Is this a real Australian law?
Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 24 Oct 2001, and now archived in the Forum Library.
| Kiama |
24 Oct 2001 |
|
I read somewhere the other day that it is illegal in Australia to read Tarot cards, and practice Witchcraft. Does anybody know if this is true? Or if this is an old law that was taken out a few years ago?
Kiama
|
| tarotbear |
25 Oct 2001 |
|
Although this is of no help to you, Kiama, don't laugh- but up until 1992 it was illegal to read tarot cards in the state of Connecticut, USA. That's 1992, NOT 1892 !! It became known as the Connecticut Fortune Telling Law, but it was repealed in 1992.
Up until the mid 1950s there were still anti-witchcraft laws on the books in England. Any of our English friends care to comment?
|
| Solandia |
25 Oct 2001 |
|
Partially true... :)
In Queensland (where I live) there is an old state law from about 1899 banning the practicing of fortunetelling or witchcraft.
Noone has been charged with it in ages, but it hasn't been repealed because there aren't enough supporters for doing so.
~ Solandia
|
| kayne |
26 Oct 2001 |
|
Fear not! We are not that backwards in Australia. I live in Perth, Western Australia and a law like that is certainly not inforced here - I don't think it even exsists... Wicca was the fastest growing religion according to the Census of 1997 in Australia, and Tarot cards are available from most book stores.
K.
|
| Greenman |
26 Oct 2001 |
|
Tarotbear, i didn't know that about Conn.
but i did know that the last Federal law against witchcraft wasn't repealed until 1985! and there is alot of noise in Congress right now about banning witchcraft again. and with this new administration i wouldn't be surprised. i just can't believe we're still discussing this stuff in the 21st century!
|
| Solandia |
26 Oct 2001 |
|
kayne.. Queensland _is_ actually that backwards, unfortunately... :)
~ Solandia
|
| witchywoman |
28 Oct 2001 |
|
I too live in Queensland and although I haven't been arrested for reading tarot cards, the concept isn't exactly embraced by the masses! I'll agree with Solandia and admit the things are a bit 'backwards' up here in Queensland. People I work with who know I read tarot cards call me 'witchy' - hence the nickname! I have some crystals on top of my computer and they are always carrying on about spells and potions. It certainly gets tiring! I'm sure it's not just Queenslanders that deal with this though.
|
| Kiama |
28 Oct 2001 |
|
What Greenman says is really scary! What we really need is some Pagans to be members of Congress. Then maybe we'll have a more balanced view of Witchcraft.
"If 'pro' is the opposite to 'con', is Congress the opposite to Progress?"- I've no idea who said that! Soembody help me out on that one!
Kiama
|
| Greenman |
28 Oct 2001 |
|
might have been George Carlin. great line though!
and good idea too. when are you announcing your candidacy? you've got my vote!
|
| tarotbear |
29 Oct 2001 |
|
The "CT Fortune Telling Law' was not really all that old, not like from the 1600s or anything, but was probably intended to stop those " You have been cursed! Give me $10,000 and I'll remove it for you" kind of psychics. It had a built-in loophole, interestingly enough, that allowed divination 'by a minister' if it was part of their 'religious practice'. As a result, many of us became ministers through the Universal Life Church and had the certificate on the wall, prominently displayed. The fact that the law was repealed in 1992, the 300th anniversary of the Salem Witch Trials was not lost on many.
|
| Kiama |
29 Oct 2001 |
|
Greenman: he he.. Wish I could go for it. Unfortunately, I'm far from the age when I can, and I'm not even an American citizen. Damnit. He he.
Tarotbear: Boy, you sure know your laws! So what's this Universal Life Church? Does it mean you can officate weddings of religions other than Christianity and atheist weddings, such as Handfastings? What about funerals, etc...? How long does it take to become a minister, and what, actually, does this do for your life? I wanna know more!
Kiama
|
| tarotbear |
30 Oct 2001 |
|
Attention everyone interested : Go to WWW.ULC.org and find out about the Universal Life Church.
Yes, I can perform weddings, but every state has different rules, so rather than go to jail, it helps to find out what is the correct procedure for your state. To answer your question simply- the couple marries each other; God, a church, etc, has nothing to do with it - Marriage is a legal procedure! Hopefully in 2002 I will get to officiate for two men I work with who want to have a committment ceremony. Since same-sex marriages are not recognised in our state, they have nothing to lose. I will be honored to be there. Incidently, ANYONE can officiate for a funeral - nothing says a priest or anyone holy has to be there- the dead are dead without your help!
|
| Kiama |
31 Oct 2001 |
|
Wow, I didn't know any of that stuff! Thankyou Tarotbear! And good luck with the same sex wedding thing... I didn't know it wasn't recognised in your state. I'm useless on laws, esp. when they're to do with 'alternative' religions, and homosexuality etc.... All I know is that in England it is illegal to get married outside! As long as it is not registered, you can still go ahead. but you HAVE to be registered inside.... Dunno why. But I didn't know about the funeral offictaion thing.
Thankyou again!
Kiama
|
| Solandia |
01 Nov 2001 |
|
I found the exact text of that law.. I knew I'd seen it somewhere.
'Pretending to exercise witchcraft or tell fortunes', undertaking to tell fortunes, or pretending to find lost items were banned in 1899. (I think most people get around that by not pretending... :)
The legislation is available as a PDF (search for 'witchcraft') at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au if anyone is really interested. :-)
~ Solandia
|
| tarotbear |
01 Nov 2001 |
|
Interesting, Solandia, since the word inclusion of 'pretending' implies that you can 'not pretend' which somehow is legal!
Back to Kiama-in the USA the laws about who can do weddings vary by state. Some ask that the minister preregister with the town clerk before the date of the wedding. here is CT as long as I am a minister in a recognised church (ULC is recognised in CT) I'm free to do weddings anywhere.
As far as the 'outside' thing-- it's a load of crap -- to make sure you have to rent the church, pay the priest and organist, altar servers, etc.! In fact- when someone starts talking about that exact thing- I tell them up front that I can do weddings in their backyards. The local bishop decides what priests are not allowed to do. The church building is a nice place to do pictures, but being in a building does not make you 'more' married! Why does standing in front of a man wearing a dress make it any more 'official' because someone annointed his hands with oil?
|
| Kiama |
01 Nov 2001 |
|
Ah, I've dicovered the answer to that last wuestion of yours, tarotbear.
Apparantly, this law was formed in the 1800's, to try and stop the number of Pagan traditions such as getting married beneath Oak trees, that were still being continued at that time. So, they said that nobody could have a registered wedding outside. Alas, this didn't do much good, cuz people, as soon as they were married, still ran to the nearest Oak anyway!
And here's something else... In Brighton, England, there is a Common Law register, which states that if a couple have lived together for more than 6 months, they are 'technically' married, but kinda not really... This also goes for same-sex relationships. It's just that the 'marriage' is not recognised. But you actually have to put your name down on the register for any of this to work for you.
But same-sex marriages in England, although can be performed by a priest etc etc with all the trimmings, are still not recognised! I thinki it's time that our marriage laws re-defined th eword 'marraige'...
Kiama
|
| tarotbear |
01 Nov 2001 |
|
This should all probably go to 'Chat' and become a new thread...
In Vermont (USA) there are 'civil unions' where a same-sex couple can register, have the whole shindig and everything, but it is only recognised in Vermont and does not 'hold' outside the state. So, as long as the couple stays in Vermont they can get partner benefits, life insurances, etc. One couple I know went to register and the Town Clerk resigned rather than give them a license - which is illegal by law to do.
The problem is that 'marriage' is an archaic term and what is perceived by being 'married' needs a good looking over.
|
| Kiama |
02 Nov 2001 |
|
RESIGNED??!! Blimey, that's taking his job seriously.
I really didn't realise that there were so many laws regarding same-sex marriages in different states.... So basically, if a homosexual couple get hitched in Vermont, they are married, but they go into another state, and they're not! That's gotta be the easiest divorce in modern American society!
Kiama
|
| tarotbear |
03 Nov 2001 |
|
Of course, Kiama, the interesting question is that if you are 'married' under a civil union license, how do you get divorced?
Same-sex marriage is a hot button topic here in the USA- Straight people complain that gays are 'mocking' traditional marriages by seeking this. Since a straight couple can get married - hate each other, indulge in all sorts of physical abuses and still get legal rights when they don't even talk to each other or have restraining orders against each other...why can't two men who lived together for 10 years get medical benefits?
|
| Greenman |
04 Nov 2001 |
|
i thought it very strange when i became ordained through the ULC that i was allowed to do weddings, funerals and baptisms. baptisms?! now i've done five legal handfastings and one memorial service (and as TarotBear says, you need no special document for this). but what could possibly make me qualified to perform a baptism? not that i would even want to.
|
| tarotbear |
04 Nov 2001 |
|
If you are a Catholic, you are qualified to baptize another catholic, believe it or not. All you have to do is pour water over their head and say " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", or whatever it is they call the spirit these days; when I was a child - it was the Holy Ghost!
|
| raeanne |
05 Nov 2001 |
|
Greenman,
You might want to do some research on baptism before you decide you don’t want to do one. Baptism is much, much older than Christianity. Many other religious groups include baptism as a part of their doctrine. It can be a beautiful rite of purification or an initiation/naming ritual. Please don’t limit yourself to just the Christian interpretation of this ceremony.
|
| similia |
12 Feb 2005 |
|
I was cruising through old threads, and I found this beauty about it still being illegal in QLD (my state in Australia) to "pretend" to tell fortunes.
Of course I checked out the legislation, and I'm happy to say the law was repealed in 2000 according to this bill:
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2000,Expl No. 58 of 2000
which can be found by searching the goverment website
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/
Guess thats one less thing I could go to jail for! })
|
| similia |
12 Feb 2005 |
|
grumble, grumble, grumble....
|
| RedMaple |
13 Feb 2005 |
|
Anyone can do a baptism. YOu don't even have to be Christian. If someone asks you to baptize them, you can do so. That's what I learned in catholic school, anyway. Marriage and baptism are the two sacraments that do not need a priest. In marriage, the people marry each other, the priest is just the official witness of the Church.
There is also Baptism of desire, which means if you want to be baptized, and there's no one around to do it, and you die, you get to go to heaven. And there's batism of fire, which means if you are a martyr, but haven't been baptized, you get to go to heaven.
( All these distinctions. Someone had way too much time on their hands, in my opinion. )
BTW, if you're Jewish, everyone goes to Heaven. There is no Hell, only a place of purification that lasts no more than a year, and then there's either a rebirth (yes, it is kosher for Jews to believe in reincarnation,) or you move on to the spirit world (Heaven). For people like Hitler, they just cease to exist. No afterlife at all.
|
| Grizabella |
13 Feb 2005 |
|
Greenman, in Oregon I was told you have to have the sanction of a "real church" in order for your marriages to be legal. Did you have to get the sanction of a church first, or did they ask you for it when you registered the wedding/handfastings?
I think it's the Bush administration's goal to combine church and state and that we may see more laws here restricting tarot in the future if that progresses much further.
So in Australia, it seems to matter more what area you live and that it's not just uniformly illegal in all of Australia to do tarot readings but it is illegal in some areas? I think that's what I've gotten from this thread.
|
| Moongold |
13 Feb 2005 |
|
I have not heard of people being arrested or at risk but if the legislation is there it can always be used. In Victoria, the state where I live, the Government had the chance to remove the references in the Vagrancy Act acouple of years ago but chose not to. At least I remember reading that when researching it the last time this matter arose here.
|
| tarotbear |
14 Feb 2005 |
|
I was cruising through old threads, and I found this beauty about it still being illegal in QLD (my state in Australia) to "pretend" to tell fortunes.
I'll say it's old! Some of this stuff I typed in two years ago! (Today is Feb 14, 2005 in case this thread dies and resurfaces again....)
|
| KathleenC |
14 Feb 2005 |
|
This might be a stupid question, but in a legal context what exactly does "fortune telling" mean?
Here in Queensland we have weather forecasts and horocopes in our newspapers. We can predict the winner of a horserace and bet money on our predictions.
It seems that it is not the fortune telling itself that is the problem, it is the method used.
Or does "fortune telling" include the past and present as well as the future?
And where law and ethics might not be the same, what does it mean in an ethical context?
Where and how do you draw the line deciding what is and isn't fortune telling when you read for others?
|
| TemperanceAngel |
14 Feb 2005 |
|
In the state of Victoria, Australia I still think the law hasn't been changed. I used to find this funny because I read Tarot from a shop owned by a witch and promoting witchcraft.....if you do a Google search for The Age newspaper in Melbourne 2002 you will find a couple of great articles on it :)
|
| tarotbear |
15 Feb 2005 |
|
Interesting, Solandia, since the word inclusion of 'pretending' implies that you can 'not pretend' which somehow is legal!
Back to Kiama-in the USA the laws about who can do weddings vary by state. Some ask that the minister preregister with the town clerk before the date of the wedding. here is CT as long as I am a minister in a recognised church (ULC is recognised in CT) I'm free to do weddings anywhere.
As far as the 'outside' thing-- it's a load of crap -- to make sure you have to rent the church, pay the priest and organist, altar servers, etc.! In fact- when someone starts talking about that exact thing- I tell them up front that I can do weddings in their backyards. The local bishop decides what priests are not allowed to do. The church building is a nice place to do pictures, but being in a building does not make you 'more' married! Why does standing in front of a man wearing a dress make it any more 'official' because someone annointed his hands with oil?
Someone on Aeclectic wrote me about the 'Christian-bashing' I did in this post. I still don't see it. Marriage is a secular institution and not a religious one, and having a priest 'marry you' does not make it any more 'official.'
Or, did they just not like my visual of a man in a dress inside a pretty building?
Either way, the couple marries each other - a church has nothing to do with it and neither do its priests. If you accept that as Christian bashing IMHO, you are being over-reactive and over-sensitive.
|
| Moongold |
16 Feb 2005 |
|
Victoria
Section 13 of the Vagrancy Act 1966 which is entitled 'Fortune Telling and Pretending to Exercise Witchcraft, etc':
Any person who pretends or professes to tell fortunes or uses any subtle craft means or device by palmistry or otherwise to defraud or impose on any other person or pretends to exercise or use any kind of witchcraft sorcery enchantment or conjuration or pretends from his skill or knowledge in any occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner any goods or chattels stolen or lost may be found shall be guilty of an offence.
Begging in the city has become more of a problem in recent years and police have been able to move beggars on by threatening them with prosecution.
At the moment welfare groups in Victoria are again lobbying for the repeal of this 1966 Vagrancy Act on the grounds that begging and poverty are social problems not criminal offences. Traders and police are strongly resisting this however.
Fortune telling and other such things come under the Vagrancy Act and if the whole Act was repealed penalties for these things would no longer apply. Of course, the Government could alter just part of the Act as they did in 2002.
At the moment Victoria has an interesting Attorney General who might just be open to listening again to arguments for law reform. Perhaps lobby groups such as the Pagan Societies and the various wicca and tarot groups could try again. I wrote a letter today to Rob Hulls, the Attorney General.
|
| NightWing |
16 Feb 2005 |
|
Tarotbear; you are of course entitled to your opinions (as are we all, no matter how ill-informed). In this instance you are factually incorrect.
Marriage for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians is a Sacrament, which is of great importance for a serious believer of those paths, REGARDLESS of what the secular or civil authorities may have to say about it.
Christian Church Law regarding Marriage predated and led to the Civil Law on marriage, not the other way around.
In those particular belief systems, it DOES matter whether there is a clergyman officiating or not, regardless of your approval.
Part of respecting other people of other paths is to at least get your facts straight about one of their basic beliefs and practices.
If we here on this forum are going to get sloppy about things that others value as part of their beliefs, why should we expect any respect for our beliefs in, and practice of, Tarot? Or anything else, for that matter.
Ignorance begets Fear, and Fear begets Intolerance...or worse.
If we Tarotists want respect, then let's start by showing some respect for the beliefs of others!
But, hey: this is just my being "over-sensitive" and "over-reactive", ...or whatever.
|
| Red Emma |
16 Feb 2005 |
|
[quote=Lyric]Greenman, in Oregon I was told you have to have the sanction of a "real church" in order for your marriages to be legal. /[quote]
Not true. I've lived in Portland for about 40 years. A couple of summers ago, one of my friends became a minister via the internet. I'm not sure of the specific web site. A couple who are friends of her daughter's specifically wanted her to officiate at their wedding. The bridegroom's family was not happy, but the marriage is legal none-the-less.
Two years ago my son and his wife were married by a woman minister who has evidently been performing this service for several decades for people who do not care for organized religion.
On the whole, Oregon is fairly progressive. We do sometimes slip back a decade or two. Which is why I believe in keeping a wary eye on the political scene.
|
| Grizabella |
16 Feb 2005 |
|
Wow, Red Emma! Thank you so much for the information because I also got a ULC ordination, but then a lady who performed weddings for my two sons told me that she had had to get the backing of an established church before she could legally perform weddings here in Oregon. She said her ULC ordination hadn't been accepted without that. I believed her and what I researched further on it seemed to indicate she'd told the truth, but maybe I should go back and research it again.
Also, this really is an old thread, being from 2001 originally. I hadn't noticed before tarotbear mentioned it.
|
| tarotbear |
16 Feb 2005 |
|
Tarotbear; you are of course entitled to your opinions (as are we all), no matter how ill-informed. In this instance you are factually incorrect.
Marriage for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians is a Sacrament, which is of great importance for a serious believer of those paths, REGARDLESS of what the secular or civil authorities may have to say about it.
Christian Church Law regarding Marriage predated and led to the Civil Law on marriage, not the other way around.
In those particular belief systems, it DOES matter whether there is a clergyman officiating or not, regardless of your approval.
Part of respecting other people of other paths is to at least get your facts straight about one of their basic beliefs and practices.
If we here on this forum are going to get sloppy about things that others value as part of their beliefs, why should we expect any respect for our beliefs in, and practice of, Tarot? Or anything else, for that matter.
Ignorance begets Fear, and Fear begets Intolerance...or worse.
If we Tarotists want respect, then let's start by showing some respect for the beliefs of others!
But, hey: this is just my being "over-sensitive" and "over-reactive", ...or whatever.
Unless you are a 'believer' it's all just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
Tell me - are you observing Lent? Not eating meat and fasting every Friday? Titheing? Not wearing red? Refusing to eat shrimp? If these are tenants of your belief system and you don't follow them are you going to suffer some kind of retribution? Only if you believe in them.
If you are not a believer, none of this makes any difference, nor does it matter who approves nor disapproves it. Man once believed the Sun went around the earth.
Because you said it doesn't make me wrong nor you correct if I don't believe in your system. That is hardly 'bashing.' It is a difference of opinions. "Married' is a state of mind. A far as accusing me if being ill-informed -- PHYSICAN -- HEAL THYSELF!
|
| stella01904 |
16 Feb 2005 |
|
You might want to do some research on baptism before you decide you don’t want to do one. Baptism is much, much older than Christianity. Many other religious groups include baptism as a part of their doctrine. MM ~ Not so fast, there is also a school of thought that baptism both protects and excludes a person from certain types of earth magic. It may need to be avoided or nullifed - check with the Elders of your Trad! Back to the subject at hand, I've been trying to find the Fortune Telling Laws for Texas for a good while now...I can't find anything. Any suggestions? BB, Stella
|
| firemaiden |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
Well, we've gotten off the subject onto the one of marriage, (a concept I have difficulty fathoming...) remember, there is secular authority, and religious authority, there are laws, and there are sacraments... two separate things.
In some countries, a wedding performed ony by a judge, may not be recognised as official by the church, and vice versa - a wedding performed only by the Church may not be recognised as legal by the state.
I don't know about anywhere else, but the weddings I attended but in France following convention consisted of two parts, for this very reason: first there was an official marriage ceremony in the town hall, then the wedding party and everyone assembled marched from the hall directly into the church for the religious ceremony.
|
| Diana |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
firemaiden: Are you saying that there are countries (I'm talking about Western countries) where church marriage is all that is required to get married? What I mean is, that a church marriage is recognised by the state? (Or am I misunderstanding you here.)
|
| firemaiden |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
You are misunderstanding me. I don't know if there are places where a Church marriage is considered legal by the state. All I know about is the weddings I've attended in France, which had two parts. (I just said "in some countries, to cover my butt in case I'm wrong!)
I've never been married, so I don't know what happens in my country :D I guess you have to apply for a marriage lisence, without which the marriage is not legal, or at least... un-lisenced.
As far as the U.S. goes, there could be probably different laws in every state.
|
| skh |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
firemaiden: Are you saying that there are countries (I'm talking about Western countries) where church marriage is all that is required to get married? What I mean is, that a church marriage is recognised by the state? (Or am I misunderstanding you here.)
How I understood the above thread, this is exactly how it is done in the USA. Could someone please confirm?
(For the record: Germany, with its incomplete separation of church and state, is very clear here: only the state can marry people, and the churches aren't supposed to religiously marry people who aren't married legally first. This means most couples have double ceremonies just as firemaiden described: townhall on friday and church on saturday, and of course many don't go to church at all. I don't think anybody bothers what the "heathens" (all these new-agey/earthy new religions) do, as whatever ceremony they follow has no legal implication anyway.)
|
| VisionQuest |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
It seems to me, a religious group should be able to make it's own decisions about who can marry and who can't. However in the United States, a country that prides itself on being the land of the free and all that, it's ridiculous that the country is looking to religious authorities on whether or not gays should be able to marry. In the US, everyone is supposed to be equal. When you are a child growing up here, you are told the fairy tales, and you are raised believing that someday you will marry that special someone and "live happily ever after". Why does that get taken from you because of (don't mean to be offensive here, but...) the genitals of the person you fall in love with? It just doesn't make logical sense to me. It seems to me if you want to protect the institution of marriage, the last thing you would want to do is reserve it for people who merely have opposite genitals, and that's it. In this country, I've heard of underage kids being able to marry if their parent consents, and we all know about the divorce rate, adultery, and domestic abuse in heterosexual marriages, but none of that matters, if you have the correct genitals you can get married. But if you are two women or two men, in long-term committed monogamous relationships, you're just out of luck. It seems odd to me that that is how people who claim to be "defending marriage" want marriage to be defined.
I was raised believing marriage was about love, faith, and commitment, not what's between your legs. Seems people are re-defining marriage these days, but not for the better.
I consider myself to be "married" to my wife, not because a priest said so, not because a piece of paper says so, but because we are married in the ways that matter. And well, that's all that matters lol ;)
Sorry to rant, I'm done now :D
|
| Moongold |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
I am not sure how we got from outmoded laws affecting the practice of witchcraft and divination in Australia or various international marriage requirements but I guess it does not matter.
Marriage in Australia generally requires only one ceremony. You have to fill out a notice of intention to marry and have it to a licensed marriage celebrant (who can be civil or religious) with the appropriate other documentation at least one month before the wedding. The marriage celebrant signs off all the documentation and notifies the Registrar I believe.
I have never been married - just looked it up on the Internet.
Now, you don't HAVE to be married to practice Tarot so where do we go from here?
|
| Diana |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
Now, you don't HAVE to be married to practice Tarot so where do we go from here?
Considering the high divorce rate, and frequently very soon after people get married, maybe if more people used Tarot for divining their future, they would not get married and not screw up their lives and the lives of their kids through messy divorces and ugly domestic scenes.
I think a Tarot reading should be made compulsory for all people who decide to link their lives with someone for life. I wonder how much I could charge people if I became a Licensed Tarot Marriage Reader approved by the State. 300 dollars? Does that sound reasonable?
|
| TemperanceAngel |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
I think a Tarot reading should be made compulsory for all people who decide to link their lives with someone for life. I wonder how much I could charge people if I became a Licensed Tarot Marriage Reader approved by the State. 300 dollars? Does that sound reasonable?
Diana you have hit the jackpot there, great idea :D
But what if Fortune Telling is illegal where you want to do this, would it make the Tarot Reading for the bride and groom illegal, perhaps even a sin. That is depending on what kinda wedding you choose to have :)
In between, I am married, I got married in Scotland. If my husband and I weren't British Citizens the marriage would have been recognised everywhere but in Australia (our country of birth). Go figure, that's the friendly Commonwealth for you.
We were married in a Registrars Office (and old theatre in Leith), our celibrant was a very grumpy Scottish lady who was very hard to understand....we laughed so much after the ceremony, it was so obvious we weren't her favorite bride and groom ever :D
So, are we married, if we didn't really understand our celibrant?
|
| Diana |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
But what if Fortune Telling is illegal where you want to do this, would it make the Tarot Reading for the bride and groom illegal, perhaps even a sin. That is depending on what kinda wedding you choose to have :)
Perhaps we could make marriage illegal. That would probably solve an awful lot of problems.
Okay. When I'm a dictator, along with spinach and ice-hockey, I will make marriage illegal - except for people who read Tarot (of Marseilles, obviously!) (Those who read with other decks will be deported to countries where Fortune Telling is illegal and marriage is not.)
(I can't believe that Fortune Telling is illegal in some places. The mind boggles. But then, the world is pretty mind-boggling.)
|
| Moongold |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
Diana ~
I think you are Napoleon Buonoparte reincarnated :)
|
| Red Emma |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
I also got a ULC ordination, but then a lady who performed weddings for my two sons told me that she had had to get the backing of an established church before she could legally perform weddings here in Oregon.
At a meeting last night of my 'church' I asked our minister about this question. She said that one does have to have such backing. She is ordained by the ULC, but that the ULC has some kind of an annual meeting in the state which --- hmm. It was a lively meeting and I kind of forget the details. I'll ask other ordained friends about it.
Sorry to have led you astray. It does make me wonder how 'established church' is defined in the pertinent law.
By the way, my church is Sister Spirit, a Wiccan based organization which meets weekly and sponsors Pagan themed events of Pagan holidays...Imbolc, Equinoxes, etc. It's the first religious organization I've ever felt at home in.
|
| Red Emma |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
Perhaps we could make marriage illegal. That would probably solve an awful lot of problems.
Diana, you are so right on. And thanks, friend. I really needed a good laugh this morning.
|
| skh |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
So, are we married, if we didn't really understand our celibrant?
As we're completely off topic anyway: I think you might not be. It's not too long ago (late middle ages, I guess, but I'd really need to look that one up) that it was made illegal to marry people against their will. So "consent" was introduced, the bride and groom have to say "yes, I will" now. If you didn't understand the question, you couldn't consent, could you? Did you sign anything? ;)
I'm done sputtering random facts now, sorry, thanks for listening...
|
| tmgrl2 |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
Glad this thread was bumped.
Never saw it before.
We still have the "no fortune telling" law, at least in New York State. At pschic fairs, all of the flyers have the disclaimer: "For entertainment purposes only."
My flyer (I don't do fairs) couches that within a whole statement about ..." for your enchantment, entertainment and enlightenment." I stole it from someone. Not really. I can't remember who used this but I was so thrilled I didn't have to just put "For entertainment purposes only."
Many of our readers who read in shops or privately only don't have any disclaimer. There was a lawsuit about astrology that went up the channel of appeals courts and astrology won out.
Also, re old laws....when I went to school in Southern Indiana in the 1960's, there were two laws on the books, but they were ENFORCED.
Both were for bars...(yes, I tipped a few beers then)
One was: You couldn't order a second drink while the first one was still on the table, even if the glass was empty.
Second: Women were not allowed to be standing up and holding a drink and drinking it. Had to be seated.
If you had two drinks, one in each hand and were standing....whoah! I had one bartender come over and say, "Excuse me, but you have to put one of those drinks on the bar and you'll have to sit while you are drinking."
I was hysterical because I thought they were joking.
Also, I grew up as a minority outside Chicago, in an area where African-American (black) population....(I think we even still said "Negro" then...) was the majority. So many of my neighborhood friends were non-Caucasian.
When I got to Southern Indiana, we had a girl from Kenya in my class. She was with us one night when we went to our local watering hole....they refused to serve her.
I was so shocked...from Chicago to Southern Indiana??
We all walked out and never patronized that establishment again. It was in Terre Haute and there weren't that many places in town we COULD go. It was an all-girls' Catholic college and the motherhouse for the order of nuns that taught us.
I still think that many people do view Tarot reading as witchcraft and fortune telling....and there are certainly readers who advertise that they "predict."
We haven't come a long way, baby....in many ways.
terri
|
| Red Emma |
17 Feb 2005 |
|
The last word about Oregon. I hope.
Okay, my friend who got herself ordained two years ago so she could marry her daughter's friends said this: "When I did it a couple of years ago I didn't even have to register. I became a minister, performed the ceremony, signed and delivered the mrriage certificate. That was it. I called ahead of time and was told that the law had recently been changed. It may have changed again, but I doubt it."
Maybe Oregon will yet enter the 21st century. Many of us keep trying.
|
| stella01904 |
19 Feb 2005 |
|
It seems to me, a religious group should be able to make it's own decisions about who can marry and who can't. However in the United States, a country that prides itself on being the land of the free and all that, it's ridiculous that the country is looking to religious authorities on whether or not gays should be able to marry. In the US, everyone is supposed to be equal. When you are a child growing up here, you are told the fairy tales, and you are raised believing that someday you will marry that special someone and "live happily ever after". Why does that get taken from you because of (don't mean to be offensive here, but...) the genitals of the person you fall in love with? ....I consider myself to be "married" to my wife, not because a priest said so, not because a piece of paper says so, but because we are married in the ways that matter. And well, that's all that matters lol ;)
MM ~ Makes perfect sense. Have you noticed that the USA is teetotally insane nowadays? People getting all hot under the collar over what two men or two women do in the privacy of their home? Iraq? Fear Factor? Ashley Simpson? I wish I could afford to leave! BB, Stella
|
| tarotbear |
19 Feb 2005 |
|
tmgrl2~ those 'drinking' rules for women are thinly-disguised anti-prostitution laws and existed here in CT up until the early 1960s, I believe. Any woman trying to sit at a bar and order a drink was a 'ho.' Women had to sit in booths or they would not get served.
Weren't there (aren't there) similar laws in the UK - that woman have to sit in 'snugs' (booths with little doors) and not at a bar?
|
| Moongold |
19 Feb 2005 |
|
tmgrl2~ those 'drinking' rules for women are thinly-disguised anti-prostitution laws and existed here in CT up until the early 1960s, I believe. Any woman trying to sit at a bar and order a drink was a 'ho.' Women had to sit in booths or they would not get served.
Weren't there (aren't there) similar laws in the UK - that woman have to sit in 'snugs' (booths with little doors) and not at a bar?
Hehe...
It was only in the 70's or early 80's that women in Australia were actually allowed into bars. They used to have to drink in the "lounge" before then.
|
| tmgrl2 |
19 Feb 2005 |
|
tmgrl2~ those 'drinking' rules for women are thinly-disguised anti-prostitution laws and existed here in CT up until the early 1960s, I believe. Any woman trying to sit at a bar and order a drink was a 'ho.' Women had to sit in booths or they would not get served.
You gotta love it, right? Those weren't the days!
Don't get me started on what went on in the 60s....
I remember coming back from my honeymoon (first husband was an Engineer in Charge at a major TV station in Chicago) and someone was sitting at my desk.
Demoted to typing pool from executive secretary...sorry, can't work in same department as husband. Pool was all that was open.
Then an opening came up in Radio sales...I applied...Whoops...I was actually told:
"Sorry. You are a potential "mother."
Another woman, single, got the job, married 9 months later, got pregnant and was gone within a year.
I never had children (Couldn't)
That's when I decided to get a profession or two where I could be more or less my own "boss."\
Those weren't the days all right...
terri
|
| stella01904 |
23 Feb 2005 |
|
MM ~ I tried to get an apartment in Columbus, TX in 1982 and was actually told "We don't rent to single women!" BB, Stella
|
| Moongold |
23 Feb 2005 |
|
This is why many countries have anti-discrimination legislation. Does the US have the same at Federal and State levels?
|
| stella01904 |
24 Feb 2005 |
|
MM ~ I've never researched it with a fine tooth comb. I do know that things are MUCH better in some states than others, although they all have some kinds of laws on the books. BB, Stella
|
| tarotbear |
24 Feb 2005 |
|
Here in the states, the general idea is that if there is a Federal law about something (there must be handicapped parking spaces near an entrance, no smoking in bars), then the states cannot make laws that are contrary to the federal law (you can smoke in a bar in Mississippi but not Georgia). This is why when last year the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot tell two adults what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their bedroom, all those anti-sodomy laws where a married hetrosexual couple having sex in anything but 'missionary position' could be arrested, were now illegal and had to be removed. {Yes, there were states that said 'woman on top' was a sexual perversion and you could be arrested.}
States do have their 'Blue laws' or 'Green laws' . For instance, in Massachusetts, on a Sunday you cannot be served the menus, much less the food before noon. You can come into a restaurant and sit down and have a coffee, but they cannot take your food order before noon. Shops close at 5 p.m. on Sundays. These are controlled by laws of the Commonwealth. The Federal Government cannot make a rule that says you 'must stay open until 8 p.m.'
|
| tmgrl2 |
24 Feb 2005 |
|
Good points, tarotbear!
I used to work for the New York State Education Department monitoring special education regulations and law for Long Island.
Federal Law is written first, then the state writes "regulations" driven by the law...so they have some leeway in terms of how they carry out the Federal Law through regulations, but the regulations cannot be contrary to the Federal Law...in this case IDEA...Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Crazy stuff.
terri
|
| stella01904 |
24 Feb 2005 |
|
MM ~ True, Tarotbear, states can't override federal law! But it can be very hard to get federal laws enforced in a state like Texas, as opposed to Massachusetts. I do miss Massachusetts! When I thought there was something not right at work, I could get on the phone and call the Attorney Generals Office - Labor Division and find out if I had any rights, and they'd always tell me! In Texas the A.G. office doesn't handle that - you have to call Texas Workforce, which is the Unemployment office! And they always say you can't do anything about it, whether you can or not. They don't want you making waves, they might have to pay unemployment. The store where I work now has had no heat for the last two years. The company has been too cheap and stingy to fix it. Texas Workforce said they don't have to fix anything. But they will be getting it fixed very soon - I saw a letter from OSHA posted in the office!!! Haha!!! Why didn't I think of that? BB, Stella
|
| Moongold |
24 Feb 2005 |
|
Australia has a similar system in some ways. Federal law overides state law but we are much smaller population wise than the US.
However the Commonwealth and the States all have responsibilities defined by the constitution, convention and agreement.
The laws about fortune telling et al are state laws, and Goverments of any ilk are always reluctant to appeal existing legislation. It's very expensive to do that for a start and generally why would you bother?
By way of example in Victoria men who murdered their wives or girl friends frequently excaped murder convictions on the grounds of "provocation" until just recently. This meant essentially that e murdered women somehow became the villains in these cases because of claims that they provoked their own murders. By the time trials were finished the reputation of the murdered women had been dragged through the mud and they, because dead, were unable to defend themselves. Men were acquitted and given jail terms for the much lesser crime of manslaughter and often only spent a few years in jail. After a 30 year intense campaign that legislation was changed just recently after yet another horrible case and much public pressure.
So our Government is NOT going to change Vagrancy legislation to remove the possibility of fortune tellers and tarot readers being prosecuted in the near future. To be honest I wonder how important it really is in the scale of things. There are so many other things which need change and divination rights are not high on any one's priority lists.
|
The Is this a real Australian law? thread was originally posted on 24 Oct 2001 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.
|
