This is an interesting issue, and it always fascinates me to learn what people actually understand of the constitution. You say you have the right to marry someone you love. How does the United States Government define love? I'd appreciate an answer to that question before I continue.BUDDY said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So what is "Marriage"?
- Thread starter wmam
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
As I said in another thread, since marriage has historically and traditionally a religious activity, legally sanctioned by the state, then marriage should be correctly defined as sacramental in nature, and not legalistic in nature.
No one has a constitutional "right" to receive Holy Communion. We have a constitutional right to attend and hold membership in a religious organization in which Holy Communion is offered. But no one has the "right" to receive it. Who does and does not receive Holy Communion is left to the discernment and discretion of the Church authority.
Similarly, no one (monogamous heterosexuals included) has the constitutional "right" to be married. Marriage never appears in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Marriage has traditionally been the purview of the Church. We have the constitutional right to attend and hold membership in a religious organization in which marriage is offered. But no one has the "right" to participate in it. Who does and does not marry should be left to the discernment and discretion of the Church authority.
Non-religious people have the opportunity to go to a civil authority and be "legally married." But I'm not so sure that that kind of arrangement could be strictly defined as a "marriage." A "civil union," certainly. But marriage implies an act of God, and an act of God cannot be legislated by this government, nor can the government grant access to an act of God as a constitutional "right."
No one has a constitutional "right" to receive Holy Communion. We have a constitutional right to attend and hold membership in a religious organization in which Holy Communion is offered. But no one has the "right" to receive it. Who does and does not receive Holy Communion is left to the discernment and discretion of the Church authority.
Similarly, no one (monogamous heterosexuals included) has the constitutional "right" to be married. Marriage never appears in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Marriage has traditionally been the purview of the Church. We have the constitutional right to attend and hold membership in a religious organization in which marriage is offered. But no one has the "right" to participate in it. Who does and does not marry should be left to the discernment and discretion of the Church authority.
Non-religious people have the opportunity to go to a civil authority and be "legally married." But I'm not so sure that that kind of arrangement could be strictly defined as a "marriage." A "civil union," certainly. But marriage implies an act of God, and an act of God cannot be legislated by this government, nor can the government grant access to an act of God as a constitutional "right."
So what about the marriages from all the ancient cultures that worshiped trees and cats and the sun, moon and stars? Marriage has existed in almost every culture, pagan or not. Did all these marriages receive God's stamp of approval? What about marriage in countries where atheism is the official religion? China has many more married people than we do, and religion has nothing to do with it.sojourner said:
What about a civil union where a man can't get on the same insurance as his "husband"? What about not being able to visit him in the hospital? What about not getting a tax break? What about not being able to sign anything for or with that spouse? There are many rights afforded married couples that are being denied this demographic.
Again, how does the constitution (or even the U.S. Government) define love?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
The constitution does not define love at all. Not even the body of federal law, nor the laws of the states define "love". It is not a legal term.dan said:
Regards,
Scott
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Sociologically speaking: "Marriage is a relationship between individuals which has formed the foundation of the family for most societies. Marriage can include legal, social, and religious elements. In Western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as a social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage" Wikpediadan said:
Regars,
Scott
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
A personal status, a tax break, a way of finding people, a way of insuring the proper protection of children, a way of amassing capital, a corporation.dan said:
Do you know HOW to research anything, or are you just letting me do it for you?
Regards,
Scott
I'm trying to help people break down marriage to its fundamentals and help them see it the way government has to see it. Whether or not gays should be allowed to marry has absolutely nothing to do with morals. Government is not a protector of morals. It has to do with the rights of the people, and I'm progressing to that. You're not saying anything I've not heard before.
