Marriage versus Holy Matrimony

[Katzpur]

Can we (and should we) make a distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?

It is my opinion that this is something it is time us to do. When I think of marriage, I think of a civil union involving a legal contract between two consenting adults. I don't care whether they are straight or gay, whether they are of the same or different races, whether they are believers in a Higher Power or not. These individuals wish to "get married" either because they love one another or for purposes of convenience. In either case, as long as they are willing to make a commitment to one another under the laws of the land, they should be allowed to enter into this contract called "marriage" and to benefit from the the rights marriage permits (property rights, insurance benefits, right to make end-of-life decisions on each other's behalf, etc.)

When I think of holy matrimony, I think of a religion covenant united two people who see their union as being blessed by God (i.e. any Higher Power). Each religious group, in my opinion, should have the right to call the shots as to who, under their religious doctrines and policies, may be united in holy matrimony. This kind of union would be optional. Catholics could have a Catholic service in which a couple unites in holy matrimony. Mormons could too. (They could have this take place in one of their temples as a "sealing" and the Church could refuse to offer this to anyone who didn't meet their defined criteria.) Jews, Muslims, or any other religious group could do so as well.

In other words, marriage should be a legal union holy matrimony a religious union only.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sounds sensible. You do understand that the two institutions will be compared and contrasted often, though? And confused with each other, even on purpose?

 

[columbus]

In other words, marriage should be a legal union holy matrimony a religious union only.

Works for me. It's religionists who want to limit marriage. Let them agree not to marry anybody.

Tom

 

[Buttercup]

Sounds fair to me as long as all the legal rights and benefits are identical across the nation.

There will be gay folks who would like to be married in church and considered committed in holy matrimony, though.

 

[SoulDaemon]

You really want to go that far, what would be the penalty of divorce under holy matrimony, death or excomunication?

 

[Katzpur]

Sounds fair to me as long as all the legal rights and benefits are identical across the nation.

This would be absolutely essential, in my opinion. What could possibly be stupider than being married in one state and not in another? (Yeah, I know, that's how it is right now and it is STUPID!)

There will be gay folks who would like to be married in church and considered committed in holy matrimony, though.

And that would be just fine, too. I'm sure they would be able to find a church where someone would be happy to marry them -- a Unitarian Universalist church would almost certainly fit the bill here.

 

[Katzpur]

You really want to go that far, what would be the penalty of divorce under holy matrimony, death or excomunication?

I'm not sure if you're really serious about this, but here in the U.S., at least, I don't think death would be an option, no matter what the religion might be. Excommunication could, I suppose, be a penalty that some religions might want to impose.

I probably should have stated up front that I didn't intend that these institutions be mutually exclusive. A couple could, of course, enter into both marriage and holy matrimony.

 

[Katzpur]

Sounds sensible. You do understand that the two institutions will be compared and contrasted often, though? And confused with each other, even on purpose?

Yeah, maybe. I do know that there are some religious people who don't oppose civil unions of some sort, but are adamantly against gay marriage. The thing is, I've been told on numerous occasions by LGBT individuals on this forum that civil unions do not guarantee the same rights that marriages do. If the ultra religious could just recognize that marriage is already just a civil union for many people. They see marriage as a divinely-mandated institution and consider God to be a part of their union. But when two atheists get married, they aren't getting married because they believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. They aren't getting married to do what God supposedly wants of them, because they don't believe in God in the first place. So, in essence, their marriage is already a civil union of sorts, and not a religious one. It's just one that society as a whole recognizes as a "marriage."

Whereas most religious people see "marriage" as a religious institution, I see it as a cultural/societal institution and I see "holy matrimony" as a divinely-mandated institution. If I didn't believe in God, I might still want to enter into a marriage, but would see no need to enter into holy matrimony in addition.

And yes, I'm sure there woud be constant comparisons. It just seems like a logical solution in my opinion.

 

[columbus]

Sounds fair to me as long as all the legal rights and benefits are identical across the nation.

There will be gay folks who would like to be married in church and considered committed in holy matrimony, though.

There are no legal rights or benefits from a sacrament. You get that from the marriage, if you choose to do that as well as Holy Matrimony.


Plenty of churches would be happy to confer Holy Matrimony without regard for gender issues. Of course, one wonders if sacraments have reciprocity. If the UU church married Doug and me, would a Hindu or Methodist agree that we are joined in Holy Matrimony?

Tom

 

[Buttercup]

And that would be just fine, too. I'm sure they would be able to find a church where someone would be happy to marry them -- a Unitarian Universalist church would almost certainly fit the bill here.

Some Episcopalian and Methodist churches are pro gay matrimony along with UU. Pretty sure there are options in that regard.

There are no legal rights or benefits from a sacrament. You get that from the marriage, if you choose to do that as well as Holy Matrimony.

Right. I was basically stating that marriage legality issues need to be the same across the board. And soon, I hope.

 

[psychoslice]

For me marriage is a sentence, a prison, its just not worth it.

 

[s2a]

Can we (and should we) make a distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?

It is my opinion that this is something it is time us to do. When I think of marriage, I think of a civil union involving a legal contract between two consenting adults. I don't care whether they are straight or gay, whether they are of the same or different races, whether they are believers in a Higher Power or not. These individuals wish to "get married" either because they love one another or for purposes of convenience. In either case, as long as they are willing to make a commitment to one another under the laws of the land, they should be allowed to enter into this contract called "marriage" and to benefit from the the rights marriage permits (property rights, insurance benefits, right to make end-of-life decisions on each other's behalf, etc.)

When I think of holy matrimony, I think of a religion covenant united two people who see their union as being blessed by God (i.e. any Higher Power). Each religious group, in my opinion, should have the right to call the shots as to who, under their religious doctrines and policies, may be united in holy matrimony. This kind of union would be optional. Catholics could have a Catholic service in which a couple unites in holy matrimony. Mormons could too. (They could have this take place in one of their temples as a "sealing" and the Church could refuse to offer this to anyone who didn't meet their defined criteria.) Jews, Muslims, or any other religious group could do so as well.

In other words, marriage should be a legal union holy matrimony a religious union only.

Agreed.

Religions/sects/churches...are, after all..."clubs". Like bowling, golf, and guns ranges. NO ONE MAKES you join any club (mostly). Whatever the motivation in joining a "club" (be it social, community, or simple greed/charity), the premise remains that participation is a willful choice of whomever an individual wishes to be seen/known as a loyal affiliate. And that is, for the most part, OK.

As such, a "club" retains a fundamental right to exclude whomever they choose. In so doing, they then must accept the consequences of a willful exclusion as well. Seems fair enough to me.

As Groucho Marx famously said (paraphrased): "I would never join a club that would have me as a member". Also, fair enough. I remain of the opinion that if YOUR club seeks to exclude people because of their creed, color, gender, national origin, or sexual preference, etc., that's OK. I mean, it's THEIR club.

Soooo...if club members really don't want "outsiders" making a mess and such in their own clubhouse, I'm good with that.

Even in the matter of religious (club) marriage vs. (Holy) Matrimony.

Just to be clear to anyone that remains confused by this idea, any two people of distinctly different genders can "marry" anywhere today in the US of A (presuming they are of legal majority age in that state).

There is NO mandate in any of the 50 states that any "marriage" be sanctified or otherwise validated by ANY stated religious (or club) affiliations or fealty to any sects at all. Heck fire, and I swear it to be true, by internet decree alone, I can legally marry any couple that is "straight". ANY, and yes, it IS legally binding under law (and no, don;t ask:the upfront fee for my services is monetarily crippling).

In short, what many "same-sex" couples seek is some sort of "sanction or validation" from a specific "club" of which they desire "membership" by some rule of default alone.

Understandable I suppose, but this brings me back to Groucho again. Why seek membership of any club that would have you as a member, knowing they don't want you there, or around them?

 

[StarryNightshade]

In other words, marriage should be a legal union holy matrimony a religious union only.

For what it's worth, I essentially agree with this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For what it's worth, I essentially agree with this.

Works for me. I have some questions generally about where organizations should have the right to exclude with prejudice, but that's not exclusive to Churches, or to marriage.

 

[Bunyip]

Can we (and should we) make a distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?

It is my opinion that this is something it is time us to do. When I think of marriage, I think of a civil union involving a legal contract between two consenting adults. I don't care whether they are straight or gay, whether they are of the same or different races, whether they are believers in a Higher Power or not. These individuals wish to "get married" either because they love one another or for purposes of convenience. In either case, as long as they are willing to make a commitment to one another under the laws of the land, they should be allowed to enter into this contract called "marriage" and to benefit from the the rights marriage permits (property rights, insurance benefits, right to make end-of-life decisions on each other's behalf, etc.)

When I think of holy matrimony, I think of a religion covenant united two people who see their union as being blessed by God (i.e. any Higher Power). Each religious group, in my opinion, should have the right to call the shots as to who, under their religious doctrines and policies, may be united in holy matrimony. This kind of union would be optional. Catholics could have a Catholic service in which a couple unites in holy matrimony. Mormons could too. (They could have this take place in one of their temples as a "sealing" and the Church could refuse to offer this to anyone who didn't meet their defined criteria.) Jews, Muslims, or any other religious group could do so as well.

In other words, marriage should be a legal union holy matrimony a religious union only.

Great idea. That would resolve the question of gay marriage very well. I agree completely - marriage would be a civil contract, and holy matrimony would be whatever the relevant religious group wats it to be.