Why isn't marriage kept in religion?

[LeftHander]

Why do we have to keep using religious vernacular in our laws?

Why can't we just say let the churches decide who they marry and then allow the states to recognize that with a "union".

If a church doesn't want to marry a same sex couple so be it.

Bush is driving this land into a theocracy with his faith based laws.

People get all rabid about Islamic law...

What about Christian Laws here in this country???

Sunday blue laws, decency laws, and yes even marriage....

I say let religion do the marrying and give the couples the same rights under the law no matter who they are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Because marriage IS a legal contract

Dividing up wealth, sharing benefits, taxes, etc etc. It has a lot of legal implications.

Edit: I agree, though, this is just another case of radical theocratic neocons of injecting religious matters into state affairs.

[Maat]

2. I completely agree.

[nickinSTL]

3. civil/marriage

I'd be fine with this.

As long as the terminology is the same under the law.

If gays can have civil unions under the law, but not marriage, then heterosexuals should have the same, civil unions.

Marriage within religious bodies, fine. Then each church/temple/whatever can choose whether they will accept marriages, using their own criteria.

[Nashyra]

6. Terminology

should be identical, the only difference needs to be the title of the certificate. It could be the same certificate just check the correct box. Civil union man/woman woman/woman man/man and then they could take it to there church and the church can decide if they wanted to marry them or they could take it to a civil officer of the court ie: judge and he is mandated to complete the civil union process. The churches could "marry them. I posted in another thread would the opposition be opposed to call the union something other than marriage, marriage used to be that a husband owned his wife, I would think that there was a better title for the civil union between gays.

[JanMichael]

4. Because it's not a religious only concept.

Regardless of the word used to describe it people have been creating permenant "Couples" since the beginning of time. That's why.

[SharonAnn]

5. In some other countries, legal marriage is ONLY by the state and

people then have a religious wedding if they choose to.

This is true, for example, in many Latin American countries and Italy (ones that I know of) but is also probably true in many other countries. Usually they first have the civil ceremony and then later have the religious ceremony.

Interestingly, those countries do not recognize a religious wedding as the binding agreement. They require a civil ceremony for it to be legally binding.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Besides the Roman Catholic church and synagogues

how many religious organizations provide for an official "divorce"?

States don't even recognize "divorces" by the Roman Catholic church or synagogues.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. Marriage defined by Encarta:

mar·riage < mérrij > (plural mar·riages)

noun

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

2. particular marriage relationship: a married relationship between two particular people, or an individual’s relationship with an individual spouse

3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock

5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation.

6. card games king and queen of same suit: a combination of the king and queen of the same suit, in card games such as pinochle and bezique

<13th century. From French mariage , from marier (see marry1).>


Note that the only mention of gender is in definition #6...the one about card games.