Church Authorise True Marriage

[Cyberseeker]

I am so ashamed of my country. The New Zealand government has sacrificed traditional values and legalised gay marriage yesterday. News Release here. We are the 14th country to do this and, if current trends are anything to go by, not the last.

May I make the following suggestion to Christians in all countries going this way? Please ask the Church to issue (in its own authority) a separate “Certificate of Christian Marriage” so that those who wish to disassociate themselves from the government certificate can do so without having to dis-annul their marriage.

The Church has this authority if they are bold enough to do it. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18)

If a single denomination took such an initiative I would want to associate with a certificate which reflected true marriage. But I would prefer that a inter-denominational body was set up with recognition conferred on it by more than one Church group. Is there anyone prepared to do this? Anyhow, here is a poll to stimulate discussion:

 

[Goya]

FWIW: My ‘state’ marriage license means very little to me. Just the secular state recognizing our ‘union’. My marriage is based on the sacramentality of the union sanctioned by the Church. That’s what gives our marriage its extrinsic meaning.

Please don’t read that as me supporting gay marriage (and oxymoronic phrase to begin with…)–I am dead set against it. I’m simply pointing out that should the fateful day arrive in the states, where such a fiction/contradiction is recognized by the goverment at the federal level…

…it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on my sacramental marriage in Holy Matrimony, with/to my wife–which was consumated through the Church, apart from the state.

Catholics have long distinguished between the 2, since divorce is not recognized in the Church. Hence when a Catholic wants to get married again, and they couldn’t get their marriage annulled–they have to settle for a civil marriage (while being viewed as ‘living in sin’, and/or ‘committing adultery’, by/through the Church).

…but I still resist this abominatin/idiocy as best I can, where ever and however, I can.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

FWIW: My ‘state’ marriage license means very little to me. Just the secular state recognizing our ‘union’. My marriage is based on the sacramentality of the union sanctioned by the Church. That’s what gives our marriage its extrinsic meaning.

Please don’t read that as me supporting gay marriage (and oxymoronic phrase to begin with…)–I am dead set against it. I’m simply pointing out that should the fateful day arrive in the states, where such a fiction/contradiction is recognized by the goverment at the federal level…

…it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on my sacramental marriage in Holy Matrimony, with/to my wife–which was consumated through the Church, apart from the state.

Catholics have long distinguished between the 2, since divorce is not recognized in the Church. Hence when a Catholic wants to get married again, and they couldn’t get their marriage annulled–they have to settle for a civil marriage (while being viewed as ‘living in sin’, and/or ‘committing adultery’, by/through the Church).

…but I still resist this abominatin/idiocy as best I can, where ever and however, I can.

I agree with this, it has no meaning to begin with since it does not affect that reality of the marriage at all. It is nothing more than a piece of paper saying that a government I don’t particularly care for says that I have to the right to file my taxes jointly with my wife.

 

[DavidFilmer]

In many countries, a church wedding has no legal standing. In Germany, for example, a couple must go to a civil service office (called the Standesamt) and obtain a certificate of union (they don’t use the word “marriage” in the civil context). Then, a couple may optionally have a church wedding.

This removes the concept of “marriage” from the political realm. In the United States, marriage is the only Sacrament that is also regulated by the State, and there’s no reason why this should be the case.

When I married, I first obtained a marriage license from my state (which only allows me to marry). The minister (an Episcopal priest) performed the ceremony and signed the license, which gives it legal standing.

I also obtained a “certificate of matrimony” from the Episcopal church, and I obtained another such certificate when we “renewed our vows” before a Catholic priest.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I fear, and expect, we are only a few weeks away from homosexual “marriage” being the law of the land in the U.S.

Civil marriage confers certain benefits in the U.S., but it also has its drawbacks. In my state, for instance, there is a benefit of a certain type of ownership between spouses that is not subject to the claims of creditors of either spouse separately. That’s an ancient thing inherited from English law (but which is no longer in England) and it’s a good thing.

But on the other hand, each spouse is responsible for the other spouse’s “necessities” by law. That mostly comes into play in medical things. If my wife runs up a $100,000.00 medical bill that isn’t covered by insurance, I’m liable for it. If we were just “live-ins” legally, I wouldn’t be. Medicaid is quite perverse in its action if one spouse goes into a nursing home. The at-home spouse has to “spend down” the family assets to a fairly low level. Income too. But if the couple were unmarried and just living together, that would not be the case.

There are some tax benefits, but there are also some tax penalties to being civilly married. On the whole, it’s a very mixed thing. Most of the marriage benefits were designed to benefit wives who did not work outside the home. That’s a rarity now anyway, and the benefits aren’t all that much. So, if the state simply did away with civil marriage altogether, I’m not sure much would be lost. And that would be particularly true if the civil law recognizes every perverse relationship as a “marriage”, beginning with homosexual unions and ending up with what all?

I have a Mexican-American friend who receives a disability benefit that’s tied to the “household” income. His wife works. Some years back, they became at odds and divorced…for real. Later, they reconciled, but have never gotten married civilly again because they see only disadvantages in it. In explaining it to me, he sort of chuckled and said “we’re married in the eyes of the Church, you know, and that’s all that counts with me.” Kind of hard to argue with that logic.

I don’t know if priests would even marry a couple if they didn’t have a marriage license. Perhaps not now. But if civil “marriage” becomes a symbol for the perverse, would they then?

 

[Peter12rb]

May I make the following suggestion to Christians in all countries going this way? Please ask the Church to issue (in its own authority) a separate “Certificate of Christian Marriage” so that those who wish to disassociate themselves from the government certificate can do so without having to dis-annul their marriage.
:

I don’t want to disrespect anyones’ views here and don’t want to criticize. I don’t, however, think this would be a good idea, at least not with the phrase ‘Certificate of Christian Marriage’. What, then, when a pro-gay-marriage Christian denomination starts issuing something with the same name to gay and straight couples (as I believe someone, somewhere, would do)? The picture popping up in my head is one of Dr. Seuss’s book about the Sneetches. And I don’t to imply this discussion is childish. But I believe the idea would go down the same path (although without the particular ending from the book).

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t want to disrespect anyones’ views here and don’t want to criticize. I don’t, however, think this would be a good idea, at least not with the phrase ‘Certificate of Christian Marriage’. What, then, when a pro-gay-marriage Christian denomination starts issuing something with the same name (as I believe someone, somewhere, would do)? The picture popping up in my head is one of Dr. Seuss’s book about the Sneetches.

Personally, and without any intention of starting a religious war with you, I don’t think the Catholic Church has any business trying to put together any kind of common approach to marriage with other religions if homosexual “marriage” becomes the law of the land in this country, and the reason you gave is one of them, though there are others.

There was a time in this country when Christian denominations regarded marriage in essentially the same way, (except, long ago, the Mormons, of course) though divorce was a difference. Now, there is no agreement worthy of the name. There are denominations that regard homosexual marriage as an abomination. There are others that sanctify it. There are others in transition.

Agreement among Christians generally, and about much of anything, is gone.

 

[Peter12rb]

Personally, and without any intention of starting a religious war with you, I don’t think the Catholic Church has any business trying to put together any kind of common approach to marriage with other religions if homosexual “marriage” becomes the law of the land in this country, and the reason you gave is one of them, though there are others.

And no offense taken, and I sincerely hope none given (and apologize if it’s the case). I was responding to the original post’s question of an inter-denominational certificate. I’m certainly for inter-denominational dialogue and teamwork. The first thought that popped in my head, though, was that some denominations are closer than others, and some will never see eye to eye.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And no offense taken, and I sincerely hope none given (and apologize if it’s the case). I was responding to the original post’s question of an inter-denominational certificate. I’m certainly for inter-denominational dialogue and teamwork. The first thought that popped in my head, though, was that some denominations are closer than others, and some will never see eye to eye.

Ha! I was editing my post when you wrote this, so I missed it.

No, I think there is some room (and should be) among some denominations when it comes to prolife issues, certain basic charitable issues, even some marriage issues. But the whole spectrum of Christian churches is so diverse now that I don’t see much prospect for any unified action on much of anything.

 

[Ismael]

I voted:

Disrespect my govt-issued “Marriage Certificate” but do nothing to cause trouble.

I am not married yet but this is what I think:

1- State-issued marriage is not a real marriage in the eyes of God anyway, but it is necessary in the government eyes for certain benefits, aids, property and inheritance issues.

I suppose that, unless I wanted to aggravate my own wife and children with burdens I would not throw away the legam marriage certificate.

2- I would be of course married in Church before God.

3- Getting a ‘legal’ (in the eyes of the state) ‘Christian Marriage certificate’ seems pointless to me.
The only true and valid marriage is the one you celebrate with your spouse in the Chuch. The civil marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper that grants you a few civil rights.

4- Since Church marriage, at least in the west, is not anymore a legal matter, there’s no dichotomy.

 

[Cyberseeker]

In many countries, a church wedding has no legal standing. In Germany, for example, a couple must go to a civil service office (called the Standesamt) and obtain a certificate of union (they don’t use the word “marriage” in the civil context). Then, a couple may optionally have a church wedding.

Im thinking along these lines too. I would prefer that the state issued civil union certificates for the purposes of estate and probate issues. Child paternity and support are already dealt with by the law outside of marriage. Support of a spouse is taken care of in divorce statutes, which could easily deal with same sex unions as well.

Save marriage for what it is, a religious ceremony of a church. Unfortunately, modern Churches have allowed the state to usurp an authority over marriage that was not the states authority in the first place. Then young Christian couples have felt their marriage might not be “proper” or “real” if the state did not sanction it.

Now the state is devaluing the sacred basis of marriage and ruining it. What is needed now is for the Church to speak with one voice and take marriage back.

 

[Darryl_B]

Could I please take a moment to explain something about the un-definition of marriage debate in New Zealand. The Catholic Church bishops issued a statement that defined marriage between a man and a woman, the statement was precise, accurate and humbly presented.

This was counter-acted by a statement signed by primarily Anglican and Presbyterian clerics that was very arrogant, treated the Catholic Church leadership with contempt, and the media in this country lapped it up with popcorn. . Christian against Christian, awesome, destroy itself.

I think that is primarily why cyberseeker is here. Cyberseeker if you are still here you will only find consistent truth in the Catholic Church. You will not find inter-denominational affiliation on this you will only find it in the Catholic Church. I think you should examine it carefully and prayerfully.