Civil Marriage vs. The Religious Institution

[royalartisan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true in most states here in the good ol' U-S-of-A that couples are obligated to obtain a civil licence from a court house before they are "allowed" to perform a religious ceremony ? As long as that is true, EVERY marriage is technically a CIVIL UNION.

That's appalling if you are one who sees marriage as a religious institution first, secular and civil contract second. I honestly don't see how the government has any authority to regulate these matters.

However, I can understand our community pushing to view marriage as predominantly a civil institution as opposed to a religious one because that way, the government would have the authority to regulate it, which includes passing legislation to define and therefore ban or legalise it.

And my next question is...if we as a "Christian nation" are so uncompromising in our principles, how can we allow atheists to marry each other ? And anyone who ignorantly says that all homosexuals are atheists, or that all atheists are homosexuals, is an absolute fool. Anyway, marriage is a sacred institution between not only a man and a woman, but a CHRISTIAN man and woman, right ? That's what I was raised to believe and accept as "truth." That's the way it should be written if we want to be absolutely clear about this whole controversy, right ? Marriage is a Christians Only club...complete with its own little handshake and secret decoder rings.

Now, of course, I've already mentioned that I am a lesbian and that I believe I was born a homosexual. And I think that this country is a nation of hypocrites. I do not believe that the United States was founded on the notion that the government has a place to meddle in the personal lives of the citizenry. And when people say we were founded on Christian principles, I must beg to differ most humbly, for in my studies of history regarding this "great" nation, I have found no profound evidence to support such a claim. In fact, my studies have provided evidence to a near contrary approach to the traditional view of the founding fathers' wishes.

The men who wrote and signed the Constitution were Deists. If you are unfamiliar with Deism, it is a branch detached from Christianity whose most basic belief is that Gd created the world and then left it to its own devices. It's almost as if the Gd had wound up a clock and then let it be. I would also add that our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the Constitution to sit as a document of law for longer than forty years before being redrafted, reworked, or revisited with an eraser now and then. The original intent was that the Constitution be rewritten as needed, in fact, and be viewed as a living, changing document---without an "amendment" process.

Amendments are just a way to slow down that process. In theory, if we followed the original intent of the framers, the people should be able to recreate a new Constitution and adapt the law to fit the modern times.

And I think that marriage SHOULD be defined.


"Marriage: A civil and/or religious ceremony as sanctioned by a government between two consenting adults."

BAM ! Solution made simple !

And all those people who are groaning about how if we let the homosexuals marry, pretty soon people will be marrying their cats and dogs. Or how we'll be letting NAMBLA have their way and then old men will be marrying 8 year old boys. That is a load of CRAP.

"TWO CONSENTING ADULTS"

Age of consent in most states ? 18. There. So shut up, already !



I think in the case of secular vs. religious, there should be no loser. We already treat marriage as less than sacred anyway, so why should religious factions receive any special treatment ? If we're going to define marriage as a Christian institution, we might as well outlaw atheists and non-Christians from it, not just homosexuals. Next, we'll have to be defining Christianity because we all know that Mormons and Protestants view themselves as Christians in spite of the Catholic church claiming to be the one true Christian body. It would never end....

I don't see a threat here at all....

It's not like modern Christians seem to take marriage as seriously as they claim, considering the current divorce rate in this country. Hell, my parents are both Christians and they divorced each other and destroyed our family, but that's okay because it's a man and a woman, and that heterosexual stipulation is all that matters.



It's ridiculous. It's saying we should give Christians special treatment while everyone else, homosexual or even heterosexuals of non-Christian faiths, should have to fight and argue and never have the equality our Constitution supposedly guarantees to ALL Americans.

I'm thinking that we should just abolish the term marriage and call it what it really is according to the majority of state laws: a civil union. a domestic partnership. That's equality. Calling it what it is and applying it to everyone. All marriages, gay or straight or muslim or or jewish.....they are ALL domestic partnerships....marriage is just a catchy outdated, factious word and this is all a petty semantics war.


Your opinions ? Responses ?

[BenL]

I agree, royal. Contrary to the trumpeting of the Christian right, we are NOT a Christian nation. Our Constitution is specifically religion-neutral.

Marriage as a contract can be rightly regulated by the state. Marriage as a religious covenant is a matter that only religious authority should regulate. The two may dwell together harmoniously, as with the majority of marriages performed every day.

People who are not religious may indeed contract marriage, and may do so before strictly secular authorities, such as judges, clerks of court or justices of the peace. People who are religious may enter into a convenantal relationship even without a legal contract; witness the numerous gay couples who have had religious blessings of their relationships while legal marriage contracts have been withheld by the state.

This distinction is what makes marriage rights a civil rights issue and not a religious one. No law should be passed that forces a relgious organization to marry glbt people. Similarly, no law should be passed to prevent a religious institution from doing so ... or, for that matter, dictating that the state withhold the contractual rights of marriage from anyone. That's what DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) laws do when they define marriage as limited to a man and a woman.

[Zerbie]

Yep, Ben puts it well.

Rachel, you're also on to something which probably should be obvious but is rarely ever pointed out: that those pushing for 'marriage amendments' are the ones selling us a slippery slope to chaos, not gay couples who wish to partake in society the same way as their neighbors.

Personally, I've never been able to believe that anyone swallows "a man and a woman" as *being The Definition of marriage.* Limiting marriage rights to only male/female couples doesn't define what marriage IS, it just says who can (and can't) participate. Nowhere does "one man/one woman" *define* marriage.

In recent weeks, a straight woman and her gay male best friend were seen together by a stranger who felt compelled to ask me "if they are man and wife." I just said No. Later, I started laughing to myself that, well, if "one man and one woman" is The Definition of marriage, well, then technically. . . they ARE one man and one woman. . . must be a marriage!!!! Tada!

[tymejumper]

Yes well, people are idiots. I for all the legal sence had a "one man and one woman marriage". I of course have mentioned many times my ex-husband was TG and therefore also gay. So I guess we had a great hetero looking marriage.

I would rather be in love with my wife than legally married to my ex-husband. Although, I do worry about the civil rights she won't get if I die. No Social Security, no Widows Benefit to name a few. I am in the process of spending tons of money to make sure things are legal and unable for people to fight about the house or money. I have life insurnce and such with her as benefit. I am having a will drawn up this Summer. I have a Medical Power of Attorney with my co-workers signitures(other medical people so lets see someone throw that out!)on it leaving her my POA. I worry every day on the way to and from work becuase I go by highway and worry that she and my children won't be taken care of becuase we are not a "legal" family.

You are right that marriage was actually just a contract made for the passing on of lands and inheritance of children. It really never existed , only religious ceremonies, or other things like African custom of jumping over the broom. Also you could get handfasted and/or married by pledging to each other by a river or stream. Governemnt NEVER had a hand in it.

Now, becuase our society is so different and there are rights to be given and protected, we need only the GOVERNMENT to sanctify, not the religious to bless us. I pay my taxes and I want my Damn rights!

[royalartisan]

Thank you for participating in this discussion. Your comments are greatly appreciated !!