Give Marriage Back To Religion

[Storm]

It still baffles me why religion focuses on "marriage" when in reality regardless if you're married in a church, in a field, under water, at Disneyland, etc. WITHOUT A LICENSE, it ain't a LEGAL marriage. You could have a perfect ritual, perfect prayer, perfect wedding and it still wouldn't be a marriage without a license.
So why deny a license to same sex couples for the purposes of legal marriage? The religious can still keep their "sacred marriage" intact with their wedding rituals?

I think it's because the rite became the foundation of the contract.

That's the problem I'm trying to solve.

 

[McBell]

They're just weird.

There are exceptions to every rule, sweetie. Not denying that.

So how would they fit in?
The reason I ask is because when you use the word "mate" I think you mean procreation.
The fact is there are lots of marriages where there is no sex at all.

Ah, I see. No, I don't think social recognition falls into that category. It's not a legal benefit either, though.

Social recognition, as far as I can tell, is nothing more than extra baggage some, or perhaps even most, people tack onto the legal contract.

 

[Storm]

So how would they fit in?
The reason I ask is because when you use the word "mate" I think you mean procreation.

Ah, no. A pair-bond, not necessarily one that reproduces.

The fact is there are lots of marriages where there is no sex at all.

I'm well aware.

Social recognition, as far as I can tell, is nothing more than extra baggage some, or perhaps even most, people tack onto the legal contract.

OK. I don't agree, but I don't think it's worth arguing about.

 

[Darkness]

Storm, I think the problem we are having communicating is one of semantics. Me and Mestemia (but I don't want to put words in his mouth) understand marriage to be a legal contract, so regardless of what you call it, you are essentially extending the marriage to every two (or more?) people living together. Now, iconisation and labeling are important in society, so you run the risk of maiming or destroying the concept of marriage altogether.

 

[ninerbuff]

I think it's because the rite became the foundation of the contract.

That's the problem I'm trying to solve.

But the "contract" was out long before most religions were really established world wide.
To me it's comical with the christian religious claiming the sacredness of marriage, but 50% of those marriages failing in divorce.

 

[blackout]

Instead of "give marriage back to religion",
I would say, give marriage to the people.
To individuals. To couples. To families,
independent of government....
Some partners will choose churches,
some will choose parks,
some their back yards,
some will choose the privacy of their own bedroom.

...and then allow partners to form LEGAL domestic partnerships,
if they so choose
just as they do Legal business partnerships.
Laws should apply with equal standards,
having NOTHING AT ALL to do with gender
or who is (assumed to be) having sex with who.
Somehow business partnerships are not limited to two people.
I'm not sure how that all works,
but
apparently, it does.

 

[Darkness]

Instead of "give marriage back to religion",
I would say, give marriage to the people.
To individuals. To couples. To families,
independent of government....
Some partners will choose churches,
some will choose parks,
some their back yards,
some will choose the privacy of their own bedroom.

...and then allow partners to form LEGAL domestic partnerships,
if they so choose
just as they do Legal business partnerships.
Laws should apply with equal standards,
having NOTHING AT ALL to do with gender
or who is (assumed to be) having sex with who.
Somehow business partnerships are not limited to two people.
I'm not sure how that all works,
but
apparently, it does.

You see, I am a big fan of the idea of government, so I have no problems letting marriage be decided by the government.

 

[RomCat]

Because it is the government's duty to promote
that which is to the greater good of society
(i.e. husband, wife and children.).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it is the government's duty to promote
that which is to the greater good of society
(i.e. husband, wife and children.).

What post are you replying to?

BTW - it would make you easier to understand if you would quote the posts you reply to.

 

[michel]

My solution to the same sex marriage debate: eliminate government sanction of marriage altogether. There's something deeply troubling to me about our secular government attaching rights to rites.

I propose that we replace legal marriage with a neutral contract. Let's call it a Declaration of Household. Any consenting adults, regardless of gender or familial relation, can enter into a DoH as co-heads of household, the only requirement is that they live together. They file taxes jointly, have presumed power of attorney, survivor's benefits, protection for dependents, everything right and responsibility that goes with the recognition of married couples as a single household.

Marriage is given back to religion. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they please.

Thoughts?

The only response I can think of adding is that there is a valid reason for the civil union.

In France, Belgium and Spain, the civil ceremony gives the wife to be a double barelled surname. I.E if mr Brown marries miss Red, when she is married, miss Red will become mrs Brown-Red . The benefit of this system is the control that the state has over a person's "History" - because there is a family book (I have one for my father, who was Belgian) in that book is recorded his marriage to his first wife, the children (in his case one daughter) of that marriage are recorded, as is the divorce, and the subsequent marriage to my mother, and my birth.

The bonus, as I see it is that there is a clear-cut record of every individual's "path through life" - the main benefit being that there is little or no chance to having bigamous marriages - as opposed to the marriage in England, where the priest has to take the couples' assertion that they are single.

 

[blackout]

You see, I am a big fan of the idea of government, so I have no problems letting marriage be decided by the government.

You mean you are in favor of letting legal domestic partnerships be decided by the government, or anyway the "extras" that certain legal domestic partnerships are to receive.

NO ONE can decide love, partnerships and families
but those directly involved.
Not even your beloved govt.
(unless of course there is some kind of child abuse or neglect-
but that involves only the children)

 

[McBell]

Because it is the government's duty to promote
that which is to the greater good of society
(i.e. husband, wife and children.).

Is it?
Or is what you say true only so long as you agree with the government as to what is for the "greater good of society"?

So what is your take on the Federal Government side stepping and in some cases completely ignoring the same sex marriage issue?

You are aware of the fact that the Federal Government will have no choice but to declare same sex marriages legal and over turn all bans on same sex marriage, aren't you?

Because until there is a legitimate legal reason to ban it, the Federal government will have no other choice but to allow it.

 

[Darkness]

Because it is the government's duty to promote
that which is to the greater good of society
(i.e. husband, wife and children.).

Families are definitely a positive feature of our society, but a husband and wife are not necessary. Two fathers or two mothers are just as valid.

You mean you are in favor of letting legal domestic partnerships be decided by the government, or anyway the "extras" that certain legal domestic partnerships are to receive.

As far as I am aware, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage, though I believe certain states and countries hold them in nigh-equivalence.

NO ONE can decide love, partnerships and families
but those directly involved.
Not even your beloved govt.
(unless of course there is some kind of child abuse or neglect-
but that involves only the children)[/B][/COLOR]

No, but we are much more a part of the social fabric than we would like to believe. Social institutions shape and guide us. They help us create our goals and what we value as good and special.

 

[blackout]

No, but we are much more a part of the social fabric than we would like to believe. Social institutions shape and guide us. They help us create our goals and what we value as good and special.

Not me/mine.

 

[Darkness]

Not me/mine.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I am very heterodox in many of my philosophies, but I still believe that my values and beliefs are shaped by society, even if they are in reaction to it.

 

[sarnath]

This is a great idea. In fact, a petition could be made without
necessarily ironing out any details, simply on the grounds that this
is a potential violation of church and state separation, since
marriage as an institution was created by social and religious bodies.
All the govt needs to define is whether or not two people belong to the
same household unit.

The Supreme Court could be asked rule on such a petition that
the word "marriage" and its derivatives should be struck from all
government documents.

I started such a petition a few weeks ago. If you go to
PetitionOnline.com, and search for the petition "BeMerry"
you can find it. (I am not allowed to post URLs on this forum yet)

 

[darkstar]

I agree that the government needs to stay out of the marriage game. The problem is that the government defines marriage from the conservative Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is a violation of church and state.
Not all religions view things this way. Various religions such as my own view it as a spiritual and contractual binding of two people. Some religions believe that more than two people should be able to be married. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them, but your opinions shouldn't be made law.

At one time I headed a pagan group due to being asked to by every member of said group. I later stepped down for personal reasons. months later I was asked to perform a spiritual ceremony for a couple from said group to add the spiritual component to their legal marriage. After some thought I performed the ceremony. Why? I'm not licensed by the state, its not legally binding. But they had already gone to the courthouse and got married. However it is very hard for a pagan to become licensed to perform legal marriages here, and they felt the need for a spiritual wedding.

The government being in marriage opens up the way for oppression and violations of rights based on majority views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that the government needs to stay out of the marriage game. The problem is that the government defines marriage from the conservative Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is a violation of church and state.

Wait - so you want there to be no legal rights or benefits associated with marriage? Because if that's all you want, you can have it now: call yourself married to anyone you want - the government won't recognize it, but that's no different from the situation where the government stays out of marriage.

Personally, I'm not in favour of this. I think the legal rights and benefits of marriage have value, both to married people and to society generally. I don't want to give them up.

OTOH, if you're suggesting that religious organizations should be the ones to decide who gets the legal rights/benefits of marriage and who doesn't, then I'd say that would be the real church-state separation violation.

 

[Me Myself]

There is just no reason for this.

One can marryby state. One can marry by religion. One can marry by both.

The sole word "marriege" carries vital symbolic notions to a lot of people even if they are not of a specific religion.

Homosexuals should be able to be "Married" not just leave together. They deserve to be able to share their bond by the wonderfull symbol than marriege can be.

Atheists deserve the right to be "married" , they deserve the right to share this wondrous symbol of family and caring love. It is not just a label, to many, this label comes with important symbolisms, and there is just no need at all to take it away just because Religion got jelous of their "right to marry".

 

[darkstar]

Wait - so you want there to be no legal rights or benefits associated with marriage? Because if that's all you want, you can have it now: call yourself married to anyone you want - the government won't recognize it, but that's no different from the situation where the government stays out of marriage.

Personally, I'm not in favour of this. I think the legal rights and benefits of marriage have value, both to married people and to society generally. I don't want to give them up.

OTOH, if you're suggesting that religious organizations should be the ones to decide who gets the legal rights/benefits of marriage and who doesn't, then I'd say that would be the real church-state separation violation.

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.

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