Some thoughts on marriage

[mojogeorgo]

I've been working on transcribing Katharine Jefferts Schori's interview on Oregon Public Broadcasting. Here's an interesting piece...

Christy George: It's quite interesting, I heard Bill Bennett, the conservative culture czar--who you may have seen roaming around the casinos of Las Vegas recently, who knows! (Laughter) He said on television not long ago that he realizes, he acknowledges that the fight over gay marriage is over, effectively in America. It's just a matter of time before--he doesn't agree with that, but he says "We, meaning the conservatives, have lost the battle."

Katharine Jefferts Schori: Well, you know the reality of our understanding of marriage has changed enormously over the centuries. In the middle ages, even in church circles, it was understood as a property contract. You know, in an era when women were seen as property and they were handed from father to groom. That's where the "giving this woman" comes from in the marriage ceremony, when it's used.

We live in a culture and a time where we understand that human beings give themselves freely to another, and that parents don't do that giving. We understand that people are free to enter into an agreement to live together in a way that, in the church, is an expression of the holy. And for the state to meddle in that seems inappropriate. There's a significant move in the church right now to take clergy out of the role of signing the marriage certificate on behalf of the state. And I think we might be healthier if we went that route.

Christy George: To really separate civil and religious marriage.

Katharine Jefferts Schori: Correct--as happens in many other regions of the world.

More here
http://realreligiousleft.blogspot.com

So, what is the difference between "civil" and "religious" marriage? And, in the mind of the average American, do you think there *is* a difference?

Sorry, kind of a rhetorical question there, huh? I don't think the average American thinks about these definitions much, and I don't think they "get" how much we deny people when we deny access to marriage. But how do we *get* them to get it?

[helderheid]

1. they do this in Holland

Civil unions to make it legal in the Governments eyes and for various rights and protections - later in a church if the couple wants to have a religious ceremony. I think it's right on.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The difference between civil and religious marriage in the US is...

That the United States has never recognized religious ceremony in and of itself as having legal validity; that would be a violation of the First Amendment.

For all intents and purposes, marriage is a notarial act, with a person specially permitted by state law to countersign a jurat (oath or affirmation) wherein two people with valid civil documents promise in the presence of additional witnesses to live together as a married couple. Individual clergy (not churches, not religious institutions) and judges may take that jurat; in Florida, Maine and South Carolina, ordinary notaries public may also take that jurat. To be legally recognized, those documents, properly signed and countersigned, must be submitted to the proper civil authorities in a timely manner.

There is no state -- there can be no state -- wherein a religious ceremony is required for a legal marriage, or that accepts a religious ceremony without the filing of civil documents. Civil ceremonies with no religious content are as valid as any sacred ritual, provided that the proper documents are filed. In Washington State, for example, the only mandated content to a valid marriage ceremony is "the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the minister, priest, or judicial officer solemnizing the same, and in the presence of at least two attending witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife. (RCW 26.04.070)"

That many people believe a "church wedding" is necessary to have a legal marriage only proves that many people are ignorant of how the law works.