogspot.com
User avatar
Meido
Teacher
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI - USA

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Meido on Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:37 pm

Just an addendum: I may have given the impression that only ordained folks teach. There certainly are many lay teachers, empowered by their own masters to guide others in various ways. So one need not necessarily leave home/put on robes to teach others (or, one may decide after leaving home to return to lay life). In Rinzai practice, the honorific Rokoji, literally "Elder Layperson", refers to such non-ordained persons who have received inka shomei from their masters. Depending on specific permissions they've received, they may be empowered to do many things.

~ Meido
明道禅徹
The Rinzai Zen Community: http://www.rinzaizen.org
Korinji monastery [臨済宗 • 祖的山光林禅寺]: http://www.korinji.org
Madison Rinzai Zen Community/Ryugen-ji [機山龍源寺]: http://www.madisonrinzaizen.org
http://rinzaiheartland.blogspot.com
User avatar
Meido
Teacher
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI - USA

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Caodemarte on Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:11 pm

In English, ordination has the very specific meaning of being accepted into holy orders (clergy), to be set apart as clergy, or the ceremony/sacrament/ritual to mark a person as a member of the clergy. I have seen the use of the term "lay ordination" as a translation for the reception of the precepts by a lay person. Not that it matters very much, but this is either a very bad translation or poor use of the term. It grates on the ear because it sounds like an attempt to jazz up something up that needs no jazzing up (how's that sentence for grating on the ear?). Its misuse is annoying at best to those religions where ordination is a very serious sacrament. It is similar to the feeling engendered by a certain Presidential candidate who described Communion, one of holiest sacrament of millions, as " I go to Communion because I enjoy it. I sip a little wine and eat my little cracker (paraphrased)."

Well, enough of my being argumentative. :ninja: No matter the terms used, I trust the substance of the OP's question has been sufficiently answered or at least not even more confused.
Last edited by Caodemarte on Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Caodemarte
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:18 am

Re: Minimal ordination?

Postby Meido on Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:48 pm

Caodemarte wrote:Not that it matters very much, but this is either a very bad translation or poor use of the term.


Does not seem an attempt at translating zaike tokudo, certainly. Agreed it is a poor choice of words.

~ Meido
明道禅徹
The Rinzai Zen Community: http://www.rinzaizen.org
Korinji monastery [臨済宗 • 祖的山光林禅寺]: http://www.korinji.org
Madison Rinzai Zen Community/Ryugen-ji [機山龍源寺]: http://www.madisonrinzaizen.org
http://rinzaiheartland.blogspot.com
User avatar
Meido
Teacher
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:22 am
Location: Madison, WI - USA

Previous

Return to Mahayana Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest