Marriage & Civil Unions

[Fierce Critter]

Something confounds me about the marriage controversy going on.

Here is what I know (or think I know : ).

Civil unions are granted by the state.

Marriage is a religious sacrament.

Priests/reverends/etc. when performing a marriage ceremony say something to the effect of, "by the power invested in me by the city/county/state/of blah blah blah, I now pronounce you..."

O.k. Here are my questions.

Why does the government have a say in who can be married? I can understand the gov't having say over the rules & regulations of civil unions. But marriage? That's basically telling a church how it can/should be run, isn't it?

And if marriage, as a sacrament, is a God-blessed event sanctioned by a church, why should they need "powers" of gov't to grant it?

Please - this isn't a matter of bible study. It's question about who should decide what based on law & definition of church vs. state. Please don't turn this into a thread for gay rights or gay bashing based on personal beliefs. Thanks!

[torn asunder]

my opinion - short answer...

civil unions - govt.

marriage - church

[The_Dark]

Your close FC. You only have one part wrong. The Church part. Marrige is older than the Church. Marrige, in some form or another is part almost every culture that has ever existed. The Church has only been involved in marrige for the last 400 years, give or take 100. Marrige has been a bond/contract/sacred oath between a Man and a Woman for as long as there have been people smart enough to think of the words to use in an oath.

I'm all for taking the word marrige off the law books. Make all existing "marriges" Civil Unions. I am not at all against giving Homosexuals the same rights as Hetrosexuals. I am against eroding the one thing humans have created that has lasted across all cultures and across all this time.

[Fierce Critter]

Hm...

So you're basically saying that it's the reverse of what a lot of people think. That marriage, in any form, started as a government thing, NOT a church thing.

If that's the case, then this bears re-thinking. And my thought then becomes, "then what right does the Church have in ANY say over marriages? It then should be entirely up to a government, a matter of contracts, not moralities".

As for marriage between a man and a woman being "the one thing humans have created that has lasted across all cultures and across all this time", I could debate that. But that's getting into pro-/anti-gay marriage territory, and I expressly requested this thread not go there. :

[The_Dark]

When Did I say it started as a government thing? Government has only been invovled in marrige for around 200 years.. give or take 50. Marrige can be found all through history in damn near every culture that has ever existed. In some shape or form, it always seems to form a certian pattern. Man+woman+some kinda oath=marrige. If you really get down to it, historically, love was not even involved most of the time. It was about joining to familys either politically or financially sometimes both. Before that, in the really old days.. marrige was a way for tribes to keep the in-breeding down.

My views are based on historical record and archiological evidence.

Marrige is a tool people use to perpetuate the human race. Always has been. My views on it in no way look down on homosexuals. They are just not part of this particulare equation. As I said, I am all for Civil unions and giving them equal rights.

[Daniel]

What The Dark says is very true, but what I don't understand is... why the need to keep this institution sacred? As if allowing homosexuals the right to marriage is going to ruin marriage anyway. There isn't anything homosexuals can do to marginalize marriage that heterosexuals haven't done already.

Marriage has become extremely insignificant in recent times. And a lot of this is because of how it evolved, per The Dark's history/information. It was originally used for reasons that are for the most part unnecessary (out dated) to our society anymore. As a result, marriage has evolved and changed to something that has barely any weight religiously, legally, or between the people exchanging the vows (this being largely in general, and not specifically). If it is going to continue to spiral down the way it is, it seems silly to tell gays they are somehow going to ruin it, or even change it.

And these days, marriage isn't even close to being necessary to raise children, or perpetuate the human race. In fact, the human race could use a little less perpetuating.

[Shade Everdark]

One thing I'd like to point out, here: the idea that marriage is the union of one man and woman is most certainly not common across all cutures and throughout all of history. Many societies, among them China and Japan (my own little sphere of experiences), have practiced polygamy, and this was perfectly acceptable, indeed necessary, in some of them for the man of stature or nobility.

While I can respect one's wish to keep "marriage" (put in quotes to distinguish from marriage under law) sacred, I find the argument that the institution is an ancient and sacred one to be argumentum ad antiquitatem, i.e. an argument for something because it is venerable or because it is a tradition. This is a fallacy, and one which, were it heeded more often, would have us still practicing polygamy, trial by combat, the burning of witches, and slavery of entire races.

[Daniel]

trial by combat

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm all for this.

[The_Dark]

One thing I'd like to point out, here: the idea that marriage is the union of one man and woman is most certainly not common across all cutures and throughout all of history.  Many societies, among them China and Japan (my own little sphere of experiences), have practiced polygamy, and this was perfectly acceptable, indeed necessary, in some of them for the man of stature or nobility.

While I can respect one's wish to keep "marriage" (put in quotes to distinguish from marriage under law) sacred, I find the argument that the institution is an ancient and sacred one to be argumentum ad antiquitatem, i.e. an argument for something because it is venerable or because it is a tradition.  This is a fallacy, and one which, were it heeded more often, would have us still practicing polygamy, trial by combat, the burning of witches, and slavery of entire races.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not say across all, I said Damn near all. There are a few exceptions.

[Jacques Treatment]

The way I look at it, the ninth ammendment covers all rights not granted to either the state or to the federal government. People thus have the right to love whom they want and whom they wish to designate as family.

Historically, these pacts have always existed; In 1st Samuel 18, Jonathan and David loved each other very much and swore a pact with each other. Given what followed, it was at *least* a bond of brotherhood, if nothing else. Marriage was originally a *familial* thing in most cultures, without even so much as a ceremony beyond either (a) a parent recognizing the union or (b) the two lovers running off somewhere and claiming to be a couple.

The problem here is one of a legal acknowledgement of something that, in theory, shouldn't NEED it. Unfortunately, with married people having specific additional familial entitlements under the law, there's a lack of parity that needs to be addressed.

Rather than addressing this, the Republican Taliban has tried to shelve any sense of rights for people who think other than their way. There should be plenty of conciliatory middle-ground here, but they just won't allow for it--that would compromise their party base of religious and homophobic bigots.

This is not to say, however, that all Republicans have pledged themselves to the Extremist faction that are taking the party over... however, those who do not are now finding themselves attacked for "not being conservative enough." Scary, that.

--J,

still conducting SubGenius Short-Duration Marriages

[Scary Guy]

my opinion - short answer...

civil unions - govt.

marriage - church

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but don't forget

govt. = church (or at least run by).

I hold freedom of choice very highly. It's their right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't considder people feeling "icky" about "dudes kissing" to be "hurting" them. They will learn to deal with the mental anguish or just move to the bible belt.

[phee]

The Church has only been involved in marrige for the last 400 years, give or take 100.

This is correct, the church in say... Italy in the 1700's was chosen as a place to have a wedding simply because it was a common place in the city that many people were familiar with.

To say that certain things are being "eroded" in a negative sense over time is sort of the antiquated view that a lot of people cling to (I would say more conservative in nature) But everything changes over time including marrage.

The way that I see it, if race, economic standing, geographic location, etc... do not effect whether 2 people can get married or not, than sexual preference should definitly not effect it either.

[Bpage]

I think that everyone under the eyes of the law should be able to have a civil union. If they want to do it in a church than they can tack on that they were "married".

If married couples didn't get special treatments from the government than this wouldn't be an issue. Every American should have the same rights as every other American.

Being here in California my boyfriend and I have taken full advantage of being "domestic partners", where he can hop on my health insurance even though we're not married.

All this bullshit about marriage being sacred is a load of crap now. Just turn on the TV and you'll find, "Who want's to marry my Dad?", "Who wants to marry a Millionaire?", "The Bacholar", "The Bachorlette", "Who wants to marry a damn midget?" sacred my ass......

[Fierce Critter]

We wanted to be handfasted by a pagan priestess, one certified to do legal marriages by the gov't. But the one we had lined-up had an emergency come up last minute, and we were left without anyone to perform the ceremony.

We ended up writing our own ceremony, including what to say and what to do as far as ritual. We performed that ourselves, alone by a waterfall. But not really "alone". We did it outdoors in the presence of all of nature, and whatever God or Gods chose to bless our union.

To make it "legal", that same night, we had arranged to get married by phone by a non-denominational minister from Ohio. The bed & breakfast we called her from didn't even have a speakerphone, so we ended up with me on the phone with her first, then my husband on the phone with her, and her having to repeat everything.

Now, which was more "sacred" and representative of what marriage means, and what we mean to each other? The state-sanctioned ceremony, or what we did without someone else's stamp of approval on it?

[The_Dark]

Which ever one means the most to you.

[Fierce Critter]

Then I guess my point is, what place does ANYONE have in saying who can be married?

Particularly considering the history of marriage that's been shared here. why should either the church OR the gov't be able to say who can and who can't get married if they want to?

Why should you need a license? I can see registering your married status with some kind of authority.

The more I'm learning here, the more confusing it's actually getting.

[Shade Everdark]

Churches have the right to say who can and cannot get married within their own congregations, certainly.

It's when those congregation members try to make it impossible for people to get married anywhere that might have allowed it, that really burns me.

As for the government, as long we have silly restrictions such as who can visit who in the hospital, who becomes the executor of someone's estate upon their death, and who the family benefits packages from work can be extended to, they will have their icky little fingers in it.

[Fierce Critter]

Churches have the right to say who can and cannot get married within their own congregations, certainly.

Oh, I agree - totally. I should have been more clear.

If a particular religion sees fit to not do something, I honestly don't care.

Just don't like those restrictions going beyond the church walls.

[nodrew]

I just want to say that I am absolutely disgusted with everything that has been said here. Each and everyone of you keeps saying the same bigoted thing over and over again. Why does "marriage" have to happen in a church? I'm sorry, but there is absoluely nothing written anywhere that says the marriage has anything to do with religion. Marriage is the term used to refer to to the legally binding of two people. It doesn't matter where you do it, or under which god (yes, there are different gods or Gods, at least by definition).

The only thing I'm getting out of this entire conversation is that you're all so wrapped up in the idea that "marriage" and religion go hand in hand. I'm sorry, there does not have to be anything binding by the word of god on two people decidiing to spend the rest of their lives together. In fact I find it personally insulting and alienating that each of you has to close your definitions to what seems best for your own little worlds.

"Fuck the heathens," like me, "who don't believe in God. They're not as good as the rest of us."

Thanks guys.

[Fierce Critter]

Ummm.. in about all cases here, I don't see people stating, "MARRIAGE MUST HAPPEN IN A CHURCH OR WITH A CHURCH'S BLESSING OR IT AIN'T RIGHT OR VALID".

My own wedding is an example of how far outside that definition/restriction I myself believe marriage belongs. The most "religious" our ceremony was was a single thought at the end, when we thanked whomever/whatever that might have put us together. That's a pretty encompassing thought, and definitely was NOT the main drive of our ritual (particularly considering that, at the time, one of us was primarily agnostic, the other borderline atheist).

I said that's how WE saw fit to get married. Not that EVERYONE should get married that way - or ANY other SPECIFIC way, for that matter.

The majority of opinions I see here include that civil unions, NOT necessarily involving ANY church or religion, are just as valid as "church weddings". Further, people seem to be expressing the thought that, despite modern laws governing what is and isn't a "valid" marriage, history shows that marriage was, and maybe should be, defined MUCH more loosely & encompassing.

As a matter of fact, after going back over the posts to look for evidence of what you're accusing EVERYONE here of, I find that most of us are, in fact, agreeing that marriage DOESN'T fall under a religious, or governmental restriction or definition - just that that's how the laws of the land today restrict it.

Far as I can see, none of us said non-faith based marriages are invalid. Just that nobody thought to bring up such a thing as an example - something you yourself could have done to add to the conversation.

Or am I missing something???

[Daniel]

Each and everyone of you keeps saying the same bigoted thing over and over again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say this. Marriage is a legal contract. Historically, this has not always been the case. But, today, it is just a legal contract.

[nodrew]

Marriage is a religious sacrament.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Fierce Critter]

Dude, I grew up CATHOLIC. One of the things they teach you in catechism class are the 7 sacraments - including baptism, communion, last rites, confirmation - and marriage.

That's where that statement came from. I was speaking from that, and also from the way the debate seems to be going on in news & the media today, which SEEMED to be identifying civil unions as a governmental thing, and marriage as a church-done thing, particularly by the religious in the country who are seriously against gay marriage.

Perhaps a better wording of my initial post to say, "'Civil union' seems to be defined as governmentally granted. 'Marriage' seems to be viewed as a religious sacrament happening under the auspices of a church." I just chose to be a little less wordy (for a change .

The whole reason for the thread itself was to see where these definitions come from, and if I was even understanding the debate.

I have been much educated by the responses in this thread. I realize I didn't come out and state in specific words, "I REALIZE THAT BY THE INFORMATION GIVEN HERE, MARRIAGES ARE NOT STRICTLY CHURCH/RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES/SACRAMENTS." But I also didn't come out and say, "NO MARRIAGE THAT TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE OF A CHURCH/RELIGION/SPRITUALITY IS VALID."

Not by a long shot.

[nodrew]

Well, lets take a look at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Always a good place to look.

Main Entry: mar·riage

Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

According to the standard definition or how society in general has chosen ot define it, in most cases, marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman, or the state of a person being united to a person of the same sex. Even MW is being liberal here.

[Fierce Critter]

I have to think, based on what I've seen in the news & other media, that many, if not most people are unaware (just as I was) of that definition, as well as the sort of information that has been shared in this thread about the history of marriage. Further that many, if not most, are under the mistaken assumption then that marriage IS religious-based.

Why else make the distinction between marriage & civil unions, as many do? Such as people who are for gay civil unions, but not gay marriage. What would the distinction be in the mind of someone like that if not an assumption that "marriage" means "religious"?

It seems pretty evident that with the religious right being the most vehement opposers of gay marriage, that a lot of people, at least in the U.S., do assume marriage and religion are totally connected.

(And it does pleasantly surprise me to see MW including same-sex in the definition.)