Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

And I consider those people nutjobs, not to be taken seriously. Fortunately, there is no NEED to take them seriously, because eliminating religion from society isn't going to happen.

Because it's his job. He's supposed to marry/civil unionize (is that a word) anyone who meets the legal parameters and wants to get married/civil unionized in a courthouse. I don't necessarily have a problem with him making arrangements to have another judge do it, but he shouldn't expect/demand it. I don't have a problem with him asking though.

Unfortunately, we have reached an impasse. Of the two of us, you are the only one who believes that statement to be true.

 

He's the one trying to reduce marriage to a mere contract, therefore he should be looking for that source.

If all this is about is inheritance rights, partner benefits, or other worldly matters, that's fine. The language of the contract should reflect this. AS for sex, you can get away with don't ask, don't tell. But when you use the word marriage, which implies spiritual components despite certain protests otherwise, then you cross the line into blasphemy, which could be extremely serious.

In cases of heterosexual couples, this courtesy was extended to the state by religions in their borders. The problem arises when the state abuses this and tries to extend it to homosexuals...

Here is a theological difference between Catholocism and Mormonism. If the couple is heterosexual, the marriage is recognized under the same covenent regardless of the authority. If I were to marry a woman who was not a Mormon, and her parents were to insist on a different religion--or even a judge, the Church would recognize it as valid.

We actually got off onto the first ammendment here...

I can accept that, but must insist that the language itself differentiate this from a religious marriage.

It becomes a religious issue when religious nomenclature is slapped on a civil procedure. This was not a problem until this started to apply to unions that violate religious tennets...

That is exactly the point! While secularism at first appears to be able to be an actively disinterested (divested of specific interest) moderator, they have abandoned that to pursue an agenda of their own, trying to combat religious influence entirely. Many with such deeply rooted and deeply held convictions are not convinced that this is a good thing...

If it's "Just a contract" as you keep repeating, then what point is served by refusing to rename it to reflect the purely secular nature of this?

[qoute]I have no blinders on.[/quote]

I beg to differ. You are blinded to the spiritual significance of Marraige. It denies you the understanding of my position, and as such we repeat the same things over and over. I am not blinded, I see that spiritual significance, and that's why I refuse to back down on certain points.

Why not simply use the language to differentiate that?

Since Marriage involves the officiator using his authority to bind the couple, then what you argue is clearly not marriage.

:BS: It is the people with the blinders on that want to change the actual word to suit their purpose instead of using a different word to reflect this. You've been drinking their Kool-aid or you'd see that too.

 

I'm not sure that's true. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the exact opposite is the case (that it is the state that extends the courtesy to religions). Perhaps if there was a state recognized religion, you could say that religions "allowed" the state to perform marriages, but seeing as how there is not presently, nor has there ever been, a state-sanctioned religion in the US, I have a hard time believing that it is religions that "allow" the state to right to marry people.

I am much more inclined to believe, as I have been saying from the start, that there are religious and non-religious marriages, with the state only having the ability to perform the latter. Further it is the state that extends the courtesy to religions within their borders as anyone who is married within a church also has their marriage recognized by the state. It is the state that is the ultimate decision authority of which marriages they chose to recognize, and not any particular religion.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. If two Catholics (and for the sake of arguement let's assume we're talking about a man and a woman who have never been previously married) go to a courthouse to get married, the Catholic Church would recognize that in the eyes of the law, they are married. However, one of the sacraments in the Catholic Church is matrimony (there's another obviously religious word for marriage), and you cannot get that sacrament performed by a judge in a courthouse. So the Catholic Church would acknowledge that they were legally married, but would also say they did not receive the sacrament of matrimony, and thus were not married by Catholic standards.

From my last paragraph a thought has occurred to me that this might already be the case. While I'm not nearly as familiar with other religions, could it be that all Christian religions have the same sacraments? For Catholics the sacrament that is conducted to marry you is called Matrimony. Could the same be true of Mormonism (and perhaps NOG's protestant denomination)?

Going back to my first paragraph, I would actually argue that it is the state that decides to acknowledge marriages performed by churches within its borders as valid. So I would say that you're right with your first sentence there - it is churches that slap religious nomenclature on what is a civil procedure in the eyes of the state. However, because it is a civil procedure, the state should not be bound by upholding religious tennents.

I think the point BTA was attempting to make is that the state sees no fundamental difference between a couple married at courthouse, compared to a couple married at a Mormon temple, compared to a couple married in a Catholic church compared to a couple married in Muslim mosque, etc. The state doesn't care what religion sanctified your marriage, or if it was sanctified at all.

To the state, they are all the same, and thus the same name should apply to all of them. Unless religious marriages were granted some right that non-religious marriages were not granted, it would be absurd to expect the state to differentiate between something that the state does not view as different. I know that to religious people there is a big difference between the two - but that's not how the government sees it. Perhaps you can do something like the Catholic church - they basically say we know that you are legally married in the eyes of the state, but you didn't get the sacrament.

(As an aside, I know of no devout Catholic that would consider anything other than a marriage by the Catholic church, unless for some reason the Catholic church would refuse to marry you. To use my wife's family as an example, both she and most of her siblings were married in a Catholic church. However, my wife's oldest sister married a man who was divorced. The only way you can get married more than once in a Catholic church is if your first spouse dies. My wife's sister met all the criteria to be married in a Catholic church, but since her husband to be had already been married once by the Catholic church, he did not meet the criteria. So my wife's oldest sister got married at the dockside of a lake by a JotP. The Catholic church says my sister-in-law never received the sacrament matrimony. To extend this analogy further - unless the church refused, why would any devout person of any denomination decide to get married anywhere other than a church (or similar place of worship?)

 

The way I understand it, marriage predates any current political authority. The "marriage laws" were just a framework build around this ordinance. By Seperation of Church and State, this framework should be able to stand on their own without the ordinance of marriage propping them up. Since Marriage represents religion, the state is then OBLIGATED to use language that reflects this seperation.

The fact that the churches did not advocate revolt implies their consent in this.

The phrase I hear in the Church is "legally and lawfully" married. This accommodates converts and less active members who are bound under different authority. Note that the Proclamation on the Family explicitly defines Marriage as between a man and a woman. It also should be noted that marriage is a sacred covenent, regardless of what temporal authority (the Temple, the Bishop, other religious authority, JoP, captain of a ship, or anyone else legaly authorized to unite a man and a woman as such) they are bound under.

In Mormonism the word is marriage...

You have that backwards--the State is using religious terminology (marriage) to label a Civil ordinance. I want these civil ordinances described in LEGAL terms explicitly describing what they want.

Going back to my earlier point, if the laws governing marriage are just a framework to handle legal concerns arising from the religious rite of marriage. That Framework should also work to handle such concerns for unions not sanctioned by religion (same sex couples, common law relationships) which have similar legal concerns. That Framework should, however, reflect the civil nature of the framework. Classifying all of these as Civil unions, and reserving the term Marriage for spiritual organizations could accomplish that.

But their concern is the framework around the ceremony, not the ceremony itself. If they become concerned about the Ceremony, they risk overstepping their constitutional boundaries.

This is why Secularism is so dangerous. They tear down that which is sacred, and reduce it to somethig so basic that the true meaning is lost. There is a difference between favouring a religion and allowing them their space within society. Something as simple as a difference in nomenclature would achieve that...

I can think of a circumstance or two where a devout Mormon couple might be married under other authority, but it may be extremely rare. It likely would not be the Bishop refusing the ceremony, but the family of one half of the couple that objected to Mormon authority performing the ceremony...

 

You understand incorrectly. Since marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history and Christianity and (despite their claims to the contrary) Judaism do not, marriage is clearly older than any modern religion currently being practiced.

Of course, this point is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, since what marriage meant 10,000, 5,000, 100, or even 25 years ago is irrelevant to what marriage means now. It isn't 8000 BC. Hell it isn't even 1890 or 1975. The year is 2008, and whether you like it or not, in 2008, the word "marriage" encompasses secular unions. Language evolves. You don't have to like it, but you do have to deal with it. We won't be re-defining marriage or any other word (and couldn't even if we wanted to do so, since the evolution of language occurs independent of the will of any regulatory body) just because you don't like it.

 

This is why we are not agreeing. I do not look at religion as the originator of marriage, and the state is just there to build up a framework of laws around this pre-existing concept. I, like Drew, view the idea of marriage as a societal concept that pre-dates religion and government. As such, I view marriage to have separate meanings when used to describe what you get in a courthouse compared to what you get in a church. That distinction is important to those in the church, so I understand why you'd want a different word to be used to describe this difference. However, such a distinction is completely unimportant from the point of view of the state, which is why you do not see laws on the books indicating a difference. From strictly a legal perspective, there is no difference between a religious and non-religious marriage.

Regardless, I have already stated that I don't have a problem labelling marriages conducted outside of a religous setting to be civil unions, so long as we use that terminology to describe ALL such ceremonies, regardless of the gender of the people getting the union. However, I doubt that passing such a law would actually change the way people talk. People who go to a courthouse to get a civil union will still refer to themselves as married, and the rests of society will still think of them as married, so it seems like this change would be more cosmetic that substantive. For example, someone wouldn't say, "I've been civil unionized for 5 years." Instead they would say, "I've been married for five years," even if the ceremony they had was technically a civil union. (This also echos Drew's point of language evolving independent of any regulatory oversight.)

It seems to me that you have trimmed down your argument from where you started quite a bit. (Or perhaps it was NOG who was asserting that there was still a religious aspect to courthouse marriages.) If ALL you are arguing for is using a different word for courthouse marriages, e.g., civil unions, I don't have any problem with it. (I still think your views about government and religious interaction are incorrect, but on the specific point of calling marriages at courthouses civil unions, I'm willing to concede that point, largely because I don't think it will have any impact on society.)

 

Does that mean that I would not longer be married to my wife, but rather civilly unionized? - I can't say I'm too crazy about the sound of that.

What's wrong with having marriage mean two different things? Look up any word in the dictionary, and chances are it will have more than one definition. Which definition applies depends on the context in which it is used.

 

Aldeth, why would you concede that point? What reason would there be for you to concede that point? What is the next point they would ask us to concede? If they can lay claim to the sole interpretation of one word why not others?

 

Splunge - I addressed exactly that in the post - just because the piece of paper you get would say "civil union" instead of "marriage" it wouldn't effect the way people talk. People who get a civil union would still refer to themselves as married, and have all the same rights and benefits as those married, so in effect, yes, they would still be married.

joacquin - I'm willing to concede the point, because changing a name on a sheet of paper will not change how people refer to themselves (as I addressed in my previous post). I'm effectively conceding a non-change.

 

I really couldn't care less what anyone calls the partnership between Mrs Bruno and me. Call it a civil union, call it marriage, call it Fred, call it unnatural -- it is a legal contract that binds our finances and provides legal rights. Period.

The piece of paper is simply insurance. Our relationship is far more than a piece of paper.

 

Without a doubt, the most sensible thing said in this entire thread. Bravo.

 

I completely agree!

 

So just because the means to reliably record history came about slower than marriage, you automatically claim it for secularism? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. In the record of the Abrahamic Religions, The first Marriage was performed by God. Since you don't believe, and we can't prove it until it's too late, that impasse will remain.

You say that, then you say:

Which is it? You won't change it for me but you will for to homosexuals? You maybe change ti to remove the reference to a divine being that you don't believe in? You change it at your will but not at mine? That double standard is why Secularism should be treated just like any other religion.

And I'm dealing with it by asking that it evolve differently than others want it to evolve into.

So why can't seperate meanings be reflected by use of different wording? Why must a word sacred to one group be smeared by extending it to another group, offensive to the first group, whose differences are irreconcilable? Is it laziness, hatred or simply an attempt to exert control over the first group?

You'd be surprised. By setting that up in law, it makes the differences in meaning front and centre to the people. This makes Civil Union a "politically correct alternative" to a religiously charged word. Political correctness does have it's influence. I'm trying to frame my points in non offensive language, why can't they use a less offensive wording for their "contract"?

Once upon a time, I had no problem with calling you and your wife Married, but since this opens the door to an abominable abuse by other groups that can't leave well enough alone, and refuse to find a less contentious solution, That's what I have to ask you to live with.

For something mundane, there is no problem, but when this imposes itself on the religious fabric of a people, that causes strife. Especially when it's not necessary to antagonize the faithful to resolve a civil problem...

That I don't know. I'll judge that when that comes. But as long as there are multiple voices within a society, someone will always need to ask someone to give ground in the name of co-existence. The way I see it, the faithful have given so much ground that it seems to piss people off when we want to draw a line in the sand to protect something sacred to us. I don't see where there is more ground we can give on moral issues...

We're not asking a set in stone definition, just what we want excluded from that definition. From what others in this thread have said, it sounds dramatically different from Marriage, so why drag that word into it?

Then why are so many so stubbornly clinging to the term marriage to describe it when there is nothing spiritual about the contract in question? I'd think by now, enough of you know me and understand why I won't back down on the point, but if this is not as important, why do you refuse to reflect that difference in the language?

That part of a non religious union is none of my business. For Gay couples, I really don't want to know. For Straight couples, I really shouldn't be too interested either for that matter. To the Religious, Marriage itself is more than just a piece of paper. If all you are talking about is a piece of paper, then why drag a term that means more than that to another group into the situation?

 

This is what you don't seem to get, no one is trying to make you or anyone thinking like you to do anything. All that is asked is that you won't try to stop other people from doing things that have no effect on you. You can lord it around and moralize as much as you want over people who willingly accept. You should have no power or influence over people who reject your views or simply disagree. The "secularists" arent trying to make the religious people do anything, all they are trying to do is to stop religious people from doing things to them.

 

In the "record" of Abrahamic religions? Did you intentionally ignore the part where I pointed out that reliable recorded history pre-dates Judaism? We have records of cultures that existed well before there was any evidence of a Jewish culture. You're essential argument is that the bible is an unbroken link leading all the way back to the point of creation because, well, the bible says it is an unbroken link leading all the way back to the point of creation. To believe this, you also have to believe that man has only been on this earth for 10,000 years. Reliable recorded history, however, goes back farther than that. Using a strict literal accounting of biblical time such as that of Bishop James Ussher, reliable recorded history actually predates when Adam and Eve were supposedly created. The bible is many things. A history book, however, is not one of them.

 

Well, many are stubbornly clingling to the term "marriage", because that's exactly what it says they have on the piece of paper they received from the courthouse. Splunge got married at a courthouse, and has a MARRIAGE license to prove it. (And not to nitpick, but even if a law were passed that stated all courthouse marriages would now be civil unions, it would not retroactively change anyone who already got married to a civil union. It would just be from that point forward, and people like Splunge and others would still be married.)

This is why I'm saying that passing a law would be unlikely to change the way people talk. You cannot legislate what language people use. There was never a law passed that said words like "fag" and "queer" were offensive, and that's why people stopped using those terms to describe homosexuals. The language evolved independent of any laws being passed.

If enough people think that the term marriage is offensive when it is applied to same sex unions, you have a genuine shot of seeing a language change independent of any type of law being passed. On the other hand, if relatively few people think the term is offensive when it is applied to same sex unions, then passing a law isn't going to change the way people talk.

It is my personal opinion that most of society does not see the term as offensive. In fact, unlike a word like "fag" that was offensive regardless of the context in which it was used, you're saying that "marriage" is only offensive when used in a very specific context - when it is applied to same sex unions. Offensive words disappear from language because of sideways glances and public scorn people receive from using those terms. Since 99% of the time, people using the term "marriage" won't get sideways glances, and you are certainly not advocating for the term to drop out of language altogether, I don't realistically seeing this change happening.

While this is horribly off-topic, I know of no recorded history dating back 10,000 years. Unless you qualify things like cave paintings as reliable recorded history. The oldest civilizations that left a recorded history would be the Sumerians, followed closely by the Egyptians. However, both of those civilizations' histories date back to about 6,000 years ago.

 

Yeah, that was my bad. I did a little too much rounding. The age of the earth according to the bible varies depending upon whom you ask. For example, Bishop James Ussher dated the beginning of the earth to 4004 BC. The Sumerian people, among others, obviously pre-date that (although their writing does not). We've been able to trace the development of agriculture back to 10,000 BC and proto-writing began in 7,000 BC (many argue that it began even earlier). Then, we have that pesky radio-carbon dating aging fossils we turn up at millions upon millions of years...

 

Dude, *everyone* knows that God put them there to mess with our minds!

 

Because maybe to them, it IS spiritual. It IS sacred and deeply meaningful. Have you ever considered that? Just because your faith considers a homosexual union to be an abomination doesn't mean all faiths do, and certainly doesn't mean all people of faith do (or for that matter, all Mormons - you'd be surprised how many are out there). People of all walks of life can and will have different philosophies about what a marriage is to them, and especially what makes a marriage a marriage. To some, the religious aspect is the kicker. To others, it's the lifelong union part that is more important. Whatever emphasis individual couples choose to give this union is their business, their prerogative, their choice. But as I tried to illustrate before, and you ignored, there is a common thread here. Two people who are properly sealed in a church and wed by a religious authority are married because they make a vow (a contract, if you will) to be faithful to one another for the rest of their lives. Two atheists who do the same in an informal ceremony are married because they make a vow (yup, contract) to be faithful to one another for the rest of their lives. Splunge and anyone else with a justice of the peace wedding are married because they make a vow (mmm...contract) to be faithful to one another for the rest of their lives. That they decide to make the union legal and lawful in the eyes of the government as an insurance policy of sorts (hat tip to T2Bruno) just makes things official, but certainly no less sacred, meaningful or spiritual to them.

I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around the idea - no, the fact - that just because a marriage is little more than a contract in the eyes of the law, it is far more than a contract to normal citizens (yes, even the dreaded secular ones). And before you make the point yet again that the word "marriage" shouldn't be used in the law to reflect this, you need to somehow understand that the word marriage still holds a deep and important meaning in our society for just about everyone. People who decide to wed, even in a ceremony or method detached from religion, are still entering into something they consider deeply sacred and meaningful. It's one of the biggest decisions in ANYONE'S life. I assure you that nearly all of the 11,000+ gay couples who've gotten married in Massechussettes in the past few months consider it the coolest, most sacred, most spiritually meaningful day of their lives, particularly because they've been denied the opportunity for so long. That your faith considers it an abomination isn't really relevant to anyone other than you and people with your fundamentalist mindset. And that you find their marriages deplorable yet consider drunken Vegas weddings to be on a higher level of acceptability just because the people involved are straight is incredibly silly once you give it a little thought.

If gays and secular folk didn't consider marriage something special, they wouldn't do it at all. At the end of the day, we "stubbornly" insist on continuing to call such unions marriages because, well...there's no good reason not to call a marriage a marriage. And especially not for the reasons you cite. You really do need to get a grip. The earth, it turns out, is round.