Marriage & Civil Unions

[nodrew]

The reason for such a distinction is that most believe that a marriage has been blessed by God as well as the state and is there-for more valid. In all reality though, there is no real difference. In some cases it makes people feel less like their ideas have been less violated by the people who wish to live by a rule other than "God's."

[Daniel]

Taking FC a bit out of context as saying marriage is a religious sacrament is hugely different from saying everyone said marriage is a religious institution. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, dude... sort of preaching to the choir. I know you'll be hard pressed to find anyone more athiest than me.

I am sure the majority of American's seen marriage as a religious institution. And they do so for relatively valid reasons (although, using very poor logic). Marriage is a very serious vow, and without God as a witness, the common religious person sees a vow without a judgemental and divine witness as being insignificant. Of course, this could easily lead into a "why religion is crap" discussion, but this is just the beginning of the reasons why most people think marriage is a religious institution.

[Proscrire]

Realize I''m coming in later here, but I couldn't resist a chance to needle nodrew's politics.

Personally, I'm more in favor for the German method. There is a civil marriage at the court, by a judge, and that is the ONLY marriage that is legally recognized. (Churches is Germany get state money at the cost of staying out of all political arenas, can't even tell their parishoners what to think) Anyone who has this civil, courtroom marriage is legally married and entitles to all right and privleges therein.

The religious ceremony comes after and is soley for the benifit of friends, family and tradition. It has not wieght with the government. But it's a big party and since when is that a problem.

[Hermine]

Edit to add: I don't really want to get into it, but I did just take an anthro class where marriage traditions were covered, so I thought I'd just poop out a whole bunch of raw data that I got from it. Enjoy!

A lot of common assumptions about what marriage supposedly universally is are flat-out factually inaccurate. In addition to the fact that I personally, as well as the church in which I was raised define marriage as a union between two _people_ who love each other and are able to give informed consent. There’s also the fact that, unlike some, I respect the fact that other cultures have very different definitions.

Marriage is anthropologically defined as a ceremony between 2 or more people, the function of which is to establish legitimacy of any offspring of one or more of those people and to create a relationship of affinity (alliance) between the families of the participants. Doesn't have to be religious. Doesn't have to be exclusive. Doesn't have to be heterosexual. They don't have to live together. Doesn't even have to be only two people.

Both polygyny and polyandry exist in some societies, though polygyny more often than polyandry, but we all know that already. Sexual exclusivity and heterosexuality are not essential elements. Neither is any sort of sexual contact between the parties involved. Here are a couple of counterexamples.

Among the Nayar of India, marriage consists of a ceremony between two children. Each girl around 9 or 10 is paired with a “groom” the same age. There is a ceremony in which the boy hangs a gold ornament around the girl’s neck. They are secluded for three days (this is a rite of passage that they go through together. No, it doesn't have anything to do with any sort of romantic relationship between them; they're too young to even think of that. It's just a ritual that they go through together) then the gold ornament is torn off as a symbol of separation. They may or may not ever see each other again, but there is now a relationship of affinity between her matrilineal descent group and hers. The Nayar live in large extended family homes, with entirely matrilineal kin (i.e. your maternal aunt’s daughter would live with you, as would your aunt’s son, but your uncle’s daughter or son, you might not even know. Same with your father. The children do fine, they have a huge, loving family group that is all looking out for them. They don't have a nuclear family, but they sure do have lots of family).

The women may take lovers (only outside of their descent group—i.e. not matrilineal kin) and their offspring are legitimate because they had that rite of passage when they were girls. They don’t track fatherhood at all, I don’t think they even believe in it. Which also means it would be impossible for patrilineal kin to be covered by incest taboos, since you don’t know or care who they are. (Kinship, to an anthropologist, is a socially defined relationship. Our own definition, btw, is actually pretty limited because we don't really keep in touch with a lot of our family. How many second cousins do you see on a regular basis? How often do you see your first cousins? How many relatives can you name? Some societies with oral traditions, folks can name thousands. Therefore, the ones you can't name aren't socially kin, even though they may be biologically related. If you don't know they're blood relatives, you don't treat them as kin. Stuff on in-laws and fictive kin isn't really relevent so I won't go into it)

You see, incest taboos have more to do with establishing alliances between socially defined kin groups than they do with avoiding inbreeding. For one thing, they are dependent on the social definitions of kin group. F’rinstance, among the Lakhmi of SE Asia(not sure I have the place/name right.. I got those aspects wrong on my exam. But the info is accurate about them, even if I misspelled their name and/or put them in the wrong part of the world), for instance, kinship is strictly patrillineal. You could marry a half-sibling with whom you share a mother, but not one with whom you share a father. Your mother is considered an in-law, not a relative. It is more about making sure that your socially defined descent group has lots of allies. Now, any set of exogamy rules is going to encourage some broadening of the genetic pool for your descent group, but most anthropologists don’t consider it all that important.

And marriage does not even have to be heterosexual. For instance, among the *looks futilely for anthro text* … among one group in Africa the name of which I can’t recall at the moment, a man with no sons may declare a daughter his heir and have her take a wife. The wife may take male sexual partners but those partners must be approved by her female husband. The husband is considered the pater of any offspring, even though she is not the genitor. Among another, a successful female merchant may take a wife in order to increase her social standing.

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

And they do already have that right, another point that the Pharisees want to obscure. Catholic churches are _not_ required to marry people who have been divorced. Nor has Catholic marriage ceased to exist because of the existence of Protestant marriage. This isn’t about protecting their own religious institutions, it’s about smashing other people’s.

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.

My sentiments exactly. The church in which I was raised(Quaker) performs same-sex marriage. That is very deeply connected to the way we feel about the divine (i.e. the high importance of the divine within human beings). That decision grows out of the fundamental tenet of my religion of birth.

Thus Chimpboy’s hate amendment infringes on my religious freedom. So it’s not just a question of taking away the freedom of atheists (though it is that), it’s about religious freedom too.

As for civil marriage, it absolutely should not be treated any differently from religious marriage. You’re supposed to have equal protection no matter what your religious beliefs and that includes atheist. My parents were married by a judge (my father was an adamant atheist at the time) and I don’t think their marriage is any less valid because of it.

I also don't think that folks here seem to be dismissing it that much, but this "civil unions" crap that's being pushed as a compromise was probably designed to discredit the existing institution of civil marriage.

The European system does make a lot of sense.

The American system that once was/should be isn't all that different. Any church can perform a marriage and, so long as it doesn't violate age of consent and the church has filed the proper papers, the state will recognize it. If you don't want a religious ceremony, you can have one with the state.

In either case, you have to go to the state and file papers cementing the legal aspect. Only difference is the verbal recitation only happens once, rather than happening twice for those with religious ceremonies. Saves a bit of time is all and I don't think it's such a major difference, except that it does make the point quite nicely. i.e. that the state's proper role is making a note that this contract has happened. Not defining who can sign it.

[Black Sunday]

1.00

[Shade Everdark]

That's probably because both parties were trying to play to the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans, who don't think that gays deserve the same rights. They both wanted votes, and were trying to skate between their respective party hardliners, and the sea of 'average American voters'.

Never mind the fact that 'marriage,' as a religious/social institution, is not a legal one, and aside from the record of the union, government should really stay the hell out of the entire affair.

One other thing to consider, that so many in this country seem to forget: because it is a majority opinion does not necessarily make it right.