Isn't marriage a religious concept?

[ringmastery]

Why don't they call all civil marriages for homosexual and heterosexual persons "civil unions." And leave marriages to the domain of religious institutions.

I think too much is made of the word "marriage." As long as all the legal rights are the same for civil unions and religious marriages, who cares what it's called?

[aquart]

1. Marriage was a civil contract. Always.

Until the Catholic Church made it a sacrament.

[Padraig18]

2. It still is a civil contract.

It's why you need a license.

[H2O Man]

29. simply not true

Your definition leaves out the majority of the people who have ever lived on this planet, and is based on the practices of a tiny minority from European background. I was married by a tribal leader. I do not need "the state" to tell me that I'm married. However, I am legally married in all 50 states! And all of my ancestors were married long before the state was conceived!

[truthspeaker]

61. and that's civil

In this case the representative of your society was the tribal leader, rather than "the state", since your society existed long before the concept of a nation-state was introduced to it.

[AP]

3. That's my argument.

Furthermore, we spend a lot of time and money in our society to promote the fiction that some sort of ceremony is required to make official what a registration should do alone.

What do we pay in our society in terms of actual tax money and opportunity cost to support the justice of the peace BS?

Another thing to remember is that people get married in a church don't get all the legal rights and burdens of marriage unless they register it with the government.

I think our society should treat marriage as a spiritual and religious event, and registration as a material-legal event. You don't have to do both if you don't want to, and the government shouldn't be able to tell any church whom they can marry, and churches shouldn't be able to tell the government whom they can confer legal rights upon.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Yes and no

Marriages are performed by clergy with statutory authority given to them by the states but a marriage by the clergy without state authority (a license) is not a legal marriage. No church or any religious order has the authority to marry anyone without the permission of the government.

[eaprez]

6. BUT......not all marriages

...are performed by members of clergy. So how does 'religion' figure into marriage in that instance?

[Jersey Devil]

10. marriage by clergy is simply an accomodation given to

religious groups. Clergy is in effect, an assistant justice of the peace, a substitute for whoever is permitted by law to perform marriages in that state.

[eaprez]

19. my point is they are not

ordained necessarily and so its not a religious ceremony.

[AP]

I don't think that's true. But I'm not sure. I don't think the government

can tell any church whom the can marry.

That, I believe, was the point of DOMA. Republicans realized that Churches could marry anyone they pleased, and that would create pressure on the government to start recognizing those marriages.

Rather than tell the churches whom they can marry, they created a federal definition of marriage (man + woman) and said that states don't have to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

States don't regulate churches. That's the whole point of the separation of church and state. There's no state-licensing of churches. There are state and federal laws defining religion for tax purposes, however. But that is not the same thing as telling churches what they can believe.

[Jersey Devil]

15. But it is a fact that clergy cannot marry anyone without a license

DOMA had nothing to do with that. Any religious order that wants to can perform a marriage between a man and a woman or gays and lesbians any time it wants provided that the religious order permits it. But such a "marriage" is not legal anywhere except in the state where it is performed with a state issued license.

The whole purpose of DOMA was to skirt the Constitution's full faith and credit clause which requires the states to honor the laws of other states in most cases. DOMA says that any state that does not recognize gay and lesbian marriage does not have to legally recognize a marriage in a state where it is performed legally despite full faith and credit. There is a big question in my mind about the constitutionality of DOMA.

[AP]

24. You have it mixed up. Any church can marry anyone. But a marriage isn't

recognized by the government unless you (1) have a licence and (2) complete the ceremony, whether religious or civil.

The states can make laws about to whom they'll grant licences. However, I highly doubt that any state tells its churches to whom they can't and can't marry.

[Jersey Devil]

27. Well, perhaps I could have said it better

I was attempting to say the same thing though I didn't do it very clearly.

[AP]

37. There are huge differences between what you and I were saying

which are improtant in the context of this debate.

It's a separation of church and state issue.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Uh oh

I've known ministers who have performed wedding ceremonies without them being legal. And what about people who are already legally married and simply want to renew their vows? My husband and I were legally married in '89, but waited until '90 to have our spiritual ceremony (had to wait until his spiritual teacher could make it to where we were living).

I'm an ordained minister myself, registered with the state. If people ask me to perform a marriage ceremony, I'll do it. If they have a paper for me to sign at the end, I'll sign it, but if they don't, I'm not going to sweat things.

[Jersey Devil]

23. Nothing says you can't perform a marriage but

if there is no civil license it is not a legal marriage.

Here's and example. If you need to show your marriage certificate to the Div of Motor Vehicles in NJ for ID purposes under the Patriot Act (as is required in cases where women who are married want a license with their married name rather than the name on their birth certificate) it better be the civil certificate of marriage because they will not accept one from a church.

[SharonAnn]

20. In many countries, the only legalmarriage is the civil one.

The religious one is done later for religious reasons.

In the last couple of years we've been to weddings in Italy and Chile. Both had civil weddings a day before the religious one. Religious leaders are not allowed to legitimize/validate a marriage in the eyes of the civil governments.

[Jersey Devil]

25. Yes, but the difference here is that in most (if not all) states

there are laws that say that clergy can perform legal marriages as agents of the state. In other words, they become "judge or JP for a day". Otherwise they have no authority whatsoever to legalize a marriage any more than I could if I married someone on my boat as Captain.

[AP]

55. I don't think that's an accurate characterization.

Every state in the nation requires a civil registration and a ceremony for a marriage.

They provide the JP as an alternative to a religious ceremony. I have no idea, but I suspect the JoP marriage entered the books in the mid 1800s, or maybe even later.

It's not that the church is deputized as an agent of the state. It's that the JoP is the secular alternative to the church.

Liberals should be outraged by the charade. Why isn't it enough to just register? Why do you need any kind of ceremony?

This is the only area of the law that looks to the church for a nod to let them confer rights.

When you die, the gov't doesn't look to the church. It doesn't when you're born or when you pay taxes or when you move from state to state or when you enter into any other kind of contract. Why should it have anything to say about with whom you can enter into legal relationships.

[LiberalFighter]

51. In Germany...

marriages were only performed and recorded by the minister until 1871. After 1871 it was also required to be file with the local governmental authority.

Same for births and deaths.

[AP]

56. This is important. See, governments evolved family law around

church doctrine.

Everyone appreciates that we've gotten the church out of the business of triggering legal rights in relationship to births and deaths. Why doesn't anyone want to take the next logical step: getting it out of marriage?

Don't you all see that this is what's coming? Don't you see that the Republicans are trying to forestall it by framing the debate in terms of marriage and family and religioun, rather than in the same terms I'm presuming that argued the church out of birth registrations and declarations of death.

[eaprez]

5. Please articulate for me

what the difference is between "civil union" and "gay marriage". Because if the marriage part is simply a religious issue then the churches should handle it according to their own doctrine. When someone says they support "civil unions" but not "gay marriage"...what do they mean as far as the law goes?

[mdguss]

9. I'm on the fence about civil unions:

But a civil union I would support would include:

The right to visit each other during major health crisis.

The right to file a joint tax return.

Estate rights in terms of one partner dying before another.

Perhaps domestic partner benefits--so long as churches are not forced to provide them.

[AP]

11. The right wing argument is that the marriage is the thing.

They want the argument to be about marriage.

The real liberal argument isn't that gays should be incorporated into the Republican's conservative definition of 'family.'

It's that any two people, regardless of sex, should be able to pair up and receive the rights the government confers on people pairing up.

Two people working together are a more potent force against the power of the powerful (especially in the context of employment, but also in terms of accumulating wealth in the form of home ownership and reducing expenses).

The Republicans are afraid of the liberalizing and progressivizing impact of a much easier way to pair up and enjoy legal rights.

In fact, how many HETEROSEXUAL friends do you have who don't believe in the religious aspects of marriage and therefore don't do it, thus foregoing all the other legal, liberalizing, wealth-accumulating effects of pairing up as a team? They're crazy not to take advantage of the legal rights, but they just don't believe in the religious part of it.

Those people are also the targets of Republicans.

It would be GREAT if we could separate the legal-material-"partnering-up" elements of marriage from the religious-spiritual aspects and then not require people to both if they don't want to. And the government-rights aspects shouldn't be applied in a way that discriminates against anyone for any reason.

[eaprez]

14. Maybe you're on to something!

Perhaps they frame it as "marriage" rather than civil union for the precise reason that they will have a population of unmarried hetrosexuals who live together clammoring for the same rights under the law as those who get married in a church.

Then again, one doesn't have to get married in a church - if that's the only thing keeping them from marrying they can get married by a judge or something and leave religion out of it.

[AP]

34. I know I'm on to something, and that it's very different from the way the

corporatocracy wants this issue framed.

And I'm on a crusade here at DU to disseminate a different framing of the argument.

So tell all your friends.

And you're exactly right about the Republicans using this to prevent hetetrosexuals from joining up and being more efficient and effective competitors to the interests trying to turn them into wage slaves.

And you don't really leave religion out of it with the JoP civil ceremony. The idea with those is that you get the government version of marriage.

There should simply be a registration process that's fast and simple ... exactly like the way a corporation incorporates or a partnership registers their partnership.

[tishaLA]

31. My heterosexual friends who dislike the religious

aspects of marriage can get married by Justices of the Peace instead of priests/rabbis/ministers. And they can still enjoy all the benefits they want.

If they choose to remain UNMARRIED, for whatever reason, they are still able to exercise that choice. LGBT people cannot exercise that choice, so it's an asymmetrical situation.

[AP]

35. Get rid of the quasi-religious JoP ceremony too.

Leave the reg part to gov't and the religious part to the churches. There's no reason two people should have to go through that BS just to join-up and get legal rights.

[tishaLA]

38. That's exactly as it is now

JoP is purely civil. Religious is a civil and sacred recognition. Because of civil laws, however, LGBT people are firbidden from marrying in either place.

It is not the same as heterosexuals who choose not to marry. And it is not about "separating" the religious from the secular, when we can in fact we can separate them now by going to a JoP.

[AP]

39. Why isn't the registration enough?

Because the government pretends that the ceremony confers some sort of importance -- a substitute for religioun -- which prevents lots of people from getting one.

If it were just a registration process, more people would do it, and they'd be wealthier and have easier lives, and be able to accumulate wealth and share it with each other and protect it from others more efficiently.

Republicans don't want that. They want to talk about "marriage."

It's time to get marriage out of government.

[tishaLA]

41. But you forget:

people who don't get one--provided they want to enter a heterosexual contract--don't do it because they CHOOSE not to. LGBT people don't have that option.

Perhaps it is time to get marriage out of givernment--I actually believe that is right--but there is no way heteroseuxals are going to forego their special rights. When they do, queers will stop bitching about being second class citizens.

[AP]

43. I'm not sure if you're addressing anything I'm arguing.

I'm saying that we should take out all the sand in the oil, you know. Take out religion and marriage from the legal-material relationship of two people joining up. The religious connotations of marriage (even in JoP civil ceremonies) is what's keeping lots of heterosexuals from getting married. And many of them aren't lawyers, so they don't appreciate the 1000s of dollars of benefits they're foregoing by not getting married. The frictiong for same-sex couples is as you say, but the point is still, you get the religion part of civil unions, then you remove a lot of friction for everyone, and you help people who work for a living accumulate more power, which is what being a liberal is all about.

[tishaLA]

33. Civil Unions vs. marriage

Civil unions do not have to be recognized in other states, as marriages would (see: full faith and credit clause of the Constitution).

Civil unions limit federal protections to married couples, like immigration benefits, federal taxes, etc.

Marriage is not "simply a religious" issue--if it were, the state could not intervene. It is instead a civil issue that involves a wealth of federal codes, benefits, etc.

[AP]

36. Full Faith and Credit applies to way more than marriages, and would apply

to civil unions).

See the constitution. The FFC clause is NOT limited to family law.

[tishaLA]

40. Never said it was "limited" to marriage

it is one of the ways full faith and credit works in marriage law.

How do we KNOW it would apply to civil unions? Some politicians who say they favor equal rights for LGBT folks say they don't want states to have to recognize the choices of other states in these matters. The only way to understand a position like that is to say they want to circumvent the full faith and credit clause with a magical. heretofore unknown formulation where binding contracts are not transferable across state lines.

[AP]

42. It would apply to civil unions because the constitution says so.

A state would deny FFC to a same sex couple. The couple would challenge it in the courts. The state would argue that there is a good reason that same-sex couples are discriminated against: we protect morality. The Supreme Court would eventually decide that we took religioun out of the equation and that we have separated marriage and religious from rights conferred by "partnership" and that CUs are about material and legal relationships and not about 'morality.' And they'd be recognized.

By insisting on the overlap of religioun and law (marriages, as they are today) you aren't effectively eliminating the right wing legal arguments for discriminating against same-sex couples (ie, morality or whatever BS they'd come up with).

[AP]

44. kick. Any response?

[tishaLA]

45. Sorry. I was busy.

Response:

Civil unions and marriage cannot be viewed the same juridically for a number of reasons. States typically write the statutes so they are operative within the state, but the larger problem is that there are no federal protections conferred upon people who have civil unions. For example, there are no federal tax benefits that come with a civil union, nor are there any immigration benefits conferred upon a couple because of it. This is precisely because the contractual basis of civil unions legislation is carefully proscribed.

Let's look at the best example of this: California, whose civil unions laws is written as a "rights and responsibilities" contract. In this, it offers guarantees to couples--joint state taxes, medical issues, etc. are all covered--and it requires couples to accept responsibility, as heterosexual couples do, in matters of indebtedness and other financial/civil responsibilities. Even with this, however, an LGBT couple does not have the same rights federally. And CA is the most progressive.

MOST states have very informal codifications that don't even require financial responsibility for partners or allow them to benefit from the contract vis-a-vis tax benefits, etc.

Finally, you keep repeating that marriage is both sacred and secular, but that is simply NOT the case. Marriage can be PURELY secular if the couple chooses to enact the contract that way. Remember: marriage is only sacred AT ITS INCEPTION and then only IF THE COUPLE WISHES IT. After its inception, marriage is strictly secular insofar as the benefits it confers are not primarily or secondarily religious ones, but those that are sanctioned by the state and federal government.

Sorry to be so verbose.

[AP]

46. But what I'm arguing is from higher up. I'm arguing that we should

separate church/marriage from registration/rights conferred.

It should be enought just to register, without any ceremony.

You're just saying that it isn't enough because marriage is something special, and that you want to incorporate more people into marriage.

I'm saying, change the definition of marriage. More people will then do it, and by removing the religious part you remove any possible legal argument for discrimination.

Marriage isn't purely secular after marriage. It's alwasy a spiritual relationship. The problem is that gov't borrows from religioun the trigger for granting the legal rights, with the sham "civil" equivalent to solve the church-state problem. I say go the full distance to solve the church-state problem. Get governments out of the marriage business and into the conferring of rights between to people who decide to do so business.

It could be done quickly. First you institute a civil union equivalent which statutes deam as the fully equivalent of marriage. Next you have many heterosexuals applying for it. Then you have states switching over completely, abandoing laws which require ceremony+registration to get married.

[tishaLA]

47. Not what I'm saying at all

taking vows away from a religious institution is hardly anything more than registering--it is the equivalent of swearing on a Bible. (And, of course, some religious ceremonies don't require clergy to perform ceremonies, i.e., Quakers.)

Unless a couple chooses to make their marriage sacred after the ceremony, it has NO content other than the contractual secular one. To claim a relationship is "spiritual" is not to say it is religious, nor is that understanding of marriage something all married couples believe in (I would say it is a kind of ideological colonialism, really). We still have marriages of convenience, dynastic marriages, and forced marriage; many people of all classes are in these relationships.

Gov'ts should be out of the marriage business, but only when heterosexuals are willing to disavow all the benefits that come with marriage. Until then. let queers have the same rights and stop looking for ways out of giving queers the same rights non-queers already have.

[AP]

52. There are two kinds of benefits of marriage: material and spiritual.

Many of the material benefits are due to the government mediating married people's relationships between each others and between them and third parties through the laws.

What I'm saying is leave the spiritual part to the church, and the material part to the goverment.

You say that "heterosexuals" should have to disavow the benefits coming with marriage for you to accept the government exiting the marriage business.

I'm saying that the MATERIAL benefits should be conferred on everyone who signs up for them, regardless of whether the engage in some ceremony. The spiritual benefits can be conferred by the church, or by whatever belief-system non-governmental body you chose.

Would you rather have heterosexuals disavow those benefits, or would you rather have those benefits conferred on even more people, gay, straight or whatever, who chose to take on whole package (benefits and burdens) with another person?

I can tell you the Republicans would rather have people who work for a living have a HARDER time standing up to the corporatocracy, and they probably would want to do it your way before they did it my way. However, they wouldn't do it because they wouldn't want to be anti-family. My way pulls out the whole family/morality rug out from under their feet, and it makes sense. It's a separation of church and state.

[LeahMira]

68. Keep it simplest...

Then you have states switching over completely, abandoing laws which require ceremony+registration to get married.

Well, as I see it, the "ceremony" in front of the judge is just a way for the judge to be sure that everyone involved is entering into the contract willingly and the contract isn't removing anyone else's rights without their agreement.

For instance, when you adopt a child you have to go to Family Court and have the judge approve the adoption after s/he examines all the paperwork ... home study, relinquishment, and etc. ... and hears whatever testimony from social workers or lawyers, etc.

So going in front of a Justice of the Peace to be married is sort of like that.

I suppose you could just register a marriage, like you just register a property transfer when you buy a house. But it seems to me that would involve writing a bunch of new laws when the simplest thing to do would be to write one law that extends the right to marry specifically to people who are homosexual, or else, maybe better, a law that forbids all discrimination based on sexual preference.

The reason is that whenever existing laws are tweaked, there's some scoundrel who is going to appeal some language to try to undermine the intent of that law. Simply forbidding discrimination would extend rights to people who are homosexual without creating a separate category, and if there was some scoundrel trying to undermine things he couldn't do it so easily without also undermining the rights of heterosexual couples.

[AP]

71. I think that's letting religion into your head just a little too much.

How many times has a JoP ever found that someone got a marriange license unwillingly, which was only discovered once they voluntarily showed up for the ceremony where the unwillingness became obvious?

Never.

If you think that a JoP is the equivalent of the judge in an adoption proceeding (for the sake of argument -- I disagree with this), I think you'd want to get rid for that reason. If anyone has the power of a judge, I'd only want them to excersize that power in a court of law, where the proper appeals process is in place. Let's not give people the power of judges in contexts that don't have the safeguards of the civil court system (eg, recorded proceedings and clear appeals process).

JoPs are a silly waste of money and time and serves no purpose except for standing in as a pseudo-religious solemnifying charade.

Let's take marriage apart and leave the spiritual part to the chuch and the material-legal part to the government. And to sign up for the legal rights conferred, it shouldn't be any harder than incorporating a business. Ie, you should be able to do it over the internet.

We should be making it EASIER for two people to engage in the relationship which makes it easier for you to accumulate and protect economic and political power, and not harder. And we should take the religious stigma out of it so that more people do it.

[Cannikin]

7. And whats so hard about just calling it a marriage? Its just semantics.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


The only difference that I can see are the words 'recognized by law'. And I see no references to religion at all.

http://www.m-w.com/

[HFishbine]

8. HOT OFF THE PRESSES: We can win standing up for what's right

Finally, in a fascinating result that speaks to the difficulties the GOP may have using gay marriage as a wedge issue, while voters overall say they do not support a law allowing same sex civil unions (53 percent to 40 percent), independents narrowly support such a law (49 percent to 43 percent).

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9892

[AP]

13. What's right is separating church from state. It will make a difference

in more people's lives.

Like I said, there are lots of opposite-sex couples who don't get married (to their great political and economic detriment) because they don't believe in the religious aspects of marriage (which both churches and "justices of the peace" civil ceremonies confer).

If "marriage" were simply a civil registration of status (conferring rights and burdens) more people, gay and straight, would do it and benefit from it.

[Cannikin]

12. Oh, and just for reference...my search for 'Civil Union'

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for civil union:
1. civilianize
2. civilians
3. civilian
4. civilizing
5. civilianizes
6. civilization
7. civility
8. sauvignon
9. civilising
10. civilities

http://www.m-w.com/

[eaprez]

17. I thought Civil Union was two words?

Like in family unit, marital bliss, happily ever after :) I am of course just teasing.

[West Coast Democrat]

16. I don't see why it should have anything to do with religion

marriage is a vow between two people; a vow between two people and their god is something else.

[MercutioATC]

21. I agree, but I've brought this issue up before here with a less than

friendly reception.

Personally, I'm for removing all legal status from "marriage" and letting religions have it. Want legal recognition? Get a civil union. Hell, we already have to get a marriage license (the priest isn't enough by himself). Just make it a seprate process.

Seems like that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Religions could decide what restrictions they wanted to put on "marriage" and all couples could have equal legal status.

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. Yes. However it is also a state-ercognized contract, from which

proceeds the body of laws pertaining to parental rights, property, inheritance, taxes, and more.

Marriage as a religious sacrament has nothing to do with the state, any more than baptism or confirmation or bar mitvahs or quinceaneras.

[Alopenia]

26. God trumps all things secular particularly in the sacrament of marriage

Whatever God has joined together, let no man put asunder

[roughsatori]

28. I hope you forgot your sarcasm brackets

[Terwilliger]

80. Do you read Lisa Whelchel?

You'd probably LOVE her.

[funky_bug]

30. Answer me this, then

I don't go to church at all, but my best friend and his partner go every Sunday. So how come I can be "married" by a minister and recognized as a married person, but they can't?

Until you can justify that one, then you can't begin to answer the question of why the terminology is so wrong.

[maxr4clark]

32. What matters is

what words are used in the laws. If a statute uses the word "spouse", does that mean someone you're related to through marriage, or through civil union? Same issue with "husband or wife", "married couple", and all the different versions of it.

I understand this issue because I got divorced a while back. In Washington state, the laws have changed from using the term "custody" about children to "parenting functions" and "parenting plan" and such. But since some federal laws still contain the word "custody" or "custodian", either my ex-wife or I had to be designated as the "custodian" of the children, for the purpose of those laws. It seems like a little thing, but I can tell you, the emotional impact of being the one that wasn't considered the "custodian" of the children was enormous.

I think the candidates are completely right to say that it is the legal rights that are the important thing. I think the decision by the MA Supreme Court, though, is correct: that without full fledged marriage, i.e. using precisely the same terminology in the law, the rights will not be the same.

[arwalden]

48. Because It's Not Equal

Are you playing devil's advocate? Or is this how you really feel? I hope you really don't feel this way.

For those who retort with the condescending question "who cares what it's called"... my response is "YEAH! Why do *you* care what it's called, pal?"

How exactly does my happiness interfere with yours? How does providing me with the same legal benefits and protections afforded to our hetero counterparts (particularly in time of family crisis)... how does that interfere with YOUR LIFE?

How does my relationship... my legal marriage... how does it dilute yours?

You're right... too much is being made over the word "marriage" and it's the myopic zealot hate-driven fundies who are making too much over it.

If their individual churches don't want to perform or recognize gay marriages, fine. I care not one iota. I don't want a "HOLY Marriage" (although some will). I just want a LEGAL marriage that's totally EQUAL.

-- Allen

[tishaLA]

49. Thanks Allen

very well said.

[AP]

57. It's not separation between church and state either.

This is the last government activity in which the church still has its fingers. It's going to be gone just like it was removed from every other relationship between people, piece by piece over the last few centuries.

[LiberalFighter]

50. Assignment for everyone

Find out where birth/marriage/death records are filed in the courthouse.

Go through the records from the first marriage record filed to the last picking one about every 20 or 25 years.

Look at the record and determine what options was available to complete regarding the type of marriage.

Here is a sample of the responses:

Religous Lutheran
Ch of St Paul Scott Wis
Ch of St Paul
-
Religous
Civil
Minister of the Gospel
Lutheran Ch
-
R E Ceremony
Judicial
Luth Ch.
Ecclesiastical
Religous
Religous
Presbyterian
Methodist Epis Ch.
Religous
Catholic Church
Civil
Lutheran Church
Evangelical Church
Ritual M E Church
?? Advent Christian

Statute
Copulation of the Minister
Copulation
Copulation

Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Legal
Religous
Religous

[BurtWorm]

53. You mean atheists can't get married?

:shrug:

(That would mean my wife and I are living in sin!)

[arwalden]

77. Do You Have (Or Plan On Having) Children?

The purpose of marriage (according to some) is to procreate. I'm guessing childless couples shouldn't have their marriages recognised either.

-- Allen


(You and your wife... "Atheists...living in sin" --- SNARF! That's a good one. I'll have to remember to use it sometime.)

[goodhue]

54. no

Its a legal concept recognized by the state.
I'm married and religion has nothing to do with it.

[SW FL Dem]

58. You can get "married" by a judge

Please tell me how that is religious? To me, marriage is a legal recognition of a commitment between two people who love each other and want to live together as a family. For the record, I am a moderate dem, 40 something, married stay at home mom.

[AP]

59. because it's a symbolic secular substitute for the religious marriage.

Why do you need any kind of ceremony? Why isn't registration enough?

See those things you listed -- love, family. Why is the government in the business of deeming relationships to be full of those things. The government confers rights and mediates relationships. It can't tell you what to feel.

Your church can tell you what to feel. Or you can have your own belief system. If you want to tell someone you love them through marriage, just tell them, or go show it in a church.

If you want to pass your assets to each other on death tax free, or if you want to share joint ownership of all property acquired while together with someone else without having to have your name on every contract for purchase, then go to the government and register your intention to do so.

Do you see how those are two different things? It used to be that the church conferred legal relationships between people (because everyone was deemed a member). Now governments do, and it's silly that they stilll look to churches for the nod that it's OK to do so.

[truthspeaker]

63. it's not a "substitute" it is marriage

A civil contract between a man and a woman (historically, between their parents).

In the US, authority is given by the government to clergy to act as agents for the government.

In most states no ceremony is required. You sign, your fiance signs, the judge signs, maybe a couple witnesses, and your done. The marriage is the signing of the paper. Everything else is just added on for the enjoyment of the couples and/or their families.

[AP]

64. That is not accurate. Every state in the union requires a

ceremony plus a registration. The JoP thing is a substitute for a religious ceremony.

Name one state that allows no ceremony.

They all require you to get a license and have some kind of ceremony. If some states make the ceremony relatively easy, it's still a fact that getting the license isn't enogh.

Judges are busy people we pay to do more important things than act as fake-preists giving "marriages" a patina of significance. Why are we wasting their time and our tax money for this charade? I know it's not like getting a fishing license, but froming a partnership or starting a business is a major decision in people's lives, and the government makes that as EASY as possible (you can do it on the internet now).

It used to be that Churces had 100% control of marriages. So it's not right to say that government suddenly coopted marriage and now draft churches into their service. No clergy acts as an agent of the gov't. The gov't looks to the church to perform their ceremony part, but allow secular ceremonies, but there still has to be a ceremony. Impressing the church into government service would be an even more stark violation of the separation of church and state.

This is the second time I've seen this mischaracterization today, and I challenge you to support the logic of that characterization. The government doesn't license churches, and they don't legislate what constitutes a valide ceremony. They just say that you need a ceremony.

Calling this an agency relationship, I believe, is a tremendous mischaracterization, and I just wonder what you're basing it upon.

No state allows you to walk into the registrar, fill out a form, and walk out married. They all require some kind of ceremony to sublimate the vows or whatever you want to call it. It's kind of absurd. Is there any other contract or activity recognized by law which needs the church or some secular stand-in to make it solemn? No.

[Bridget Burke]

69. Texas doesn't.

We still have common law marriage here. There are legal requirements, but a marriage license is not one of them.

One couple I know modeled their ceremony after the one Chris performed when he married Adam & Eve (Northern Exposure). It wasn't a religious ceremeony at all, but an excuse for a party.

They're still together.

[AP]

72. Are you sure about that? Furthermore, this is what I'm arguing: lots

of people don't get married because of the stigma of the religious implications. Instead they behave in the way that produces things like common law marriages.

Common law marriage isn't the same thing as ceremony+reg marriage -- there is doubt about it, you have to meet legal tests, sometimes you'd have to get a legal determination (I'm guessing -- I've never lived in a CLM jurisdiction and I'm not sure of all the rules, but I suspect that they're not always clear, and often create legal hassles).

If we took out the religious implications of marriage, more people of all sexualities would sign on for these rights, and it would avoid problems like CLM.

[Bridget Burke]

73. Yes. I'm sure about that.

Here's one of the many sites with information on Common Law Marriage. Apparently the new legal term in Texas is "informal marriage"

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

There can be legal hassles, just as there are in "regular" marriages. Also, when a common-law couple wants a divorce, they need to go through the regular channels.

[AP]

75. Here are the rules for CLM:

Among those states that permit a common-law marriage to be contracted, the elements of a common-law marriage vary slightly from state to state. The indispensable elements are (1) cohabitation and (2) "holding out." "Holding out" means that the parties tell the world that they are husband and wife through their conduct, such as the woman's assumption of the man's surname, filing a joint federal income tax return, etc. This means that mere cohabitation cannot, by itself, rise to the level of constituting a marriage. Of course, many disputes arise when facts (such as intentions of the parties or statements made to third parties) are in controversy.

{9 states allow it today.}

Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under § 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. A 1995 update adds an evidentiary presumption that there was no marriage if no suit for proof of marriage is filed within two years of the date the parties separated and ceased living together.

[truthspeaker]

60. NO

It was a civil thing long before religious organizations got involved. I don't think priests in Europe started presiding over marriages until the 14th Century, and even then it wasn't universal.

[AP]

65. Before 1400 what authority was performing marriages?

[truthspeaker]

67. families, mostly, and the local "government" to some extent

I remember reading in England in Shakespeare's times that you were legally married if you exchanged vows in front of witnesses. Men would use this as a way to rob widows, since as soon as women got married their husband gained ownership of any property the woman had owned when single.

I believe earlier in the Middle Ages the lower classes would get married by jumping over a broomstick.

Basically, marriage is an instution of society. In a highly religious society, religious figures are the main authority. In a clan society, it's clan leaders. In a society based on written laws, it's whoever the law gives the authority to. In a free society like the US, it's whoever the people's elected representatives authorize, through the law, to have that legal power.

[AP]

70. Those aren't government authorities. And the church made most of the law

governing interactions between people for a long time.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. In China, it's never been religious

In the old days of arranged marriages, it was just a contract between two families. There were some customs connected with it (the bride was carried to her husband's home in a red sedan chair, and there was a huge banquet) but religion was not involved. During the Maoist era, the banquet was replaced by drinks and snacks.

Pre-modern Japanese literature describes couples having sex three nights in a row, with the man leaving right away on the first two nights and staying all of the third night to be "discovered" by the woman's parents in the morning. (This custom led to a folk song about a sly fellow who had spent two nights with every eligible woman in town.) Now there is a Shinto wedding ceremony, but I don't know how old it is. In any case, there's no requirement for a ceremony in Japan.

In fact, both parties don't have to be present. I learned this from watching a TV drama in which a stalker "marries" a woman without her knowledge but is murdered shortly afterward. Of course, she is accused to murdering a man she didn't know existed.

Anyway, evidence is that marriage is strictly a civil function in both Japan and China.

[AP]

66. Most states recognize marriage by proxy in the US...but you have to be

a member of the armed service in combat, or something like that in at least one state.

Another examply of the absurdity of tradition. If we can for a business entity by the internet, why do two people have to be in the same room for a ceremony in every case other than a person in the army during armed conflict in order to get married?

It's because we incorporate the silly religious notions into the way gov'ts think about marriage.

[ieoeja]

74. Does carpentry require a Priest?

"Marry" can be used to describe the act of joining two pieces of wood. Neither the word nor the concept are of religious origin.

If not for the same-gender marriage issue, today, as in 1621 (see below), I believe most people would have said that there are two definitions of marriage as it applies to people: a religious joining of two people or a legal joining of two people. You can have one without the other.


The following link contains tons of information regarding marriage in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/mrwp/mrwed.html

Some excerpts in chronological order:

"The most profound change takes place during the twelfth century. This is where we first see mention of a ceremony held at the door of the church."

"Once before the church, the priest would oversee the wedding ritual. As mentioned several times previously, the priest was not in attendance to join the couple. He was there to ensure that certain issues were addressed-- namely that there was no legal impediment (via prior commitment or consanguinity), that the couple verbally consented to the match, and that the couple received the blessing of the Church (and therefore God). Again, the earlier in history, the more the role of the priest was limited to simply blessing the couple."

"by the beginning of the seventeenth century, the general opinion was much like that expressed by John Donne in 1621, 'As marriage is a civil contract, it must be done so in public, as that it may have the testimony of men. As marriage is a religious contract, it must be so done as it may have the benediction of the priest' (qtd. in Cressy 295)."

[resist]

76. Both

Marriage may have religious beginnings and importance to the faithfl, but for general purposes, it is a civil union because it carries with it so many civil repercussions.

In the name of religion, you simply cannot say that some people have a right to their spouses SSI and others don't. You can't; we are not supposed to let religion be the causative fastor in civil law It is, quite simply, unconstitutional to ban marrisge to any group of people. Would it be any different if we siply said that no black people were allowed to marry? Its the same issue, society has just gotten beyond the black thing, butnot yet the gay thing. Kind of stupid all this stuff anyway. Wasn't Christ's primary message to humanity to love one another? Just how loving is this anti-gay attitude? yuck.

[ieoeja]

78. Same gender marriage DOES threaten marriages.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/

This link summarizes marriage laws in each state. Growing up in Indiana and living in Illinois I checked those two states first and found:

1. Get licensed to marry.
2. Go through a ceremony, either religious or legal.
3. Have license signed and returned by an official, either religious or legal.


Then I thought I'd check out some of the confederate states. Much to my surprise I learned that many of them do not allow secular officiants. In Texas only Christian and Jewish religious officials are permitted to validate a marriage. South Carolina is even worse as Christian only is the law!

NOW I understand why these people feel that same-sex marriage threatens their marriages. It would appear that the marriage laws in these states are blatantly unconstitutional. That fact is bound to come up during this debate. I think one could fairly easily argue for invalidating all marriages in these states!

While I would seriously laugh it off if this happened, once I picked myself up off the floor I would have to admit the very sober likelihood that such an action would likely result in a violent uprising throughout the South. For that reason no liberal Judge would ever accept this argument. A strict contrutionist however....

[Terwilliger]

79. buzzword schmuzzword...marriage started before religion

when the first humans decided that they wanted one mate, it was "marriage"