Separation of religious and civil marriage

[marymary1975]

In my country of origin - panama, civil and religious marriages are completely separated. That is based on the concept of separation of religion and state as it is considered that the way is done in the US is entanglement with religion. My understanding is that for most of the world is like that. The problem I see with the way it works in the US is that the priest becomes a state officer so the government thought that can force the church to perform certain kinds of marriages. I don’t think that will happen Amy time soon bit I think that is something we will see in 30-40 years

Also I just want yomention as a curious note that in my country the catholic church particularly won’t marry anyone that hasn’t been previously married civilly.

 

[DrTaffy]

Why not do this:

1. remove the government from the marriage business. No more government recognized marriages for anyone
2. Allow every adult the right to declare one other adult their “government recognized beneficiary”. This will take care of all the civil aspects of the benefits of marriage, without calling it a “marriage”, a “union” or some other similar term. They could file joint tax returns, have automatic power-of-attorney, etc.
3. This would also allow, for example, two unmarried sisters to get civil benefits that they would not have otherwise been allowed to get. There should not be a governmental requirement that in order to get benefits you have to have sex with one else.
4. Marriages would remain in the realm of religious institutions…were it belongs.

thoughts?

This assumes that the copyright for terms such as ‘marriage’ somehow belong to religions - and presumably Catholicism specifically as many religions support gay marriage.

Yet historically the terms such as marriage, marital, nuptial, matrimony and so on all come from Latin terms that predate Christianity and were primarily civil, legal terms.

Further, there is the point that same sex couples and civil legislature are perfectly happy to share the term ‘marriage’, it is you guys who want to reserve a term for your own use.

So why not create and formally trademark your own, new term for your religious sacrament?

 

[PRmerger]

This assumes that the copyright for terms such as ‘marriage’ somehow belong to religions - and presumably Catholicism specifically as many religions support gay marriage.

Yet historically the terms such as marriage, marital, nuptial, matrimony and so on all come from Latin terms that predate Christianity and were primarily civil, legal terms.

Further, there is the point that same sex couples and civil legislature are perfectly happy to share the term ‘marriage’, it is you guys who want to reserve a term for your own use.

So why not create and formally trademark your own, new term for your religious sacrament?

Well, that’s a bit like saying, “Since the term ‘love’ predates Christianity you religious folks need to trademark your own word”, isn’t it?

 

[shockerfan]

This assumes that the copyright for terms such as ‘marriage’ somehow belong to religions - and presumably Catholicism specifically as many religions support gay marriage.

Yet historically the terms such as marriage, marital, nuptial, matrimony and so on all come from Latin terms that predate Christianity and were primarily civil, legal terms.

Further, there is the point that same sex couples and civil legislature are perfectly happy to share the term ‘marriage’, it is you guys who want to reserve a term for your own use.

So why not create and formally trademark your own, new term for your religious sacrament?

I’ll stick with “Marriage” or “Sacramental Marriage”. I’ll refer to the others as “same sex unions”. No need to confuse people with two things not equivalent.

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, that’s a bit like saying, “Since the term ‘love’ predates Christianity you religious folks need to trademark your own word”, isn’t it?

If you were trying to say that homosexuals may not describe their feelings for each other as ‘love’ and should come up with another word because you ‘own’ the word ‘love’, then yes.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma24sw5D041rpmw1no1_r1_500.gif

Now that is just being rude. But of course it is, I forgot who I was talking to!

 

[Rau]

This assumes that the copyright for terms such as ‘marriage’ somehow belong to religions - and presumably Catholicism specifically as many religions support gay marriage.

Yet historically the terms such as marriage, marital, nuptial, matrimony and so on all come from Latin terms that predate Christianity and were primarily civil, legal terms.

Further, there is the point that same sex couples and civil legislature are perfectly happy to share the term ‘marriage’, it is you guys who want to reserve a term for your own use.

So why not create and formally trademark your own, new term for your religious sacrament?

It is not about a sacrament. Two Buddhists marrying (man + woman) is Marriage. Two atheists marrying is marriage. This is so regardless of civil benefits that may or may not be attached to the process by the State, for it is not the State that makes marriage the thing it is.

Two men may make whatever mutual promises they wish before whatever authority they wish and the arrangement may be given any reasonable name. It is just that marriage is a very poor choice of name.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is not about a sacrament. Two Buddhists marrying (man + woman) is Marriage. Two atheists marrying is marriage.

And two men marrying is marriage.

As far as this other, more restrictive thing you are talking about, if you want to allow Buddhists or atheists to use the new term you come up with, peachy. If you don’t, then as a new word invented and trademarked by you, you can prevent them.

You cannot, however, try to tell the State how to use the term ‘marriage’, as that was originally coined by the State and is, in any case, not trademarked.

This is so regardless of civil benefits that may or may not be attached to the process by the State, for it is not the State that makes marriage the thing it is.

Yes it is. That is my point. ‘Marriage’ is originally the civil, legal arrangement. And the majority of people in the western world, even the majority of Catholics in the western world, now find your attitude towards same sex couples gravely immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

If you were trying to say that homosexuals may not describe their feelings for each other as ‘love’ and should come up with another word because you ‘own’ the word ‘love’, then yes.

Thankfully, no Catholic teaching has ever proposed that homosexuals can’t describe their feelings as 'love".

Were you operating under some weird misapprehension that Catholic teaching declares that homosexuals can’t describe their feelings as “love”?

 

[PRmerger]

And two men marrying is marriage.

Nope.

It is no more possible to re-define marriage than it is possible to decide:

we are now going to call this is a circle!

http://cdn.mysitemyway.com/etc-mysi...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

 

[shockerfan]

Nope.

It is no more possible to re-define marriage than it is possible to decide:

we are now going to call this is a circle!

http://cdn.mysitemyway.com/etc-mysi...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

I hereby am changing the name of “human embryos” to “eagle eggs”, thus extending federal protections to them, and they are not allowed to be destroyed.

 

[PRmerger]

I hereby am changing the name of “human embryos” to “eagle eggs”, thus extending federal protections to them, and they are not allowed to be destroyed.

 

[Rau]

And two men marrying is marriage.

No, its a new institution with a new purpose. Marriage is a sexual union which only makes sense in the context of man + woman. This is inescapable.

You cannot, however, try to tell the State how to use the term ‘marriage’.

I can point out that the State speaks nonsense when it seeks to broaden marriage to that which it plainly is not. The two unions in question aren’t the same thing. I understand you want them to be., and that desire goes beyond some mere access to civil/legal outcomes. But the requirements and demands of nature can’t be overcome. Same sex couples or other groupings who wish legal rights and protections to be afforded to them (as a couple or a group) should seek the appropriate accommodation.

And the majority of people in the western world, even the majority of Catholics in the western world, now find your attitude towards same sex couples gravely immoral.

My “attitude” is that:

1. Sexual relationships are only moral between man+woman who are commited via Marriage; This is a matter for individuals personally, however, and not a matter for the State to take any position on.
2. Only man+woman can marry - as dictated by its, and our, very nature. Any other groupings are at liberty to live together, share assets, care for each other mutually and so forth, and I have no objection to the State providing legal support as required.

 

[Bradski]

How doe this…

Marriages would remain in the realm of religious institutions…were it belongs.

…tie in with this…

Two atheists marrying is marriage.

If the church doesn’t want to marry two people for whatever reason, then so be it. But if the state marries two people then it’s a marriage. Period. You are, of course, free to call it what you wish.

 

[Rau]

If the church doesn’t want to marry two people for whatever reason, then so be it. But if the state marries two people then it’s a marriage. Period. You are, of course, free to call it what you wish.

The Church and the State “witness and declare” - they don’t “do” anything to the parties. Two men are unable to marry each other - and so the State in declaring them “married” makes an error. The two are bound in a legal connection identical to that which the State applies to a Married couple, and it is the State’s prerogative to apply such legal arrangements. We sometimes confuse the legal arrangement as the marriage, rather than the underlying bond.

 

[Bradski]

The Church and the State “witness and declare” - they don’t “do” anything to the parties.

That might be true as far as a religious ceremony goes. The couple are simply making a public declaration of their commitment. In a church or before a priest. Or in the eyes of God, if you prefer. But the state, as you say below, binds the two together in a legal sense as well.

The two are bound in a legal connection identical to that which the State applies to a Married couple…

Now if a couple married in a church under the conditions of the ‘pledge’ in the OP feel the need to go through the legal process as well, then they will be free to do so. Presumably, the couple who had the civil marriage wouldn’t feel the need to also have a religious ceremony. And as you say:

… it is the State’s prerogative to apply such legal arrangements.

Indeed. And what do most jurisdictions call such a legal arrangement, whether between same sex couples or opposite sex couples? Again, you are free to use the term or not as you please.

We sometimes confuse the legal arrangement as the marriage, rather than the underlying bond.

I think this point is the one flying under the radar of most Catholics. Same sex couples would like to use the term marriage because it implies a lifetime commitment – which they feel they are making. I personally don’t think that it’s needed but if that’s what people want, then I see no reason in denying it to them. Again, you are free to call it what you will, but I’d rather you didn’t insist that I am not.

 

[shockerfan]

How doe this…

…tie in with this…

If the church doesn’t want to marry two people for whatever reason, then so be it. But if the state marries two people then it’s a marriage. Period. You are, of course, free to call it what you wish.

Marriage has always had a connotation of man + woman, as this is a “complimentary” relationship. I get people want to try to equate man+man and woman+woman as equal, but biologically speaking its an impossibility. My suggestion in an earlier post was to say the state should get out of the “marriage” business and just declare everyone gets (1) beneficiary. I guess I should refer to a Catholic marriage as a “Sacramental Marriage”.

I think I’m going to call myself a “cheetah”…since I guess words don’t mean much any more…(I’m pretty fast!)

 

[PRmerger]

Same sex couples would like to use the term marriage because it implies a lifetime commitment – which they feel they are making.

But why should the government be in the business of recognizing lifetime commitments?

We no more need this than we need a government registry for best friends.

Again, a trenchant question: why should gov’t be involved in 2 men wanting to make a lifetime commitment?

 

[Bradski]

But why should the government be in the business of recognizing lifetime commitments?

They’re not. At least not as far as the ‘lifetime’ part of that phrase goes. They could care less how long it lasts and why the marriage is taking place. They just want to ensure that if someone wants some legal basis for things like visitation rights, property rights, pensions etc then it’s available. It’s not a requirement. If you thought that simply getting married by the church was good enough for you, then there was no requirement to have it recognised by the state. It just makes life a little easier if you do.

And the state having ensured that, it has decided to call that arrangement marriage. There’s no requirement to have been through a religious ceremony and in many places it doesn’t matter if you are both the same gender.

Again, a trenchant question: why should gov’t be involved in 2 men wanting to make a lifetime commitment?

See above.

The way I see it is that if you are religious and want to get married in a religious ceremony before you can consider yourself married, then that’s all good. If you also want to go through the process of having it recognised by the state, then that’s all good. If you don’t, then it’s no problem. If you consider that a couple can’t be married by your church for religious reasons, then I’m fine with that too. If they have a civil marriage and you don’t want to call it a marriage, then I’m not going to argue.

However, you can’t tell everyone else what they can and can’t call it.

 

[PRmerger]

They’re not. At least not as far as the ‘lifetime’ part of that phrase goes. They could care less how long it lasts and why the marriage is taking place. They just want to ensure that if someone wants some legal basis for things like visitation rights, property rights, pensions etc then it’s available.

There are, AFAIK, visitation rights, property rights, pensions, etc for people, without marriage being necessary. For example, I can leave my property to whomever I wish–there’s a legal document called a will. I don’t need to be married to the person that I leave my property to.

And I don’t need to be married to anyone to ensure they can visit me in the hospital.

Nor do I need to be married to someone to leave my pension to him. I can simply designate whom I wish on the correct form.

The government doesn’t need to be in that business. At all.

 

[Bradski]

There are, AFAIK, visitation rights, property rights, pensions, etc for people, without marriage being necessary. For example, I can leave my property to whomever I wish–there’s a legal document called a will. I don’t need to be married to the person that I leave my property to.

And I don’t need to be married to anyone to ensure they can visit me in the hospital.

Nor do I need to be married to someone to leave my pension to him. I can simply designate whom I wish on the correct form.

The government doesn’t need to be in that business. At all.

Sure, they don’t need to be in that business. And you don’t need to take advantage of the fact that they are. But my guess is that you did, whether you specifically made sure that the state recognised your marriage or whether you simply allowed the process to proceed.

Again, I don’t personally see that there’s a real need, just as you described above. But if it’s there, then it only makes sense to take advantage of it. If there were just a small percentage of people living in de facto relationships then I don’t think it would be a problem. But if the state didn’t offer a relatively simple one-stop-shop whereby you could have your relationship recognised legally then I could see all sorts of problems if everyone was de facto. Including those married in religious ceremonies.

So…the state in in the business of offering this type of legal contract and describing those who enter into such a contract as being married. And again, if you don’t want to describe a couple married in this way as ‘married’, then so be it. You can describe their relationship in just the same way as you would describe the relationship between a heterosexual couple who the church would refuse to marry but who went through a civil ceremony. Whatever that might be (how do you describe them?).