Should all of you people who married in churches seek civil unions immediately if you want your marriage recognized by the state?
I don’t think many gay people would object to getting civil unions if all you married folk had to get civil unions too.
In my country you have to do both, the marriage is the religous ceremony the Registry is the legal process. Same sex couples can be registered as married, but it is up to a church if they provide a service.
Thats how it works in the UK.
Marriage is not just a church concept. There are two sides to it – the religious and the legal.
The religious aspects of a marriage are those dictated by the religious community and potentially the spiritual figure presiding over the wedding. That of legal marriage is dictated by an each state’s family law codes.
Marriage is in many ways like a legal partnership – it entitles both parties to half the assets accrued during its span, and it dictates custody allowances of any children as well. Civil unions, on the other hand, are a way of making marriage between homosexuals recognized for legal rights without giving it the cultural significance applied to the term ‘marriage.’ Essentially, it grants gay couples similar rights to married straight couples without giving them de facto equal status. If you remember from Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal is never equal.
There is already the standard that if you have a religious ceremony to get married, it has to be verified by the state. My husband and I had a handfasting ceremony (I’m a Pagan, he’s a Christian). If we had gotten a certified High Priest/ess to do the ceremony, we would have been considered ":married.": I don’t think it would be fair to ":loose the word": just so they can’t have it. If it’s the same thing, why call it by something else because someone is whining about something that doesn’t concern or effect them?
And marriage is NOT a church concept, it’s something that the church commandeered for their own because they lack imagination. Even their figures are commandeered from other religions!
(sorry that I ranted – it wasn’t at you, but at the idea, which always gets under my skin)
I agree with you. The #1 reason why I support gay marriage is because the state WILL NOT recognize the gay couple as a union or married.
Personally, if this was the case, I would care less if the religious folks wish to keep their term ":marriage": between a male and female. They would have what is most important.
Atleast that’s how I view it. I wonder what the gay community feels.
Since marriage was around before churches, maybe churches should come up with a phrase like religious union and the participants won’t automatically get the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage unless they seek a state sanctioned marriage. then I would not care if the church did not want to recognize unions from other sects or state marriages.
Most of us who were married in religious insititution already HAVE a civil union. ThatВґs why when we want them dissolved we go to a civil court for a divorce.
Also: DonВґt you know the last line the clergy man usually says at a wedding ceremony: ":By the power vested in me by [this religious institution] and the state, I now pronounce you…": What do you think that part about the state MEANS? And why do you think you have to go to the county or town to get a ":marriage license":? What did you think that was? That’s the part about the state. That’s the civil union.
We ALL have civil unions!
For once Jeff S, I think you make a lot of sense.
Let’s also make it so that anyone can form a union…
I heard of one scenario where 2 sisters got divorced and moved in together to share living expenses…. 1 worked all the time while the other cared for both of their kids. Unfortunately, the 2nd sister doesn’t have any medical insurance since she doesn’t work… so eventually she was FORCED back to work putting BOTH kids in daycare.
Why not allow them to form some sort of civil union and share benefits.. at least until their kids are raised OR someone gets traditionally married — that would be good for the kids.
We should indeed leave ":marriage": in a church to the church. If a church wants to participate in homosexual unions, then let them. If not, don’t make them. Government should get out of the business of something that belongs in the church. If two people want to be ‘married’ in the eyes of the government, then they should be able to, assuming they are adults. If the church doesn’t want to recognize it, fine – I can go to another church.
If you want to call the gov’t-sanctioned marriages ":civil unions":, and the church-sanctioned ones ":marriages":, I do not object. If I were to re-marry, I wouldn’t want one sanctioned by either the church or the gov’t. I’ll proclaim my devotion to the one I love, even with family and friends. But I’ll not register that with the courthouse, the IRS, or the church. The important people would already know.
Two for the price of one. The typical church wedding is both a religious and a civil affair. In some countries, the religious and civil aspects are separate: one has individual civil and religious ceremonies.
I have a civil union that’s been blessed by the Roman Catholic church. The fact that I obtained this union in the Church is of no consequence, since the Priest that performed the ceremony was granted the authority to unite my wife and I by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
***chuckles*** Why is marriage in quotations? Do you question it’s existance the way you question God’s existance?
Religion did not invent marriage. Religion reinforced social needs and social laws, making marriage compulsory for people who valued religious law above all other laws.
Anyway, this question was addressed yesterday. My answer then applies here as well:
From an anthropology standpoint, marriage was instituted even BEFORE various religions made it a holy union. And this is long, long before Christianity and Judaism. It was cultural in societies long before it was religious.
Marriage was important legally and genetically to carry on family lines and make bond heirs to their fathers. What better way to ensure a pure blood line than to encourage couples to bind themselves to each other and forsake others? What better way to make it happen than to make it religiously holy, when most people are religious enough for it to matter to them? The same thing happened with dietary laws. People were more likely to follow things that were beneficial for the society and the family if it was included in religious doctrines.