Obstacles

[JonNC]

=SpiritMeadow;5409943]I’m confused where you get the idea that marriage is a religious institution? My understanding is that historically, marriage was a civil act, and that the RCC for a very long time refused to get involved, finally agreeing to bless such unions outside the church proper on the steps. It then evolved from there.

I’d prefer that all marriage be civil and then churches could bless them as they chose.

I think its religious roots go back before Christ. In fact, one reason Lutherans don’t recognize marriage as a sacrament, is because God instituted it before the incarnation, and one of the standards for a sacrament in Lutheran thought is Christ-instituted.
If one prefers marriage be civil, one can be sure that same-gender marriage will not be the first re-definition of the practice.

And while the technical words are not “separation of church and state” that was the clear idea especially to Monroe and Jefferson, Washington and others. They saw first hand how the states which did not separate the two, discriminated so horribly against anyone who was not Puritan or Anglican. For a good many years the “establishment clause” did not apply to the states and they continued to discriminate against other faiths in their respective states. Only when the 14th amendment was applied to the states were they required to not favor one religion over another.

Since then there has been a steady movement to separate religion and secular activities of a public nature, so that no one is required to respond to the religious beliefs of others.

Ok, so long as we are talking about an established state church, which is what I believe the founders opposed and what you reference in your post - The Church of England, etc. If that is what you mean by separation of church and state, then I have no qualms. But that isn’t what the secularists mean. An example: even though a public school teacher, I am a strong believer in vouchers. For an education voicher to be used at a Catholic k-12 school or Baptist k-12 school, or a Jewish Torah school does not violate the 1st amendment, as it does not set up a state church.

OTOH, same-gender couples should not be denied equal access in secular society - taxation, healthcare matters, etc. In fact, I would expand “domestic partnerships” to include any 2 adults that cohabitate - intimacy should not be a factor. Example - my widowed grandmother and great aunt (sisters).

Jon

 

[Paul3144]

I tend to agree with Jon here. I think that marriage and state should be separate, with the church dealing with marriage and the state having domestic partnerships.

I would have slightly more separation than Jon is asking for. I don’t support school prayer, etc, but I would agree that the secularists have taken it too far.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think its religious roots go back before Christ. In fact, one reason Lutherans don’t recognize marriage as a sacrament, is because God instituted it before the incarnation, and one of the standards for a sacrament in Lutheran thought is Christ-instituted.
If one prefers marriage be civil, one can be sure that same-gender marriage will not be the first re-definition of the practice.

And while the technical words are not “separation of church and state” that was the clear idea especially to Monroe and Jefferson, Washington and others. They saw first hand how the states which did not separate the two, discriminated so horribly against anyone who was not Puritan or Anglican. For a good many years the “establishment clause” did not apply to the states and they continued to discriminate against other faiths in their respective states. Only when the 14th amendment was applied to the states were they required to not favor one religion over another.

Since then there has been a steady movement to separate religion and secular activities of a public nature, so that no one is required to respond to the religious beliefs of others.

Ok, so long as we are talking about an established state church, which is what I believe the founders opposed and what you reference in your post - The Church of England, etc. If that is what you mean by separation of church and state, then I have no qualms. But that isn’t what the secularists mean. An example: even though a public school teacher, I am a strong believer in vouchers. For an education voicher to be used at a Catholic k-12 school or Baptist k-12 school, or a Jewish Torah school does not violate the 1st amendment, as it does not set up a state church.

OTOH, same-gender couples should not be denied equal access in secular society - taxation, healthcare matters, etc. In fact, I would expand “domestic partnerships” to include any 2 adults that cohabitate - intimacy should not be a factor. Example - my widowed grandmother and great aunt (sisters).

Jon

thanks Jon for the Lutheran view. On what scripture does the Lutheran church rely that marriage is God instituted? I’d have thought that would have gotten into a peck of trouble with the issue of multiple wives and concubines. But perhaps your citation might clear that up.

I like your interesting take on co-habitation rights.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I tend to agree with Jon here. I think that marriage and state should be separate, with the church dealing with marriage and the state having domestic partnerships.

I would have slightly more separation than Jon is asking for. I don’t support school prayer, etc, but I would agree that the secularists have taken it too far.

Well, perhaps, but as I see it Jon’s says that Lutherans don’t consider marriage a sacrament, so I fail to see the problem. Call it anything you wish then, the word is irrelevant. I can’t see the distinction now between civil union and marriage except as to place of occurance.

Also, the use of the word secularist is bandied about with ease. I’m not sure we all mean the same thing. What do you mean? For me, it means anyone who believes that the church should not be in the public arena as institution and the state should not be in the church arena. Do you define it differently?

 

[JonNC]

thanks Jon for the Lutheran view. On what scripture does the Lutheran church rely that marriage is God instituted? I’d have thought that would have gotten into a peck of trouble with the issue of multiple wives and concubines. But perhaps your citation might clear that up.

I like your interesting take on co-habitation rights.

Gen. 2:24
I’ll get back to you on the co-habitation rights and this:

Well, perhaps, but as I see it Jon’s says that Lutherans don’t consider marriage a sacrament, **so I fail to see the problem. Call it anything you wish then, the word is irrelevant. I can’t see the distinction now between civil union and marriage except as to place of occurance. **

Jon

 

[StrawberryJam]

Jon, I do have to ask what is the difference you are talking about. If your church makes distinctions about sacraments based on Christ centric or God centric, does this mean the theology is not truly Trinitarian in nature?

 

[survive]

Governments can no more grant two men or two women the ability to marry one another than grant oil the ability to mix with water. The harm in allowing the government to declare them married is that it would not be true and it would then be a government edict forcing the majority who know better to take part in misrepresenting the facts. Imagine a law making any piece of iron brought to a courthouse officially a piece of woolen yarn. It would make liars of the whole society, except those who somehow resisted. The issue is much deeper with misrepresenting same-sex relationships as marriages, because a family grounded in marriage is the basic unit of a healthy society.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I do have to ask what is the difference you are talking about. If your church makes distinctions about sacraments based on Christ centric or God centric, does this mean the theology is not truly Trinitarian in nature?

Of course not. Are you saying that you don’t see different roles - creator, redeemer, sanctifier - of the three persons of the Trinity?

Perhaps the following short article may help:

protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheran_sacraments

Luthers confess with the historic Church the Athanasian Creed.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
Well, perhaps, but as I see it Jon’s says that Lutherans don’t consider marriage a sacrament, so I fail to see the problem. Call it anything you wish then, the word is irrelevant. I can’t see the distinction now between civil union and marriage except as to place of occurance.

I certainly don’t see it as that black and white. A command of God does not have to be a sacrament to be important. Prayer is not a sacrament, for example. The word is relevent. Words mean things. The word marriage holds a particular meaing - a union between a man and a woman, commanded and blessed by God. Civil union, on the other hand, can be anything the government chooses it to be.

And that brings me back to my original point. Even though Luther believed that marriage, though a command of God, should be administered by civil authority (such as is the case in America), he also said that Christians should follow their consciences when the government becomes corrupt. This is the basis upon which I make my opinion that, under the 1st amendment’s so-called separation of church and state, the government should be required to relinquish its involvement in marriage, just as schools had to relinquish its involvement in prayer.

Jon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I certainly don’t see it as that black and white. A command of God does not have to be a sacrament to be important. Prayer is not a sacrament, for example. The word is relevent. Words mean things. The word marriage holds a particular meaing - a union between a man and a woman, commanded and blessed by God. Civil union, on the other hand, can be anything the government chooses it to be.

And that brings me back to my original point. Even though Luther believed that marriage, though a command of God, should be administered by civil authority (such as is the case in America), he also said that Christians should follow their consciences when the government becomes corrupt. This is the basis upon which I make my opinion that, under the 1st amendment’s so-called separation of church and state, the government should be required to relinquish its involvement in marriage, just as schools had to relinquish its involvement in prayer.

Jon

I understand you point in Gen. 2:24. But how does this address the problem of multiple wives which the passage doesn’t address or concubinage? And of course all depends on one’s assumptions about literalcy. It remains my understanding that for centuries marriage was a civil device only, and their neither the Jewish church nor the Christian church had anything to do with the practice. So I would believe that it had a civil background long before it was gathered up as religious issue.