Give Marriage Back To Religion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eh, in my opinion the government is overstepping bounds by classifying who can legally be married by their definition that is based on a religious viewpoint in the first place. I don't care at all if they call it "Civil Union" or whatever. But to be honest this would be a business contract.
I think that limiting people based on any religious ideas should be illegal for a government. If the church doesn't want to marry someone within their religion, that's their freedom to do that. There are many churches of various faiths that are more than willing to do so, while others aren't. But as far as the Government is concerned, you want the rights of marriage as they are now? Great. But from a legal standpoint it's the same as going into a court room with a lawyer, drawing up a legally binding contract with said lawyer and signing it.

No, it's rather different:

- in marriage, certain rights and responsibilities are taken as a default. Beyond simply getting married, I don't have to do anything more to make my wife the beneficiary of my estate, for instance.

- it's a hell of a lot cheaper in terms of time, effort and money to simply get married than it is to create a similar commitment through lawyers and the courts.

- there are some rights of marriage that I could never get by contract. For instance, there's no way for me to contract to sponsor my spouse for immigration purposes. Without marriage, no contract I enter into with my spouse could ever obligate my employer's pension plan to give my spouse survivor benefits.

I see the current form of marriage to be legally and religiously oppressive.

How is marriage - a relationship that people enter into voluntarily - legally oppressive?

Though many people hate hearing it, defining marriage as between one man and one woman is just as offensive to me as telling me that I can't marry my wife because she isn't white and I am.

I agree with this, but I don't think that your next part follows from it:

As far as the government is concerned, they should just draw up the contract giving the legal rights of "marriage" and butt out of the rest.

But now it sounds like you're saying that government should expand eligibility for marriage, not get rid of it altogether. Has your position changed?

 

[darkstar]

My point is that the government limiting and defining marriage based on the current viewpoint is legally oppressive.
The Government forcing a religious organization to marry people against their own religious beliefs would be equally oppressive.

In my opinion, as the OP said, from a legal standpoint the rights given by marriage now should be available via legal contract. If you want to be married in a church then go for it. If the church doesn't want to marry you and your spouse, find one that is willing or don't. Either way you have the rights that you should have at that point from a legal point of view anyway.

Also, being married in a courthouse myself, I can say that it is very much like signing a contract anyway. You go in, pay a fee for the license. Then you pay a fee to be married. You go into a small room, the Justice of the Peace asks you essentially "Do you agree to this binding" and you both agree. It's very similar to going into a small room and signing your name saying you agree to the terms of a contract.

Agree with me or don't, it doesn't really make a difference to me. But I'm arguing that the system as it's set up now is bull. And I'm agreeing that there should be changes, as I agree with the OP that there would be many things to work out as well.

You are arguing on the standpoint of how "marriage" is defined now. Thus you are misunderstanding what I say because it seems you fail to grasp the concept that CHANGE to the CURRENT SYSTEM is needed to make things fair.
As it stands now the system is corrupt and biased. Not something that a government should be allowed to do.

 

[darkendless]

I'd be uncomfortable with allowing churches to own the label of marriage when they stole it from whatever custom they murdered and converted out.

I rather dislike the stink religious organisations are kicking up about something they claim to own, a claim which I find unsubstantial. Religion needs to get off its highhorse and worry about its own before it tries to regulate the rest of us.

 

[darkstar]

I'd be uncomfortable with allowing churches to own the label of marriage when they stole it from whatever custom they murdered and converted out.

I rather dislike the stink religious organisations are kicking up about something they claim to own, a claim which I find unsubstantial. Religion needs to get off its highhorse and worry about its own before it tries to regulate the rest of us.

It seems that you're specifying what I can only assume to be the Christian church in particular.
The point of my argument is giving ALL religious organizations the option to marry within the organization itself.

The point being that the spiritual ceremony shouldn't affect the legal rights of anyone. I can go through the ceremony that my particular faith sees as the marriage rite. This does not mean that legally someone is married.
By the same token, the legal "marriage" should have NOTHING to do with spirituality or religion at all. It's a legal issue, not a religious one. Not everyone wishes to be married religiously, and the Government should not use the viewpoint of any religion to write laws.

Where I think the above debate came from, is likely in part to my lack of brain function at the moment, due to fatigue, allowing me to communicate as I usually would.
My point in general is:
There is supposed to be a separation of Church, and State. Thus a legal "marriage" should basically be a legal contract.
A religious marriage, or definition thereof, should be up to said religious organization and should have no affect on the rights of individuals. Thus, you could get married in your religious organization and thus be considered married there. However that should have NO affect on what the Government lists you as.

However, I would be JUST as happy for the Government to give equal rights to everyone. Meaning that if you are Homosexual, Non Religious, an Interracial couple or whatever the case may be. If you go to a courthouse or any religious organization willing to perform a marriage, you can get married and receive the same rights as everyone.

I suppose it would be more easily communicated to say I have less of a problem with the Government being in marriage as much as I have a problem with them "being the marriage police" and limiting others based on a definition of Marriage, that comes from any Religious organization. Especially when that definition, and the reasons behind it, are not backed up by any reliable scientific data.

Either way, that being said, I think it's time for sleep. Especially since my posts resemble poorly assembled rants rather than a comprehensible debate. I apologize for the lack of structure and any misunderstandings that may have come from them, and hope to be better able to communicate after a good night sleep.