Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: You're trying to tell me that religious institutions are not using their considerable political clout to deny homosecuals the right to engage in civil union? I'm afraid that's *exactly* what's happening in America right now. Also - no, religious institutions are not denying the right to legal union for those not wishing a religious service. What they *are* doing is continuing to mix a service that should be purely a legal intertwining of two consenting adults witha religious ceremony involving vows before a 'God'. I propose to simply divorce the two. You want a religious marriage? Go ahead and have it, but unless you *also* perform a civil union ceremony, even if it is only a 5-minute signing of pieces of paper, then your marriage counts for nothing in the eyes of the law. This way, homosecuals can get the legal state of union that they desire without interference from religious dogma espousing the 'sanctity of marriage', and have exactly the same rights as those who did choose to perform a religious ceremony in addition. Divorce the two processes (pardon the pun).

Have you been married Bardan?

During every ceremony whether religious or civil, there is a signing of the paper. The paper goes into the dept. of marriages, and comes back ratified. That is when the couple are 'legally' married.

A legal union is simply the peice of paper. A legal divorce is another piece of paper.

The true marriage and divorce are spiritual, physical things, not legal things. I don't think you understand the nature of commitment, and marriage if you are limiting it to the piece of paper or attempting to enforce some bizzarr legal ceremony. What the hell is that? "Do this ceremony or you're not married"

In Australia at least you don't need a ceremony at all. If you've been living together five to seven years or so, you are considered married "defacto" and have pretty much the same rights as otherwise.

You idea is ignores what marriage is, cultural and religious freedoms and human rights.

It also ignores the said spiritual element to marriage. Marriage is a product of spiritual thought. The ceremonies are only recent additions.

Ancient Jews would simply move in together. Jesus described marriage as being

1. Living together
2. Having Sex
3.'Grafting together' emotionally and spiritually.

#3 takes time. A spiritual union does not occur magically in a legal ceremony.

[Mouse]

Actually, I think that you will find that whether the ceremony takes place in a religious or secular setting, most states will only recognise it as a legal "marriage" and grant the partners protection and rights under the law if the ceremony conforms to statutory requirements.

This is why either civil or religious methods are available - both satisfy the legal requirements of a marriage. In fact, in Scotland, in rare cases, someone can go to court and have a declarator of marriage granted if a couple have lived together as husband and wife without going through any ceremony

Here is more information.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: As I see it, the best solution is to strip church marriages and other religious couplings of any legal value whatsoever. If a couple wants to be married, whether straight, gay or whatever, make them go through the 'process of civil union' (insert better thought-out title here). Then, if a couple want to go through the religous ceremony of marriage in their church, let them. Just let it be the case that church marriage carries no legal weight whatsoever, is not recognised by the state as what we would term 'marriage' today, and have Civil Union as the recoognised way of legally tying the knot [img]smile.gif[/img] That way, everyone gets equal rights, everyone chooses their husband or wife totally outside of the religious ceremony of marriage, and those who still want to indulge for religious reasons may do so [img]smile.gif[/img] This also means that no gay couple can force a church to marry them, because they would be trying to infringe upon a purely religious point of faith, and I happen to believe that would be correct. I can't see why any religion would have a problem with this. After all, people would have full freedom of religion, and could choose what ceremonies to conduct, and which ones not to, and i doubt many people would interfere. Your touted 'separation of church and state' thing

When my secretary asked me my take on gay marriage, my response was, "Well, in the end you sorta are led to the inevitable conclusion that marriage should be done away with legally." I love to start it that way - it really gets a jaw-drop. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] But, now you see how that can be a very reasonable conclusion.

As for folks saying you are damaging religions, "riding roughshod," etc, that's pure BS. Again, we are talking LEGAL marriage -- NOT CHURCH MARRIAGE. In fact, legal marriage is different to some degree or another in all 50 states. Everything from how to get it, to the paperwork, to the filing requirements, to the inheritance rights, to the divorce settlements. LEGAL marriage is defined in numerous ways all over countries, yet Judaism, Christianity, Catholocism all still perform the same ceremonies (to the extent they desire to). We are merely talking LEGAL PARTNERSHIPS here folks, quit taking it as an insult to your religion. It is mere legalities. I've explained how $10K and a good estates lawyer can create the paper to give the same basic legal effects. Hell, using trusts law, I could find a lawyer who'd create the paper to give you and your dog the same duties, responsibilities, and benefits that accrue with marriage. We are simply talking a set of legal benefits here, not the sacred institution of spiritual marriage. [/QUOTE]I'm not debating with you TL.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Maybe you need to look at your own country. It's not so in others. Australia and America do not have unionn ceremonies "monopolised" by religious institutions. As I said, the piece of paper is the legal element. The ceremony has no legal value as is. It contains spiritual and social significance.

Then if the significance is spiritual and social, then why the need for legal too? If religion is important to you, get a religious ceremony in addition to the legally meaningful civil union. The monopoly I was speaking of was this - I was under the impression that only some states in America were allowing this kind of union, and the President himself was considering legislation blocking this very thing. This is the whole problem - the concepts of 'religious marriage' and 'civil union' are mixed. This is where the friction comes in. Because the foundations of such civil unions were, in more unenlightened times, based on religious concepts, then there are restrictions based purely on religious grounds that are hampering non-religious poeple, or even religious people with slightly different beliefs from the mainstream.

By removing legal significance from religious ceremonies and rpoviding a truly equal civil union ceremony, I would actually free any religion to religiously marry anyone they wanted, or refuse to do that same, free of political criticism. As one of the smallest religious minorities around, I am actually a fervent advocate of religious freedom. I simply don't see 'religious freedom' as meaning the same thing as 'intertwining religion and state'.

Australia, I wouldn't know about. Even you must admit they simply are not as powerful a society as the American one globally. Until Australia becomes a world power displaying intolerance, I'll concentrate on my country and America, thank you [img]smile.gif[/img]

You are advocating the removal of communities rights. The various ceremonies of faiths and cultures are a beautiful thing. They are part of cultural expression. Any attempts to derail and forbid such expression reeks of totalitarian intolerant nonsense. [/QB]

Please, Yorick. I can understand you wanting to believe that I am trying to forbid religious freedom because it fits in better with your idea of the big, bad, religion-hating atheist, but can't you see that I am actually attempting to do the exact opposite?

By removing the legal aspect that is mistakenly existent in a religious, spiritual ceremony, exactly how do I derail and forbid your expression of your religion? You would have the same rights as anyone else to take part in a religious ceremony. You would also have the same rights to undertake the legally meaningful civil union. You would also be able to live in an environment where nobody could question your religious right to deny a ceremony to a couple based on a religious idea.

Where is the totalitarianism? How am I removing a communities rights? Where have I said that marriage should be outlawed? Where have I suggested getting jackbooted thugs to crack down on religious ceremonies?

I have not. You want your religious ceremony to be preserved as a spiritual matter that confroms to your faith, and is free from outside pressure (particularly political) to change? That's fine and dandy, and I'll support you all the way. Just realise that the price of having religion free from litigation is to remove the legal validity from the religious ceremony.

[ 08-01-2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: Actually, I think that you will find that whether the ceremony takes place in a religious or secular setting, most states will only recognise it as a legal "marriage" and grant the partners protection and rights under the law if the ceremony conforms to statutory requirements. This is why either civil or religious methods are available - both satisfy the legal requirements of a marriage. In fact, in Scotland, in rare cases, someone can go to court and have a declarator of marriage granted if a couple have lived together as husband and wife without going through any ceremony Here is more information.

As it is in Australia, mentioned in my above post. Thanks Mouse.

[Yorick]

Bardan, I think you have a serious misconception about marriages, ceremonies and legal union. From your response I thought things must have been different in Britain, but Mouse has posted otherwise.

Check the above posts for details.

[Chewbacca]

A short little writing on the history of marriage. I seems the institution has changed alot through history and it also seems it wasn't originally a religious ceremony at all, but a legal one.

http://marriage.miningco.com/library...y/aa070198.htm

Yesterdays norm is todays taboo.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Have you been married Bardan? During every ceremony whether religious or civil, there is a signing of the paper. The paper goes into the dept. of marriages, and comes back ratified. That is when the couple are 'legally' married. A legal union is simply the peice of paper. A legal divorce is another piece of paper.

Nopey, I haven't been married. I was simply forced to study it from a legal and religious standpoint at my Catholic School [img]smile.gif[/img]

The true marriage and divorce are spiritual, physical things, not legal things. I don't think you understand the nature of commitment, and marriage if you are limiting it to the piece of paper or attempting to enforce some bizzarr legal ceremony. What the hell is that? "Do this ceremony or you're not married"

That's exactly what I am trying to do. If you want the legal benefits of being a legally married couple, then you have to undergo a civil ceremony totally distinct form the religious one. I can just assure you, Yorick, that the civil ceremony will certainly be no more 'bizarre' than the religious one (though i find the very idea of a religious ceremony bizzare, but that's just my experience, right?) [img]smile.gif[/img]

In Australia at least you don't need a ceremony at all. If you've been living together five to seven years or so, you are considered married "defacto" and have pretty much the same rights as otherwise.

'Pretty much', or 'exactly'? It's kinduva an important point. If it's 'exactly', then hurray Australia [img]smile.gif[/img] Does this apply to homosexuals as well?

You idea is ignores what marriage is, cultural and religious freedoms and human rights. It also ignores the said spiritual element to marriage. Marriage is a product of spiritual thought. The ceremonies are only recent additions. Ancient Jews would simply move in together. Jesus described marriage as being 1. Living together 2. Having Sex 3.'Grafting together' emotionally and spiritually. #3 takes time. A spiritual union does not occur magically in a legal ceremony.

No, Yorick, your idea promotes a religious idea of marriage, which is not 'correct' simply because it is older, or because it was written down a few thousand years ago. If you believe there is a spiritual element to marriage, then by all means, go have a spiritual ceremony. as I have repeated ad infinitum, I will support your right to do so all the way to the hilt. However, if there are people out there with the temerity to disagree with you on the line :

Marriage is a product of spiritual thought

simply because they don't believe as you do, then they will be able to enjoy the full benefits of the legal union our society currently grants to religious ceremonies.

I have a shock for you here, Yorick, but some people who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God nonetheless have great respect for the idea of marriage. It is something i would never advise anyone to rush into or out of, and think that such a legal, defining union between two people is a wonderful way of underpinning a family unit and giving children a decent upbringing. The fact that I couldn't care less what was written about what some (now worshipped) bloke reportedly said 2,000 years ago about marriage does not mean I inherently treat the concept with disregard. I simply disregard all religious and spiritual elements from such because I do not believe as you do

You display the arrogance typical of religious institutions (and I do not say this as an insult. I mean it simply as arrogance in terms of 'genuinely believing you are right and all others are wrong') when you state :

You idea is ignores what marriage is, cultural and religious freedoms and human rights. It also ignores the said spiritual element to marriage. Marriage is a product of spiritual thought. The ceremonies are only recent additions.

My idea ignores what *your religious view* of marriage is. My idea treats the civil union sections of marriage as the important ones, not the religious, spiritual, jesus-approved sections that are of importance to you.

Can't you see that at heart, we are discussing two distinct ideas here? Civil Union and Religious Marriage. The whole problem (and reason for this debate) is that the idea of "Religious Marriage" is mistakenly invested with the legal ramifications of "Civil Union". Simply explicitly remove any legal aspects from the religious marriage idea, and everyone is happy. Poeple disapproved of by religious groups are entitled to the same rights (as they should be, as fellow human beings), and religions get to say who they marry, and when, and don't even have to give a reason why if they don't want to.

[Timber Loftis]

Mouse, you are correct. In the US, a Justice of the Peace can do a marriage or a Priest can. It is the one time when a priest is granted power by the state to undertake a legal act. It is in fact two acts at once when a priest marries two people: (1) spiritual/church marriage, and (2) legal marriage.

You talked of Scotland's cohabitation marriage. In the US 8 or 10 states still have this "common law marriage." If you live with a person as husband/wife for a set number of years in those states (usually 7 or 8), you are considered legally married -- without filing any paperwork. Once you two split, property settlement and custody proceedings will follow, just as if you were officially wed.

What is so hard about this concept of two acts, two "marriages," for you guys to grasp? One is legality and paperwork, the other is religious. How can changing one offend the other?? If so, how can you justify the 50 different versions of marriage we have in the US??

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Mouse, you are correct. In the US, a Justice of the Peace can do a marriage or a Priest can. It is the one time when a priest is granted power by the state to undertake a legal act. It is in fact two acts at once when a priest marries two people: (1) spiritual/church marriage, and (2) legal marriage. You talked of Scotland's cohabitation marriage. In the US 8 or 10 states still have this "common law marriage." If you live with a person as husband/wife for a set number of years in those states (usually 7 or 8), you are considered legally married -- without filing any paperwork. Once you two split, property settlement and custody proceedings will follow, just as if you were officially wed. What is so hard about this concept of two acts, two "marriages," for you guys to grasp? One is legality and paperwork, the other is religious. How can changing one offend the other?? If so, how can you justify the 50 different versions of marriage we have in the US??

I hope you're not including me in the "you guys". I've been saying the same thing Timber. I've also been in one end and out the other of legal/spiritual marriage and know the difference intimately.