Give Marriage Back To Religion

[Storm]

But you don't get it.

Yes, I do.

Marriage is a ritual based on legality with the state.

No, marriage is a ritual based on the concept of spiritual union. It shouldn't have anything to do with legality.

If the religious practices didn't have their licenses to perform marriages they wouldn't be legal.

Exactly. They shouldn't be legal. They should be religious.

You have to get the license before the ritual so you already have it and all that.

Yes. The ritual is already extraneous. I'm proposing a change in the license to make the ritual completely irrelevant to the license.

They don't have special privileges.

Yes, they do. They have legal benefits attatched to religious ritual. That's wrong.

LGBT community is just asking to be treated the same as straight couples.

No s***. As a member of that community, what makes you think I need you to tell me what I'm asking for? Especially when my proposal is a way for us to get it?

There are straight couples who don't get married in churches or with any type of religious ritual.

No, really? :sarcastic Is water wet, too?

The reason people get married without religion is to get the rights that are improperly granted to a ritual.

 

[Wandered Off]

I agree with your proposal, Storm. Government should leave religious rites to churches and get out of the business entirely.

 

[blackout]

I agree completely Storm,
and have said pretty much the same thing on the forum before.

The Govt. should not be in the "marriage" business.

People should be able to legalize life partnerships
just as they do business partnerships.
(Neither restricted by gender or number of partners)

They could be called civil partnerships?
life partnerships? family partnerships?

I do not believe that partners should be required to live in the same residence.
Whose business is it? Does a govt. concern itself with the residency of business partners?

Anyway. These are just my general "gut" thoughts on the matter.
I have not really thought the details out all the way through.

As Storm and Mike both said, kinks will need to be worked out.

 

[Storm]

Bump for new members

 

[Levite]

How funny that this got bumped! I was actually just saying to some friends the other night, when New York passed the gay marriage bill, that in an ideal world, the American government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyhow.

I actually think the Federal government should establish that all unions legally enacted between couples in the United State-- homosexual or heterosexual-- should simply be termed "civil unions," and any and all language pertaining to God should be excised from governmental civil union ("marriage") ceremonies.

I think in that way we clarify things: any couple with a civil union is basically announcing that, given that their relationship is exclusive and long-term, and given that they are cohabitating, they wish to be treated under the law as a bound couple, with all the legal rights and privileges due to such a status (e.g., joint tax filing, automatic presumption of heirship of spouses to one another, automatic presumption of medical advisory rights, etc.). Any additional emotional or social agenda may be added, outside the procedures and minimums of the law, at the discretion of the couple, in the way in which they choose to present this union to one another and to their communities.

Any couple who not only files for civil union but goes to a religious institution to get married is basically announcing that their partnership is to be understood in the context of that religion's definitions for and requirements of marriage, and that they wish to contextualize their love in the paradigm of whatever divine allegory or holy communal tradition that their religion uses to understand the sanctity of marriage.

But religion and state ought to really be separate. And so it behooves us to not have our government in the marriage business.

 

[Darkness]

I have a few problems with the solution posed by the OP. First of all, I do not believe any two people should be allowed to get married or enter a neutral contract. For instance, incest is not a behavior we want to encourage, so a father should not be allowed to enter into a neutral contract with his son or daughter. There are too many power-relationships involved for it to be an expression of positive love in 99.9 per cent of all cases. Secondly, I believe that marriage serves a valuable social function. It creates stable relationships and allows us to access our full human potential. Tax breaks provide a legal incentive that supports are socio-cultural desire for monogamy, and building a family. That is, our culture favours monogamy (watch any U.S. romantic comedy) and the tax breaks and legal status of marriage reinforces that institution. And our legal system should support monogamy. Lastly, because we do not specifically want a sister and sister living together (that is not our targeted goal), giving legal status to that arrangement does not serve our socio-cultural purposes. I do not want to give tax breaks to some random friends living in an apartment, for it serves no purpose (or at least not one I want to specifically legally encourage).

The above criticisms outline quite nicely why I hate it when people label me a liberal. I am decidedly not a liberal. I am a staunch progressive, who believes it is the duty of the community and the state to engineer social policy to a certain extent. A laissez-faire approach is foolish, in my honest opinion. It leads to a weak and inchoate society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How funny that this got bumped! I was actually just saying to some friends the other night, when New York passed the gay marriage bill, that in an ideal world, the American government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyhow.

I actually think the Federal government should establish that all unions legally enacted between couples in the United State-- homosexual or heterosexual-- should simply be termed "civil unions," and any and all language pertaining to God should be excised from governmental civil union ("marriage") ceremonies.

I think in that way we clarify things: any couple with a civil union is basically announcing that, given that their relationship is exclusive and long-term, and given that they are cohabitating, they wish to be treated under the law as a bound couple, with all the legal rights and privileges due to such a status (e.g., joint tax filing, automatic presumption of heirship of spouses to one another, automatic presumption of medical advisory rights, etc.). Any additional emotional or social agenda may be added, outside the procedures and minimums of the law, at the discretion of the couple, in the way in which they choose to present this union to one another and to their communities.

Any couple who not only files for civil union but goes to a religious institution to get married is basically announcing that their partnership is to be understood in the context of that religion's definitions for and requirements of marriage, and that they wish to contextualize their love in the paradigm of whatever divine allegory or holy communal tradition that their religion uses to understand the sanctity of marriage.

But religion and state ought to really be separate. And so it behooves us to not have our government in the marriage business.

I disagree.

I'm non-religious, and while I was married in a church (since my wife is religious), I think people like me should have the option of getting married without any involvement from religion whatsoever.

IMO, religion isn't an exclusively religious institution. Churches should no more get exclusive control over it than they should have it over pipe organs.

If it's church-state separation you're after, here's a perfectly workable solution: stop having the state license clergy as marriage providers. People can get their marriages licensed directly by the government; if they want some religious ceremony, they can get one done and they can even call the ceremony "marriage" if they want, but it carries no legal weight... similar to other ceremonies like Bar Mitzvahs: a religious congregation can declare a 13-year-old boy a "man", but it has no bearing on the determination of adulthood under secular law.

Personally, I'm not willing to cede marriage to religion. If religious people don't like the fact that both their churches and the government use the term, they can try to get their religions to use some other word.

I'm non-religious, I'm married, and I have no interest in changing this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Marriage seems like much more a government business than a religious matter to me. It is essentially an official statement of shared goals and duties. It should be available for everyone, and not just to those who convince some priests that they deserve it.

I'm not against religious marriage, but it must be seen as the accessory that it is. Marriage has legal consequences and ought to be handled by the state.

Besides, why should people necessarily go through some sort of religious authority to be married? What if they don't feel like it or don't really share the same faith?

 

[Storm]

Why should households be based on sex?

Penguin, what is the significance of marriage to you personally? What is it you think I'm asking you to give up?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should households be based on sex?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Penguin, what is the significance of marriage to you personally? What is it you think I'm asking you to give up?

To me, marriage is the term for a type of relationship with a particular level of commitment. I don't think that the term "civil union" captures the whole sense of it - I think that "marriage" is a better fit.

But if the term isn't important, then why the pressing need to get rid of it?

Also, and I'm not sure exactly why, I find it rather offensive for it to be argued that religion has some special claim on either the term or the institution. Religious groups can regulate their own affairs as they see fit, but I don't think they should get to dictate how things will work for me.

 

[Storm]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Well, I don't know if you reread the op, but my argument is to get gov out of the mating game altogether. Let people declare households based on any relationship they like.

To me, marriage is the term for a type of relationship with a particular level of commitment.

Agreed. I'm just uneasy about the government being involved in such a thing, especially with religious trappings. It's none of their business who I'm boinking.

Also, and I'm not sure exactly why, I find it rather offensive for it to be argued that religion has some special claim on either the term or the institution. Religious groups can regulate their own affairs as they see fit, but I don't think they should get to dictate how things will work for me.

Ah, fair enough. Would it mollify you at all for me to point out that under my proposal, you could still have any ceremony you wished? IIRC, your wife is Catholic. Assuming they'd marry her to a Godless heathen such as yourself , you could still have your wedding. Or, you could go to a Spiritual Humanism officiant and get married. Or whatever you wanted. It just wouldn't have any relevance to your legal status as a household.

 

[Darkness]

Why should households be based on sex?

Because sexual relationships bind us together. They are like glue creating a whole host of special emotions/feelings that make us subjector and subjected. Thus, it is in the interest of the State to encourage these relationships, which allow us to experience our full human potential. Not sure why we would want to encourage a daughter living with her mother for 40+years.

 

[Storm]

Because sexual relationships bind us together. They are like glue creating a whole host of special emotions/feelings that make us subjector and subjected. Thus, it is in the interest of the State to encourage these relationships, which allow us to experience our full human potential. Not sure why we would want to encourage a daughter living with her mother for 40+years.

I don't agree. I would say it's relationships that bind us together.

My 56 year old father moved back in with his 86 year old mother because she couldn't live on her own anymore and he didn't want to stick her in a home. Is that a lesser justification for a household than two people screwing their brains out?

 

[Darkness]

My 56 year old father moved back in with his 86 year old mother because she couldn't live on her own anymore and he didn't want to stick her in a home. Is that a lesser justification for a household than two people screwing their brains out?

I would argue it is a lesser justification. Moving back in with a parent builds upon childhood emotions, it is not branching out in the same sense starting a family is.

 

[Storm]

Well, I disagree, but I don't see debate being productive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I don't know if you reread the op, but my argument is to get gov out of the mating game altogether. Let people declare households based on any relationship they like.

The problem I see with this is that I'm not sure how much demand there is for it.

I mean, I'm sure there are people in living arrangements other than traditional marriages who would like additional legal support for their relationship, but how many of them want the exact same rights, benefits and responsibilities of legal marriage?

For instance, who's to say that if two people live together platonically and want to have medical power of attorney for each other that they'd necessarily want the other to have a communal property arrangement?

Agreed. I'm just uneasy about the government being involved in such a thing, especially with religious trappings. It's none of their business who I'm boinking.

Who says you have to be married to who you boink? Or that you have to boink who you're married to?

As for the issue of religious trappings: I agree. But I think the easiest solution to this is to get clergy out of the legal marriage process.

When I got married, I had to go to the town clerk for the licence. I paid them the fee, they collected my information and made me swear out an affirmation that I was legally capable of entering into a marriage with Mrs. Penguin, then gave me the form to be signed by Mrs. Penguin and her priest. It'd be a simple matter to get both Mrs. Penguin and me to sign the form right at the clerk's office and cut the priest out altogether.

Ah, fair enough. Would it mollify you at all for me to point out that under my proposal, you could still have any ceremony you wished? IIRC, your wife is Catholic. Assuming they'd marry her to a Godless heathen such as yourself , you could still have your wedding. Or, you could go to a Spiritual Humanism officiant and get married. Or whatever you wanted. It just wouldn't have any relevance to your legal status as a household.

The Catholic Church did allow Mrs. Penguin to marry godless ol' me. I guess I did a good job of hiding my horns under my baseball cap that day.

But I still don't see the appeal of the change you're suggesting. I think having secular legal marriage works just fine.

 

[Storm]

The problem I see with this is that I'm not sure how much demand there is for it.

I mean, I'm sure there are people in living arrangements other than traditional marriages who would like additional legal support for their relationship, but how many of them want the exact same rights, benefits and responsibilities of legal marriage?

For instance, who's to say that if two people live together platonically and want to have medical power of attorney for each other that they'd necessarily want the other to have a communal property arrangement?


Who says you have to be married to who you boink? Or that you have to boink who you're married to?

As for the issue of religious trappings: I agree. But I think the easiest solution to this is to get clergy out of the legal marriage process.

When I got married, I had to go to the town clerk for the licence. I paid them the fee, they collected my information and made me swear out an affirmation that I was legally capable of entering into a marriage with Mrs. Penguin, then gave me the form to be signed by Mrs. Penguin and her priest. It'd be a simple matter to get both Mrs. Penguin and me to sign the form right at the clerk's office and cut the priest out altogether.


The Catholic Church did allow Mrs. Penguin to marry godless ol' me. I guess I did a good job of hiding my horns under my baseball cap that day.

But I still don't see the appeal of the change you're suggesting. I think having secular legal marriage works just fine.

OK, then.

 

[Darkness]

Well, I disagree, but I don't see debate being productive.

Well, it might be more productive if you explain why me and some guy named Rick living in an apartment together should receive a tax break and the legal privileges of marriage, while if I live by myself, I should not receive the same tax breaks?

 

[Storm]

Well, it might be more productive if you explain why me and some guy named Rick living in an apartment together should receive a tax break and the legal privileges of marriage, while if I live by myself, I should not receive the same tax breaks?

I'll give it a shot. ETA: I wasn't trying to shut down discussion. I assumed you understood and disagreed, leaving nothing to explain.

According to my idea, households would be long-term, if not permanent arrangements, not just roommates getting tax breaks. They would bear all the responsibilities of marriage, too. Not something to enter into lightly.

FTR, I'm not saying "ZOMG, THIS IS TEH PERFECT SYSTEM AND ANY1 WHO DISAGREES IS A MORAN!"

I am saying I think it might be a better system than the one we have now. Families take many forms, and should be based on more than sex. This protects families of all kinds, solves the ssm problem, and as an added bonus reinforces separation of church and state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, it might be more productive if you explain why me and some guy named Rick living in an apartment together should receive a tax break and the legal privileges of marriage, while if I live by myself, I should not receive the same tax breaks?

FWIW, I hear that the US is different in this regard, but for me, my taxes actually went up slightly when I got married.

Under Canadian tax rules, some credits are per household, not per person, so only one person in a home can claim them.

As for the legal privileges, I personally don't have a problem with you and "some guy named Rick" taking them on... as long as you realize that there are legal obligations that come with them. If you trust "Rick" enough for him to have de facto power of attorney for you, a half claim on your stuff now and a full claim on it when you die, then I'm not going to second-guess that.

I mean, even without same-sex marriage, there's nothing stopping you from doing that with "some girl named Julie" instead of "some guy named Rick". Same-sex marriage doesn't change anything in this regard.