Marriage? More than a ceremony...

[bryanf]

So lately I have been giving marriage alot of thought lately. Not that I am anywhere close to it. But just because.

There have been various views of marriage through out time. Some with ceremonies and others without.

Do you think it is necessary for people to be married to go through the marriage ceremony? Or would fleet marriage suffice (individuals identifying themselves as married though not having an official ceremony; not individuals who live together and do not identify themselves as married).

Date wise we have the Council of Trent for the Catholics who instituted that marriage has to be performed by a priestly figure with two honorable witnesses. But we Protestants were already gone by the time that came around. The next closest thing I can find is the civil requirement for it in the 1700s to be performed by an official.

So here we go. Your thoughts on marriage. Particularly if you are a follower of Christ, is it necessary that you have a magistrate or religious leader perform the service over you? Or as it was for many in times past sufficient to make a pledge to one another, particularly if both families bless it?

And likewise if we don't need a civil magistrate or religious figure to recognize us, then are all we fighting for as GLBT for marriage recognition is the benefits of being a married couple as recognized by the state?

[kara speltz]

So lately I have been giving marriage alot of thought lately. Not that I am anywhere close to it. But just because.

There have been various views of marriage through out time. Some with ceremonies and others without.

Do you think it is necessary for people to be married to go through the marriage ceremony? Or would fleet marriage suffice (individuals identifying themselves as married though not having an official ceremony; not individuals who live together and do not identify themselves as married).

Date wise we have the Council of Trent for the Catholics who instituted that marriage has to be performed by a priestly figure with two honorable witnesses. But we Protestants were already gone by the time that came around. The next closest thing I can find is the civil requirement for it in the 1700s to be performed by an official.

So here we go. Your thoughts on marriage. Particularly if you are a follower of Christ, is it necessary that you have a magistrate or religious leader perform the service over you? Or as it was for many in times past sufficient to make a pledge to one another, particularly if both families bless it?

And likewise if we don't need a civil magistrate or religious figure to recognize us, then are all we fighting for as GLBT for marriage recognition is the benefits of being a married couple as recognized by the state?

I'm Roman Catholic. My understanding is that the requirement for a priest and two witnesses, is really only about civil marriage. I believe, and I think that ultimately Catholic theology might agree, that the priest and the witnesses, are simply that a witness to a public commitment.

So yes, what I am fighting for are the 1,047 civil rights granted to heterosexuals that are denied us.

I do not, in my lifetime, expect to see that Catholic Church come around to recognize the beauty and love that our commitments to each other involve. I have a friend who is doing her thesis on spirituality and sexuality. She is straight. When I told her I had some suggestions for gay couples to talk to about the issue, her response was very telling. She said, oh, I have more than enough gay couples, they seem to inherently comprehend the relationship between sexuality and spirituality. It's straight couples, I'm having trouble finding. For they don't seem to connect the two. So in one way, our oppression becomes our blessing. How's that for a paradox?

kara

[squirt07]

Interesting that you should post this because I am also doing a paper but on the definition of the word marriage and how it has changed over time. Thanks for the post. It gives me more to think about and more perspective.