Should the government dictate or regulate marriage?

[Paidiske]

Christian marriage is different than any other marriage at its core.

For what it's worth, that's not a point of view that's universally shared amongst Christians. It's certainly not my church's view, which is that marriage is a state of life entered into by the free consent of both parties. The difference between a Christian marriage and any other is simply that in a Christian marriage service we pray for God to bless the couple and their life together.

 

[Clare73]

I believe marriage in Christianity is covenantal, and as such, cannot or should not be regulated by the government. What is between man and God is just that, and manmade governments have no place in them.

I think one of the biggest mistakes Christians ever made was to hand that institution over to the government....

But no one really handed over the institution of marriage to the government.

The government has the right to regulate and enforce whatever the lawmakers, elected by the people, legislate to be governed and enforced, not in violation of the Constitution.
Property rights in marriage is one of the things regulated and enforced by the government.
Polygamy is regulated and enforced by the government.
Partental rights regarding children is regulated and enforced by the government.
Protection of children from abuse is regulated and enforced by the government.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Property rights in marriage is one of the things regulated and enforced by the government.

Yes, but it never should have been. It's unChristian to the core...

So why a Christian nation that truly believed in separation of church and state thought that was a good idea is beyond me... truly.

It's the one thing that boggles my mind. The only way I can make sense of it is that this was a holdover from Catholicism where they had no separation of church and state.

 

[Paidiske]

It's even earlier than that. It's a holdover from ancient Rome, which regulated marriage by law before the time of Christ. Over the centuries that's been modified in different ways, but the basic premise that marriage had legal standing backed by the state has never really shifted.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but it never should have been. It's unChristian to the core...

So why a Christian nation that truly believed in separation of church and state thought that was a good idea is beyond me... truly.

It's the one thing that boggles my mind. The only way I can make sense of it is that this was a holdover from Catholicism where they had no separation of church and state.

The meaning of "separation of church and state" is that the state shall establish/sponsor no state religion, as Anglicanism was the State religion in England to which everyone was to belong. The meaning is not that the state is to be totally separated from religion, have nothing to do with religion, no connection to anything religious, etc.

In a republic, the people, through the legislature, determine what is to be governed.
And the people have determined the laws which govern religion in the U.S., keeping in mind that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; i.e., no State religion. It does not require separation from religion.

 

[Hazelelponi]

In a republic, the people, through the legislature, determine what is to be governed.
And the people have determined

Which is what I asked in the beginning - why did Christians hand over marriage to the state for the state to establish various rules and laws concerning what is a RELIGIOUS institution.

That is what created the situation we find ourselves in today... and the why is beyond me.

 

[SimplyMe]

Okay. In that case I think the government has the right to recognize whatever marriages they choose. However, the should not impose those regulations on the Church. For example, the government has the right to recognize a gay marriage, but they should not force the church to recognize or perform gay marriages. Conversely, the government can choose not to recognize polygamy, but they shouldn't criminalize a church that do and performs polygamous marriages. The state would merely see it as a married couple in an open relationship. Legally there would only be one husband and one wife regardless of the number of people who claim otherwise.

Then you'll be happy to know, other than polygamy, that is pretty much how it works in the US. While the government will recognize "clergy" (with different states having different requirements to recognize clergy), those clergy recognized by the government have the right to marry only those they choose.

I have no issue with going to the "European style" marriage, where the government and religious marriage is handled separately.

 

[Paidiske]

Which is what I asked in the beginning - why did Christians hand over marriage to the state for the state to establish various rules and laws concerning what is a RELIGIOUS institution.

The earliest Christians didn't see it as a religious institution. They saw it as a secular institution which Christians sought to live out in a Christian context.

 

[Clare73]

Which is what I asked in the beginning - why did Christians hand over marriage to the state for the state to establish various rules and laws concerning what is a RELIGIOUS institution.

That is what created the situation we find ourselves in today... and the why is beyond me.

They didn't. . .the Constitution, our founding document, guaranteeing freedom of religion and requiring separation of church and state, exisited before the national government. The Constitution was ratified by all 13 States and became the law of the Union.

All subsequent laws regarding religion have been made by the people through their legislators since that time.
That's as good as it gets in a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

 

[Ken-1122]

marriage careies a host of legal changes. you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse. fiscally you are considered one, and can file taxes jointly. there are issues of separation and property ownership.

I am good with getting rid of all of those legal changes.

 

[Pommer]

I am good with getting rid of all of those legal changes.

Were you in favor of axing these “legal changes” before 2015?

 

[RDKirk]

Government should recognize and enforce "domestic partnerships" of any two (or more) legal adults of sound mind who want to enter into such partnerships. They should go to lawyers and have those papers drawn up according to state requirements. It wouldn't take more than a few weeks for the legal industry to get that worked out into standard boilerplate equal to most of the current implied rights and responsibilities of marriage. The contract would also include agreements for ending the partnership, if that comes to past. But it would not be called "marriage." Businesses and commercial entities would abide by the parameters of the contract, as happens today when businesses do business with partnerships.

"Marriage" should be taken out of the civil lexicon and reserved for religions and other social relationships. If people want to be regarded as "husband and wife" or "wife and wife" or "husband and husband" or "husband and wife and wife" or whatever, then they would go to the clergycritter of their choice and get that pronouncement done. The government would not recognize those relationships any way, but presumably their personal friends and acquaintances would.

If someone cares about both realms, they'd get both a government-enforced domestic partnership contract and a clergy-certified marriage.

 

[Ken-1122]

Were you in favor of axing these “legal changes” before 2015?

What happened in 2015 that would cause you to ask such a question?

 

[Ken-1122]

Government should recognize and enforce "domestic partnerships" of any two (or more) legal adults of sound mind who want to enter into such partnerships. They should go to lawyers and have those papers drawn up according to state requirements. It wouldn't take more than a few weeks for the legal industry to get that worked out into standard boilerplate equal to most of the current implied rights and responsibilities of marriage. The contract would also include agreements for ending the partnership, if that comes to past. But it would not be called "marriage." Businesses and commercial entities would abide by the parameters of the contract, as happens today when businesses do business with partnerships.

"Marriage" should be taken out of the civil lexicon and reserved for religions and other social relationships. If people want to be regarded as "husband and wife" or "wife and wife" or "husband and husband" or "husband and wife and wife" or whatever, then they would go to the clergycritter of their choice and get that pronouncement done. The government would not recognize those relationships any way, but presumably their personal friends and acquaintances would.

If someone cares about both realms, they'd get both a government-enforced domestic partnership contract and a clergy-certified marriage.

Excellent points!

 

[Desk trauma]

What happened in 2015 that would cause you to ask such a question?

Obergefell v. Hodges

 

[comana]

Government should recognize and enforce "domestic partnerships" of any two (or more) legal adults of sound mind who want to enter into such partnerships. They should go to lawyers and have those papers drawn up according to state requirements. It wouldn't take more than a few weeks for the legal industry to get that worked out into standard boilerplate equal to most of the current implied rights and responsibilities of marriage. The contract would also include agreements for ending the partnership, if that comes to past. But it would not be called "marriage." Businesses and commercial entities would abide by the parameters of the contract, as happens today when businesses do business with partnerships.

"Marriage" should be taken out of the civil lexicon and reserved for religions and other social relationships. If people want to be regarded as "husband and wife" or "wife and wife" or "husband and husband" or "husband and wife and wife" or whatever, then they would go to the clergycritter of their choice and get that pronouncement done. The government would not recognize those relationships any way, but presumably their personal friends and acquaintances would.

If someone cares about both realms, they'd get both a government-enforced domestic partnership contract and a clergy-certified marriage.

Are you a lobbyist for lawyers? Why “fix” what’s not broken. I got all that for a $35 marriage license at the DMV (local office of County Recorder) and didn’t have to pay hundreds if not thousands to a lawyer. No church, no judge, no officiant (my state allows self solmnization) Just signed it and returned it. Married. Easy peasy. Why complicate things with lawyers.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you a lobbyist for lawyers? Why “fix” what’s not broken. I got all that for a $35 marriage license at the DMV (local office of County Recorder) and didn’t have to pay hundreds if not thousands to a lawyer. No church, no judge, no officiant (my state allows self solmnization) Just signed it and returned it. Married. Easy peasy. Why complicate things with lawyers.

Actually it is broken, terribly broken, from both the civil and religious viewpoints.

It's broken from the civil viewpoint because "marriage" encompasses an entire range of implied and traditional promises of performance that are poorly understood and almost certainly not mutually agreed at the outset. These become hotly contentious even during the marriage when one or both parties don't get what they expected, and that becomes big money for lawyers when marriages break up.

As I already stated, it would not take long for the law industry to develop standard domestic partnership boilerplates that would do a much better job of ensuring both parties know exactly what they're promising each other. In fact, that process could be done by something like LegalZoom...and ultimately remove lawyers entirely.

And the current process is broken from the religious standpoint because it accepts government certification of an essentially religious sacrament. Would Christians accept government certification of baptisms? Should government tell us who should be baptized or when or how? Should government set the temperature of the water? Why should a religious ceremony require the county clerk's signature?

 

[comana]

Actually it is broken, terribly broken, from both the civil and religious viewpoints.

It's broken from the civil viewpoint because "marriage" encompasses an entire range of implied and traditional promises of performance that are poorly understood and almost certainly not mutually agreed at the outset. These become hotly contentious even during the marriage when one or both parties don't get what they expected, and that becomes big money for lawyers when marriages break up.

As I already stated, it would not take long for the law industry to develop standard domestic partnership boilerplates that would do a much better job of ensuring both parties know exactly what they're promising each other. In fact, that process could be done by something like LegalZoom...and ultimately remove lawyers entirely.

And the current process is broken from the religious standpoint because it accepts government certification of an essentially religious sacrament. Would Christians accept government certification of baptisms? Should government tell us who should be baptized or when or how? Should government set the temperature of the water? Why should a religious ceremony require the county clerk's signature?

A religious ceremony requires nothing from the state. They are separate. The state allowing the clergy to legally sign as officiant is a matter of convenience. The couple getting married in a religious ceremony can partake of that convenience or have a civil marriage separate of a religious one.

 

[RDKirk]

A religious ceremony requires nothing from the state. They are separate. The state allowing the clergy to legally sign as officiant is a matter of convenience. The couple getting married in a religious ceremony can partake of that convenience or have a civil marriage separate of a religious one.

The religious ceremony is not recognized by law unless it has been first licensed by the state.

 

[comana]

The religious ceremony is not recognized by law unless it has been first licensed by the state.

Exactly, it is a separate license not related to the religious ceremony. The religious ceremony does not require permission from the state and is not interfered by the state. If you want a legal marriage you get a state license. Simple.