Separation of religious and civil marriage

[frobert]

It is no more a religious concept than the Church declaring that rape is wrong is a religious concept.

You are correct, it is not a religious concept but rather a religious value. Besides rape, is now, has always been and most likely always will be illegal in the US under all circumstances.

 

[Rau]

You are correct, it is not a religious concept but rather a religious value. Besides rape, is now, has always been and most likely always will be illegal in the US under all circumstances.

But it does not require religious (name removed by moderator)ut at all to recognize the special place of man+woman committed sexual relationships.

 

[SMGS127]

For me, the marriage is the purposeful sexual union (which can only be man+woman) not the legal provisions attached. That is not a religious idea as some have suggested.

In the sense that we are using the word “marriage” to refer to the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament defining the covenant between a man and a woman, I agree. I just disagree that the term “marriage” inherently means that. The English langauge has not always existed, but the concept of what Catholics refer to as “marriage” has. Therefore, I see no reason to expect that everyone define marriage in the same manner. If they were misusing the original Hebrew word, I would consider it a different story.

Again, I have no problems with people calling themselves married, straight or gay, who are ineligible to be married (or in a relationship that cannot fulfill basic requirements of a marriage such as consummation). I am only concerned with the harm they do to their soul if they have sex.

 

[frobert]

But it does not require religious (name removed by moderator)ut at all to recognize the special place of man+woman committed sexual relationships.

It is still a value and not a fact. Labeling something “special” is the same as valuing it.

 

[Bradski]

For me, the marriage is…

Exactly. It means precisely what you want it to mean.

And anyway, apart from any consideration of gay marriages, your definition is markedly different to mine. I can’t recall anyone saying that I was wrong. Just that we will agree to disagree on how we personally define it.

That you find remarkable that different people define it different is duly noted. And, to be honest, thence duly ignored, because I don’t really care if our definitions are different.

And could someone tell me how you describe a couple whom the church has refused to marry and yet are married? Is there a special term for this? If you have to introduce two people as a married couple do you have to question the validity of their partnership before classing them as married?

 

[Rau]

It is still a value and not a fact. Labeling something “special” is the same as valuing it.

It’s uniqueness (if the word special causes concern) is absolutely a fact. Sexual complementarity is a fact - it is of unique significance to future generations. And that is a sound basis for everyone to concur that it is “special”. Man+woman is factually special.

 

[Bradski]

Sexual complementarity is a fact - it is of unique significance to future generations.

I guess it’s lucky then that we’re not suggesting that that arrangement should be changed in any way.

 

[Rau]

And could someone tell me how you describe a couple whom the church has refused to marry and yet are married? Is there a special term for this? If you have to introduce two people as a married couple do you have to question the validity of their partnership before classing them as married?

Partners? We may need to ask the State to dream up some new words in the future. Should the State choose to allow 4-party marriages, what would you call the relationship among them or between a subset of them? What do you call a mother and daughter pairing should the state agree they can marry, and they did so?

 

[Rau]

I guess it’s lucky then that we’re not suggesting that that arrangement should be changed in any way.

That’s for sure!

 

[frobert]

It’s uniqueness (if the word special causes concern) is absolutely a fact. Sexual complementarity is a fact - it is of unique significance to future generations. And that is a sound basis for everyone to concur that it is “special”. Man+woman is factually special.

I don’t concur with circular reasoning. Uniquenes is a quality not a fact that can be quantified. While marriage may be desirable for raising kids it is not unique or necessary. There are many thousands of single parents, unmarried and SS parents who are doing a fine job raising their kids.

What is special about man+woman? How does that relate to SS marriage? You seem to be implying that SS marriage somehow prevents or harms opposite sex marriage.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t concur with circular reasoning. Uniquenes is a quality not a fact that can be quantified. While marriage may be desirable for raising kids it is not unique or necessary. There are many thousands of single parents, unmarried and SS parents who are doing a fine job raising their kids.

What is special about man+woman? How does that relate to SS marriage? You seem to be implying that SS marriage somehow prevents or harms opposite sex marriage.

Where are the studies that show the outcomes are as good for children raised by single parents or cohabiting parents, compared to children raised by biological married parents? As for children raised by homosexual parents, I think there is a question mark on their outcomes compared to other children because where are the studies on outcomes for children raised by homosexual parents that don’t have issues such as being open to social desirability bias, small samples etc.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why not separate religious and civil marriages? Those who want to get married in a church, in the eyes of God, who fulfill the requirements of that particular religion, can do so. The rest can get a civil marriage.

The following is part of a proposed pledge that appeared in First Things an online magazine self described as ‘America’s most influential journal of religion and public life’. A Time to Rend | R. R. Reno | First Things

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles *articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

This is Ed Peters, a Canon lawyer’s view:

Distinguish civil marriage from sacramental? Of course. Divide them? No!

 

[Rau]

What is special about man+woman?

. I’m sure you know!

How does that relate to SS marriage? You seem to be implying that SS marriage somehow prevents or harms opposite sex marriage.

Harm? I’ve not mentioned or implied that at all. As Catholics, I assume we do agree that same sex sexual relations harm the souls of the participants ?

 

[frobert]

. I’m sure you know!

I have no way of discerning your meaning of “special,” all I can gather is that you attach some undefined quality to man+woman. It would be analogous to us sharing a beer which I say is special but you say it leaves a bad taste. Like unique, special is a quality which can not be quantified.

 

[Bradski]

OK, so there’s a couple that the church refused to marry for whatever reason. But they got married anyway. Big event, all friends and relations were there, they exchanged vows, lots of champers and dancing, old Uncle Pete from Poughkeepsie got drunk as usual and told inappropriate jokes to the bridesmaids and everyone had a fine old time. Now everyone, not surprisingly, refers them as being married.

Now you would prefer to call them partners as opposed to being married. Maybe you’d introduce them to someone else as ‘My friend Bill and his partner’. I don’t really see a problem with that. Everyone else sees them as being married but because your church has a different view on what constitutes marriage, you have a different way of looking at their relationship.

So exactly where’s the problem?

 

[Rau]

OK, so there’s a couple that the church refused to marry for whatever reason. But they got married anyway. Big event, all friends and relations were there, they exchanged vows, lots of champers and dancing, old Uncle Pete from Poughkeepsie got drunk as usual and told inappropriate jokes to the bridesmaids and everyone had a fine old time. Now everyone, not surprisingly, refers them as being married.

Now you would prefer to call them partners as opposed to being married. Maybe you’d introduce them to someone else as ‘My friend Bill and his partner’. I don’t really see a problem with that. Everyone else sees them as being married but because your church has a different view on what constitutes marriage, you have a different way of looking at their relationship.

So exactly where’s the problem?

Your example omits the relevant specifics! The reason for the church declining may be the key point! The church concurs that people deemed by the state to be married are married, except where the state errs, for example in the case of a same sex pair where marriage is impossible. The legal provisions assigned by the state are not disputed of course.

 

[Rau]

I have no way of discerning your meaning of “special,” all I can gather is that you attach some undefined quality to man+woman. It would be analogous to us sharing a beer which I say is special but you say it leaves a bad taste. Like unique, special is a quality which can not be quantified.

Perhaps in the course of life, you will discover for yourself what is special about the Union of man+woman, that which sets it apart from all others!

 

[Bradski]

Your example omits the relevant specifics! The reason for the church declining may be the key point! The church concurs that people deemed by the state to be married are married…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t include people who have been divorced and for whom there has been no declaration of annulment. I would say that would include the majority of people who remarry. They are not considered married by the Catholic church.

I don’t hear much of a hue and cry about that and I’ll bet that you personally consider them married. Unless you start asking personal questions.

Bill: Hi Rau. Nice party. I’m Bill and this is my wife Jane.
Rau: Your wife? Well that is yet to be determined if you don’t mind me saying so. May I ask if either of you have been previously married and if so, did you obtain an annulment from the Catholic church before remarrying? Unless you can provide some documentary evidence of this, then I’m afraid I cannot accept the fact that you are married and Bill, I am going to have to refer to your so called ‘wife’ (you do the air quote thingy here) as your partner. Canape?

 

[1newcatholic]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t include people who have been divorced and for whom there has been no declaration of annulment. I would say that would include the majority of people who remarry. They are not considered married by the Catholic church.

I don’t hear much of a hue and cry about that and I’ll bet that you personally consider them married. Unless you start asking personal questions.

Bill: Hi Rau. Nice party. I’m Bill and this is my wife Jane.
Rau: Your wife? Well that is yet to be determined if you don’t mind me saying so. May I ask if either of you have been previously married and if so, did you obtain an annulment from the Catholic church before remarrying? Unless you can provide some documentary evidence of this, then I’m afraid I cannot accept the fact that you are married and Bill, I am going to have to refer to your so called ‘wife’ (you do the air quote thingy here) as your partner. Canape?

This should be a TV commercial.

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct, it is not a religious concept but rather a religious value.

“Do not rape” is a religious value?

Really?

So all atheists who embrace the paradigm that rape is always wrong are embracing a religious value?

Besides rape, is now, has always been and most likely always will be illegal in the US under all circumstances.

Interesting. So you say that not raping is a religious concept, and you also say that it’s illegal…so I assume that you’re ok with people imposing religious views on society?