Firing the state from marriage

[dad]

In many countries, the state officiates over unholy unions. This is labelled marriage. Sounds like the word in the bible, but it isn't.

I do not plan to allow the state to have anything to do with any union I am involved in. In some cases, it might be more convenient have to have a certificate to save money on taxes or something. Fine, the 70 dollar investment might be a good investment. In other cases maybe it is better to not have a state sponsored recognized union, for tax reasons, or any other reasons. Fine. No need to waste the fee money at city hall.

For Christians, it is not a matter of needing a paper from some godless government to avoid taking off or breaking a sacred union.

So, why would a Christian or believing church include the state in a ceremony? Seems to me they are fired.

Who needs a license from the state to perform a sacred Christian union?? What am I missing here? Maybe calling it a biblical union or something other than marriage might help?

I no longer see having a state sanctioned union as a good thing, as it is totally removed from historical wedding norms, and Christian values!

 

[faroukfarouk]

Just remember that marriage is a public as well as private arrangement.

 

[dad]

Just remember that marriage is a public as well as private arrangement.

Nothing about having a relative or guest involved requires the unholy inclusion of the state!

They like to talk about separation of church and state...maybe they need a dose of their own medicine.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I feel just the opposite. I wish religion would stay out of marriage. I personally think there would be much less prejudice, discrimination, sexism and male chauvinism in marriage if religion was not involved in it. In fact, I've told some evangelical Christians over the course of my 25 year marriage to mind their own business and keep their patriarchal sexist comments about my Egalitarian Christian marriage to themselves. They seemed to have a problem with my husband treating me like his equal.

 

[archer75]

If the state is out, that means tax benefits and all other legal benefits are out, unless you make special and very detailed legal arrangements. If that's okay with you, then okay, sure.

To my knowledge, the participation of the state is not required for any kind of blessing / marriage ceremony.

 

[Archivist]

It was not until the Council of Verona in 1184 that marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament. Before that no specific ritual was required for celebrating a marriage; marriage was seen as a a private affair between families. Vows did not have to be exchanged in a church nor was the presence of a priest required.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In many countries, the state officiates over unholy unions. This is labelled marriage. Sounds like the word in the bible, but it isn't.

I do not plan to allow the state to have anything to do with any union I am involved in. In some cases, it might be more convenient have to have a certificate to save money on taxes or something. Fine, the 70 dollar investment might be a good investment. In other cases maybe it is better to not have a state sponsored recognized union, for tax reasons, or any other reasons. Fine. No need to waste the fee money at city hall.

So, why would a Christian or believing church include the state in a ceremony? Seems to me they are fired.

Who needs a license from the state to perform a sacred Christian union?? What am I missing here?

I no longer see having a state sanctioned union as a good thing, as it is totally removed from historical wedding norms, and Christian values!

I am getting to the point that I think getting married should be separated from getting a state marriage licence.

I think the state marriage licence piece of paper may continue to be a good thing for taxes, inheritance, and other legal purposes, but other than that I see no value to it.

I think the sacramental marriage ought to have nothing to do with that piece of paper. A couple can go to the courthouse in their ratty old clothes and get the paper to file it away and then go to the Church for a real wedding. Marriage is something far more profound than the state can see anymore. Separate the state sanctioned part from the real part.

Maybe calling it a biblical union or something other than marriage might help?

We already have the term 'matrimony' that has been in use for a long time.

 

[archer75]

I am getting to the point that I think getting married should be separated from getting a state marriage licence.

I think the state marriage licence piece of paper may continue to be a good thing for taxes, inheritance, and other legal purposes, but other than that I see no value to it.

I think the sacramental marriage ought to have nothing to do with that piece of paper. A couple can go to the courthouse in their ratty old clothes and get the paper to file it away and then go to the Church for a real wedding. Marriage is something far more profound than the state can see anymore. Separate the state sanctioned part from the real part.

We already have the term 'matrimony' that has been in use for a long time.

Isn't it already separate?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Isn't it already separate?

Not in that almost all church weddings have a bit like
“By the power vested in me by the laws of the state of New York I now pronounce you legally married.”

When that goes away they will be separate. That's the point here. It seems to have become an unholy union for the minister to be saying that.

 

[FenderTL5]

Isn't it already separate?

No, at least it's not in my state (Tennessee).
During my catechism I had a discussion with the priest on this topic, the unholy alliance of the state with the Church on marriages.
State law prohibits clergy (or anyone) from performing a marriage ceremony without a legally issued marriage license. There are penalties, even for clergy.

 

[archer75]

No, at least it's not in my state (Tennessee).
During my catechism I had a discussion with the priest on this topic, the unholy alliance of the state with the Church on marriages.
State law prohibits clergy (or anyone) from performing a marriage ceremony without a legally issued marriage license. There are penalties, even for clergy.

Thanks for telling me this. Shows what I know.

I'm reluctant to type what I'm thinking here, since obviously I was not so informed as I might have been, but my inclination is to say that this is totally messed up. I feel very strange about this.

What is the reasoning? Or claimed reasoning? Do you know? That it prevents wacky groups from marrying children to adults and so on?

 

[FenderTL5]

Thanks for telling me this. Shows what I know.

I'm reluctant to type what I'm thinking here, since obviously I was not so informed as I might have been, but my inclination is to say that this is totally messed up. I feel very strange about this.

What is the reasoning? Or claimed reasoning? Do you know? That it prevents wacky groups from marrying children to adults and so on?

If it helps; when I approached the priest on this topic, I took the position that for the purposes of the state/government ALL unions should be civil unions. This would be a legal process handled at the courthouse, it may/or may not need legal counsel depending on what the state/government decides. Then, from the Church perspective, perform the Sacrament after the civil proceeding -or- if the couple were to decide to stay independent in the eyes of the state, they could enter into Matrimony before God without interference from the state.
That was my position; however I learned, just as you are now learning this can't be accommodated without a revision of state law.

As for your questions; I think it had more to do with enforcing age restrictions than anything else - but I could be wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No, at least it's not in my state (Tennessee).
During my catechism I had a discussion with the priest on this topic, the unholy alliance of the state with the Church on marriages.
State law prohibits clergy (or anyone) from performing a marriage ceremony without a legally issued marriage license. There are penalties, even for clergy.

Interesting that there are penalties for marrying a couple who do not have a state licence when people can live together unmarried without any issue. Incongruous. So it looks like the solution may be to go down and visit the judge in your unkempt attire and get the piece of paper that says you are married according to the govment and then get actually married in church. Does that make sense? Or would somebody scream 'bigamy'? Or disrespect of the govment or something?

 

[Sabertooth]

The state does not declare our covenant. It only acknowledges it in practical aspects such as joint property rights, joint custody of children, etc.

 

[archer75]

If it helps; when I approached the priest on this topic, I took the position that for the purposes of the state/government ALL unions should be civil unions. This would be a legal process handled at the courthouse, it may/or may not need legal counsel depending on what the state/government decides. Then, from the Church perspective, perform the Sacrament after the civil proceeding -or- if the couple were to decide to stay independent in the eyes of the state, they could enter into Matrimony before God without interference from the state.
That was my position; however I learned, just as you are now learning this can't be accommodated with a revision of state law.

As for your questions; I think it had more to do with enforcing age restrictions than anything else - but I could be wrong.

Why couldn't it be accommodate with a revision of state law? Or did you mean "without" such a revision?

What you described above is more or less what I would have said. Or even perform the Sacrament first, then get the paperwork out of the way.

Obviously, forming such unions is important for society and I don't think many people are going to say "just toss the whole thing." But it puts us in an odd position, I think, having something that goes beyond paperwork being subject to paperwork.

 

[FenderTL5]

Why couldn't it be accommodate with a revision of state law? Or did you mean "without" such a revision?

What you described above is more or less what I would have said. Or even perform the Sacrament first, then get the paperwork out of the way.

Obviously, forming such unions is important for society and I don't think many people are going to say "just toss the whole thing." But it puts us in an odd position, I think, having something that goes beyond paperwork being subject to paperwork.

I meant "without" - I edited the post btw.

I agree. It would also absolve the Church from being involved in the ramifications of denying the Sacrament (for whatever reason(s)).

 

[archer75]

I meant "without" - I edited the post btw.

I agree. It would also absolve the Church from being involved in the ramifications of denying the Sacrament (for whatever reason(s)).

Denying the sacrament of marriage?

ARE there such ramifications?

 

[archer75]

double post.

 

[FenderTL5]

Denying the sacrament of marriage?
ARE there such ramifications?

Not yet (that I know of), but given the political/social environment in which we live, I wouldn't rule it out in the future.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not yet (that I know of), but given the political/social environment in which we live, I wouldn't rule it out in the future.

I'm sure someone is playing that angle to try to force churches to marry whoever has a licence.