Separate civil and religious marriage - pros and cons

[Crazy Liz]

This thread was moved from Christian Philosophy and Ethics to E&M, as a result of my request.

 

[Crazy Liz]

There was no "Christian" marriage in NT times. For that matter, there were no "Jewish" marriages in OT times. First time Isaac saw Rebecca he took her into a tent and "married" her.

Do you mean no marriage ceremony, or that marriage was just marriage & there were not different varieties of marriage for different religions?

 

[hernyaccent]

What potential consequences are you speaking of differently? As we live and breath not everyone currently allowed to marry does so for religious purposes. None of my heterosexual atheist counterparts and many of my theist associates are married because they fell in love and wanted form a union to insure that both individuals are protected legally and financially as they build a life together. How would this be any different for us homosexuals? When I get married it is not going to be because of any religious reasons but because I want to take part in a cultural universal. Other homosexuals will want to be married according to their religious, however, more than likely they attend a church that accepts homosexuality or will do so to get married. It saddens me that many religious people feel that homosexuals want to take over marriages and churches--we just want our constitutional right to HAPPINESS that Jefferson stated was self-evident to be given. Nothing more Nothing less.

 

[jcook922]

I've seen a number of posts lately advocating a separation between the legal and religious aspects of marriage - a sort of "unbundling" of the various aspects of marriage. Here are a couple of examples:





I used to advocate this kind of unbundling, so that a couple could be considered married for some purposes and not married for other purposes, but I have begun to re-think this idea. I'm not sure that's good for society, mainly because those who don't recognize a marriage may try to break it up, and I think it's good for society for people to respect each other's family relationships.

There are a lot of pros and cons. I'd like to have a discussion about our various views of this. I'm not necessarily looking for a debate or for a consensus, although I'd like to find out, if there is a consensus (or more than one) what core values form the basis for that consensus.

There also are many ramifications I think we have yet to anticipate and consider, so I'd like for us to try to consider that, too. Deliberate social change always has unintended consequences. Can we anticipate some of the unintended consequences?

We already can see some of them as a result of globalization - people marrying one place and then living in another place where different ideas about marriage prevail. I'm sure there are a lot of things we should be considering & I'd like to talk about them.

I'm all for such a seperation, then perhaps the religious right would quit trying to take away the civil rights of people unlike them.

Otherwise I guess they can come to Cali to get married then head back home, either way the fundies lose and can't win this fight.

 

[Paulos23]

I have been an advocate for separation of the legal rights from marriage for years. I really wish we had a "legal marriage" that you can just walk up to the town hall and sign up for, and then let the religious handle the rest. I have a friend that had two marriage ceremonies, a small one for signing the marriage contract, and then the big church wedding.

I can't see why religious marriage has to be backed by civil law.

 

[wanderingone]

I don't view it as literally being married for some purposes and not for others. I view it all as legal marriage with religious frosting for those so inclined.

 

[wanderingone]

I have been an advocate for separation of the legal rights from marriage for years. I really wish we had a "legal marriage" that you can just walk up to the town hall and sign up for, and then let the religious handle the rest. I have a friend that had two marriage ceremonies, a small one for signing the marriage contract, and then the big church wedding.

I can't see why religious marriage has to be backed by civil law.

Why don't you think you can have a legal marriage without the religious ceremony? My husband and I got married in borough hall (think city hall) no clergy involved)

We got the license went back on the appointed date and time and married in the room reserved for weddings. (Nice little blue room, flowers, nice little window, some type of civil servant handles the wedding)

The religious ceremony is just a personal decision. A religious marriage without the license isn't a legal marriage.

 

[jcook922]

I don't view it as literally being married for some purposes and not for others. I view it all as legal marriage with religious frosting for those so inclined.

I totally agree.

 

[wanderingone]

It is not a matter of having the term all to ourselves because we wouldn't. People would still use the term marriage, I am sure. The difference would be that no legal rights would be conveyed by a church/synagogue/mosque. Everyone would have to get a civil union to gain legal rights. People would CHOOSE to have a ceremony to celebrate the union.

Lisa

Religious ceremonies don't provide legal rights- the state provides them when the couple follows the procedures for a legally recognized marriage in that state.

In general:

If you don't get a license and a rabbi performs a wedding you're not "legally" married.

If you get a license and a rabbi performs the wedding and nobody files the marriage certificate certifying the wedding actually took place you're still not legally married.

there are always exceptions - like those states that still recognize common law marriage but in those cases the fact that it's a "marriage" usually only comes up when someone has some kind of problem brought before the court (wills, paternity etc..) of course in those cases there's no religious ceremony providing legal rights either.

Some states used to require a licensed member of the clergy to perform the wedding ... not sure if any still put it that way - but that to me is a problem - a violation of someone's right not to have a religion... but in states that do require that there are plenty of ways to become "clergy" without being an actual minister, rabbi, priest etc..

 

[jcook922]

Religious ceremonies don't provide legal rights- the state provides them when the couple follows the procedures for a legally recognized marriage in that state.

In general:

If you don't get a license and a rabbi performs a wedding you're not "legally" married.

If you get a license and a rabbi performs the wedding and nobody files the marriage certificate certifying the wedding actually took place you're still not legally married.

there are always exceptions - like those states that still recognize common law marriage but in those cases the fact that it's a "marriage" usually only comes up when someone has some kind of problem brought before the court (wills, paternity etc..) of course in those cases there's no religious ceremony providing legal rights either.

Some states used to require a licensed member of the clergy to perform the wedding ... not sure if any still put it that way - but that to me is a problem - a violation of someone's right not to have a religion... but in states that do require that there are plenty of ways to become "clergy" without being an actual minister, rabbi, priest etc..

Then how do religious groups have a leg to stand on when it comes to preventing gay marriage?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't view it as literally being married for some purposes and not for others. I view it all as legal marriage with religious frosting for those so inclined.

I think that's pretty much true, and I don't like religious people thinking it's all good and holy to deny marriage to people on the basis on whether or not they judge them worthy of the frosting.

I also think it's extremely hypocritical for religious people to feel justified in breaking up any relationship that doesn't have the right flavor of frosting, when at the same time they consider divorce such an awful sin. Divorce and adultery are considered sins because their religion respects other people's marriages. Not just marriages with the right flavor of frosting.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Then how do religious groups have a leg to stand on when it comes to preventing gay marriage?

Because they have made the point that legal "marriage" has never included same sex couples before. They have the power of "tradition" on their side.

Plus, stupid people are scared of anything different, and there are a lot of stupid, gullible people out there.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Then how do religious groups have a leg to stand on when it comes to preventing gay marriage?

I think they're confused about the extent of their jurisdiction and their relationship to the state. Many feel obliged to oppose anything not endorsed by scripture or tradition. Many Catholic clergy go so far as to say failure to stop other people from sinning is the same as participating in that sin, even to the point of using coercion or force. Otherwise, what authority would the church have to burn heretics? Simply expelling them would not be enough.

Christians from the Free Church tradition do not have that kind of history, but sadly many historical free churches, like the Southern Baptists, have large elements of their membership who have left their own tradition to advocate theocracy.

 

[theMormon]

I think this is an excellent thread, one of the most informed discussions on a difficult subject.

It's interesting to me that attempts to ban "gay marriages," whether by constitutional amendment or otherwise, just focus on defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman. There is a desire not to let gays call their unions "marriage"; but these bans do not prohibit civil unions as long as they're not called "marriages."

Federal courts, Congress and state legislatures will likely continue to require "equal rights" for gay civil unions as for marriages, including tax and other benefits, even if the word "marriage" is defined by law to be just for a man and woman.

Frankly, most marriages between a man and woman today are civil unions anyway; and the Church setting, if used at all, is more for social context rather than for sacred covenants.

I struggle with whether to encourage civil unions for gays. I have wonderful gay friends, but I do believe that sex is reserved for traditional marriage; otherwise, it is fornication.

So, on the one hand, civil unions might be viewed as sanctioning "sin." On the other hand, civil unions can add value and commitment to a relationship that could prevent promiscuity. For the latter reason, I think I'm in favor of civil unions for gays, but not marriage.

 

[hernyaccent]

I think this is an excellent thread, one of the most informed discussions on a difficult subject.

It's interesting to me that attempts to ban "gay marriages," whether by constitutional amendment or otherwise, just focus on defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman. There is a desire not to let gays call their unions "marriage"; but these bans do not prohibit civil unions as long as they're not called "marriages."

Federal courts, Congress and state legislatures will likely continue to require "equal rights" for gay civil unions as for marriages, including tax and other benefits, even if the word "marriage" is defined by law to be just for a man and woman.

Frankly, most marriages between a man and woman today are civil unions anyway; and the Church setting, if used at all, is more for social context rather than for sacred covenants.

I struggle with whether to encourage civil unions for gays. I have wonderful gay friends, but I do believe that sex is reserved for traditional marriage; otherwise, it is fornication.

So, on the one hand, civil unions might be viewed as sanctioning "sin." On the other hand, civil unions can add value and commitment to a relationship that could prevent promiscuity. For the latter reason, I think I'm in favor of civil unions for gays, but not marriage.

I understand what your saying, however, American history tells us that separate but equal does not work nor is it equal. What's your objection to civil unions for all couples and a separate religious ceremony just like it exists for heterosexuals and homosexuals ?

 

[wanderingone]

Then how do religious groups have a leg to stand on when it comes to preventing gay marriage?

They shouldn't, and for many they are childishly objecting to the world "marriage" applying to all marriages. Although they don't seem to object to previously married individuals who are marrying someone new using it.

 

[wanderingone]

Because they have made the point that legal "marriage" has never included same sex couples before. They have the power of "tradition" on their side.

Plus, stupid people are scared of anything different, and there are a lot of stupid, gullible people out there.

Well as a nation we have entertained this notion that wedding=house of worship or at the very least person in a black suit at the head of the aisle.

People who never set food in a church run around picking out the church that fulfills their image of the perfect backdrop. When people hear that you opted out of the wedding fantasy they are often confused and bewildered. I mean how are you married if you didn't "walk down the aisle"?

We are Christians but we married originally outside the church because we did not belong to any particular church, and I wasn't inclined to run back to the church of my childhood where I hadn't participated in ages and ask them to marry us. When we remarried after our divorce we just felt like we were really already married and didn't see a reason to wait until there was a time available at the church. After we remarried we did ask the minister to make the announcement - basically we had a small ceremony there and then in front of the church that was quite more meaningful than any traditional wedding ceremony would have been for us.

And - I'm not sure how up to date this is but this list of who can perform weddings in the US

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/officiants.htm

Shows that most states include or even reserve the right to perform a wedding to "members of the clergy" Quite a big matter of state and church mingling and preventing people the full freedom to choose something other than the state defined versions of "clergy" for their wedding.

 

[Axioma]

Has there ever actually been such a thing as "separate but equal" institutions? I mean, ever? Like, since the formation of the damn universe?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think this is an excellent thread, one of the most informed discussions on a difficult subject.

It's interesting to me that attempts to ban "gay marriages," whether by constitutional amendment or otherwise, just focus on defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman. There is a desire not to let gays call their unions "marriage"; but these bans do not prohibit civil unions as long as they're not called "marriages."

Federal courts, Congress and state legislatures will likely continue to require "equal rights" for gay civil unions as for marriages, including tax and other benefits, even if the word "marriage" is defined by law to be just for a man and woman.

Frankly, most marriages between a man and woman today are civil unions anyway; and the Church setting, if used at all, is more for social context rather than for sacred covenants.

I struggle with whether to encourage civil unions for gays. I have wonderful gay friends, but I do believe that sex is reserved for traditional marriage; otherwise, it is fornication.

So, on the one hand, civil unions might be viewed as sanctioning "sin." On the other hand, civil unions can add value and commitment to a relationship that could prevent promiscuity. For the latter reason, I think I'm in favor of civil unions for gays, but not marriage.

I was interested in hearing a Mormon's perspective on this, given the LDS historical practice of polygamy. I realize the LDS has abandoned this practice, but as I understand it, not on the basis of doctrine, but as a "for now" dispensation from God.

Anyway, one popular rationale against gay marriage is a supposed slippery slope to polygamy and then to marriages where both parties are not able to freely consent.

What do you, as a Mormon, think about the use of polygamy as an analogy in arguing against gay marriage?

ISTM, the idea of reserving the label "marriage" for man-woman relationships, while allowing civil unions for others with the same legal rights and obligations as marriage raises the question whether a person could have more than one civil union at the same time.

 

[theMormon]

I understand what your saying, however, American history tells us that separate but equal does not work nor is it equal. What's your objection to civil unions for all couples and a separate religious ceremony just like it exists for heterosexuals and homosexuals ?

I didn't think I objected to that. I must have missed that point. I guess I'm OK with a government defining civil unions, and separate religious ceremonies for heterosexuals and homosexuals. I just believe, on religious grounds, that the term "marriage" should be reserved for man and woman.