Is marriage a religious or secular union?

Is it anything other than a contract between two people? I am married and I see it as a commitment to my wife made in front of a city official. By making this commitment, my wife and I are now entitled to certain privileges not offered to "single" individuals. Is this anything more than a contract? If so, then why would it matter the sex of the individuals involved? Should lower taxes only be restricted to people able to find true love in this world or do feelings for the other party matter when it comes to a union of this sort? If you can legislate sex, can you do the same for love?

To answer the question of the title, it is, or can be both. Marriage refers both to the legal marital relationship status as recognized by federal and state government, and to the religious union of two people regcognized by whatever religious institution you belong to.
You can have one without the other, too; you can be married within the church, or other religious service and choose not to pay the government for a license, and likewise you can get your marriage license without ever having to set foot in a church, or speak to a member of any religious clergy.
To say that marriage belongs exclusively to either the government or the church is simply incorrect - it may have belonged only to the church years and years and years ago, but that simply is not the way things work in the US now.

It is just a contract - the benefits one gets from having a partnership, such as taxes and insurance, are largely benefits of convenience, and some are benefits that help your relationship function better (like, power of attorney and all that). The only reason to say that only couples of the opposite sex are entitled to make that contract is if you believe that marriage is only the domain of religion. And, I already said that simply isn't true.

What about love? Can you say no to a marriage contract if the absence of love can be proven? If so, can love be proven beforehand?

The only reason to say that only couples of the opposite sex are entitled to make that contract is if you believe that marriage is only the domain of religion. And, I already said that simply isn't true.

Click to expand...

If this is true, then why are gay marriages being bannd across the country? How can that be justified?

Bubber said:

What about love? Can you say no to a marriage contract if the absence of love can be proven? If so, can love be proven beforehand?

Click to expand...

As far as the government is concerned, this doesn't matter. They don't ask you how long you've been dating, to show them some love poetry, or ask you how many flowers you bought for your girlfriend. It's personal information, and the government isn't entitled to it. As long as you're not related, you are the opposite sex, and you have US identification, some money, and a judge who's willing to sign the paper, you can have it. And, even if you get married by a justice of the peace, they don't ask to quantify your love - just if you "come of your own free-will".

If this is true, then why are gay marriages being bannd across the country? How can that be justified?

Click to expand...

Religious and conservative values pitted against liberal and progressive values. Same as it's always been since before the formation of the country.

To me it is solelly a sacrament of our Church. When I call anything other than that a marriage, I do so simply as a social convention and as a way to not offend those with whom I am talking, but I do not believe that such partnerships constitute a marriage, because they simply do not fulfill the requirements for marriage when viewed through an Orthodox Christian lens - they weren't joined by God.

James

The best course to take would be to change the name of non-Religious marriages. Lets be honest. The comcept of marriage IS a religious establishment. Whether or not the Federal Government or people in general view it otherwise is irrelevent to this one point, that MARRIAGE in its basic form is and establishment of Religion. That being said, The Federal Government has seen fit to take that establishment and set forth "rewards" and "benefits" to being married that appeal to more than just the Religious. i.e tax breaks, joint filling on taxes and more. Marriage is a basic Religious idea used to express commitment to one another. Now, seeing as how marriage is a religious establishment, the Religious institution in which it is being used has the right to determine certain stipulations on who is acceptable to be married. i.e man/woman only. And they are protected to do so under the First Admendement, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, which by all practical means goes both ways. In essence, it means that Congress cannot tell Religions what they can and cannot decide regarding their institutions, but at the same time, Religion cannot dictate to Congress how it should be all around. Which is why banning gay marriages is simply unconstitutional, but the Church has the right to deny the gay couple marriage. Which is why Congress needs to make a way for gays to get "married" or "joined" with the same benefits and rewards offered to the straights who get married. It comes down to Symantx. Simple labels. Give the gays the same rigths, just dont call it a Marriage. Civil Union is just fine. I ma all for the gays getting married just as long as they get the same benefits. Whcih leads me to my final point. To all those religious gay people out there who are mad that your religion wont marry you to the one you love, They obviously reject you, so why would you want to be associated with them anymore? Why not find a better religion that will accept you? There are plenty of Christian Churches out there that are more than willing to marry gays. In conclusion, banning gay marriages is unconstitional. The Fedearl Government and State governments have no right to ban it. It irritates me that 11 states have compelte bans accross the board on Gay marriages. Makes me kind of glad to live in Arizona where on the mid-term election last year, the people of this state voted down a measure to ban gay marriages accross the board, so at least here, gays can get unions with the same benefits as those who are married.

So, then what do we call non-religious marriage? We can't call it civil-union, because that is already an established thing with it's own seperate benefits and procedures, and we can't call it a domestic partnership for the same reasons. So, what do we call it? And, why aren't the religious groups petitioning for that instead of opposing gay marriage? Why not oppose my marriage too? Why not oppose every marriage that didn't happen in your type of church?
And, if we define "marriage" as being only a religious concept, then who gets the title? Only the Christians? Maybe even only the Catholics? What about non-Christian religious unions? How do you make the government define who has the right to use a word?

JamesThePersian said:

To me it is solelly a sacrament of our Church. When I call anything other than that a marriage, I do so simply as a social convention and as a way to not offend those with whom I am talking, but I do not believe that such partnerships constitute a marriage, because they simply do not fulfill the requirements for marriage when viewed through an Orthodox Christian lens - they weren't joined by God.

James

Click to expand...

So you would consider my marriage to my wife (we were married in the Church of England) as "not a religious marriage Joined by God"?

MaddLlama said:

So, then what do we call non-religious marriage? We can't call it civil-union, because that is already an established thing with it's own seperate benefits and procedures, and we can't call it a domestic partnership for the same reasons. So, what do we call it? And, why aren't the religious groups petitioning for that instead of opposing gay marriage? Why not oppose my marriage too? Why not oppose every marriage that didn't happen in your type of church?
And, if we define "marriage" as being only a religious concept, then who gets the title? Only the Christians? Maybe even only the Catholics? What about non-Christian religious unions? How do you make the government define who has the right to use a word?

Click to expand...

Thats my point, it doesnt matter what you call them as long as you get the same rights as married couples. You could call it the Happy Fun Time Union for all that it matters. Its just a label, the emotion involved is much more important. Religious groups dont petition because they dont care, all they do is hear the word marriage not associated with religious marriages and they get mad and raise hell, so to speak. As for the last line in your post, just to be funny, lets make all the religious groups get copyrights lol. In all seriousness, in the end, it doesnt matter what its called as long as you get the same benefits.

MaddLlama said:

So, then what do we call non-religious marriage? We can't call it civil-union, because that is already an established thing with it's own seperate benefits and procedures, and we can't call it a domestic partnership for the same reasons. So, what do we call it? And, why aren't the religious groups petitioning for that instead of opposing gay marriage? Why not oppose my marriage too? Why not oppose every marriage that didn't happen in your type of church?
And, if we define "marriage" as being only a religious concept, then who gets the title? Only the Christians? Maybe even only the Catholics? What about non-Christian religious unions? How do you make the government define who has the right to use a word?

Click to expand...

Thats my point, it doesnt matter what you call them as long as they get the same rigths as married couples. You could call it the Happy Fun Time Union for all that it matters. Its just a label, the emotion involved is much more important. Religious group dont petition because they dont care, all they do is hear the word marriage not associated with religious marriages and they get ****** ans raise hell, so to speak. As for the last line in your post, just to ge funny, lets make all the religious groups get copyrights lol. In all seriousness, in the end, it doesnt matter what its called as long as you get the same benefits.

I have a few comments to make. Married couples who both make a sizable income pay a Marriage penalty. So it's not always a tax advantage to be married.

The biggest problem I have with the current system is that it is grossly unfair to same sex couples where one stays home and the other works. If one of them gets sick, the other may have problems making decisions or even seeing the other in a hospital.

If one dies, the other does not get survivor-ship social security. I would think that getting these disparities removed would be more important than what the union is called or expecting religious organizations approval.

Back on topic, it's both.

It is a secular and religious union in some cases. I guess if you don't go to church or believe in God then it is just between you, your spouse and the government.

In the LDS church we make covenants with God and our spouse when we are married and sealed in the temple. To us, it is very spiritual and it is recognized by God. We do everything we can throughout our marriage to ensure that we are keeping these covenants with our spouse and God.

This is the quotation that my fiance and I put on our wedding invitations -
"Marriages are made in heaven but celebrated on earth,
The unity of two unknown souls written right from birth." :hearts:

To me, a marriage is a spiritual union. Of course my honey and I can't tell our parents that without getting legally married. We are sort of averse to pain and don't want them to kill us so we're getting married soon in front of God and in the eyes of the law as well. :yes:

I think it really depends on the two individuals invloved.

Bubber said:

Is it anything other than a contract between two people? I am married and I see it as a commitment to my wife made in front of a city official. By making this commitment, my wife and I are now entitled to certain privileges not offered to "single" individuals. Is this anything more than a contract?

Click to expand...

Yes; the commitment doesn't exist in a void. You had reasons for making a contract.

Bubber said:

If so, then why would it matter the sex of the individuals involved?

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

Bubber said:

Should lower taxes only be restricted to people able to find true love in this world

Click to expand...

No, that would be discrimination.

Bubber said:

...or do feelings for the other party matter when it comes to a union of this sort?

Click to expand...

How is this an "or..." condition?

Bubber said:

If you can legislate sex, can you do the same for love?

Click to expand...

You can legislate anything; you should legislate neither.

I see love/marriage as a spiritual union --religion, politics and legal rights (like everything "human") are outward expressions of spiritual need. It doesn't matter how your union is expressed, just that it is.

Willamena said:

I see love/marriage as a spiritual union --religion, politics and legal rights (like everything "human") are outward expressions of spiritual need. It doesn't matter how your union is expressed, just that it is.

Click to expand...

I agree.

michel said:

So you would consider my marriage to my wife (we were married in the Church of England) as "not a religious marriage Joined by God"?

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. We know where the Church is but not where it is not, is a very common phrase you'll hear Orthodox use. I'm quite happy to accept that other Christian marriages are marriages (in the sense I use the term when thinking as opposed to speaking to others) that have been joined by God's grace despite the abscence of the sacrament. I don't know if that will make sense to you, though. As for non-Christian marriages, I don't think they are the same. I think God will certainly recognise them, just as the Church will recognise and bless pre-existing marriages when couples convert, but I don't believe He made them, so to speak.

As for any legal benefits/protections, I believe they should be the same for all forms of marriage or civil union (which I'm sure some of my fellow faithful would disagree with), including for same sex couples. It's only in the religious sphere that I would make a distinction. Really, it's much easier to talk about this stuff in Romanian and sounds much more logical as they already have two terms, one which means that the couple are married in the civil sense and the other which translates roughly as a coronation (makes perfect sense if you ever se an Orthodox wedding) and is solely used for the religious marriage. The two are considered quite separate, and that's how I look at the situation also.

James