Marriage: Secular or Sacred

[Gently Gazing Eyes]

I've seen discussions of this topic (which mainly delineated from the topic of homosexual marriage) on all the other forums in which I actively post. I figured it'd be nice to bring it here. For reference, here's a link to a thread on another forum that has a nice little discussion over the issue: Here.

The basic assertion that I hold is that "marriage" as defined by the secular laws should be a secular contract and nothing more. And since so many fundamental religious advocates want to keep the name, let them keep the rites of "marriage," or "handfasting," or whatever else their religion calls it within their religion and only within their religion, so that it has nothing to do with the outside secular laws.

I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. What do you think?

[I, Brian]

Certainly this is an interesting topic to address.

A particular problem, though, is that historically speaking there was no real sense of society being outside of religion for most civilisations I can think of. So the laws that originally governed marriage would have been principly religious. Nowadays, of course, the laws of marriage are indeed principly secular, and often have no need for religious overtones.

So is marriage a religious or civil ceremony? That entirely depends on which you want to call it.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Gently Gazing Eyes

I've seen discussions of this topic (which mainly delineated from the topic of homosexual marriage) on all the other forums in which I actively post. I figured it'd be nice to bring it here. For reference, here's a link to a thread on another forum that has a nice little discussion over the issue: Here.

The basic assertion that I hold is that "marriage" as defined by the secular laws should be a secular contract and nothing more. And since so many fundamental religious advocates want to keep the name, let them keep the rites of "marriage," or "handfasting," or whatever else their religion calls it within their religion and only within their religion, so that it has nothing to do with the outside secular laws.

I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this. What do you think?

What I know about marriage I learned from the Catholic education I had many years of, from first nursery classes to college.

From my education, marriage as practiced in Western society today was always religious, i.e., Christian, until the state took it over and prescribed that unless it is officiated by a minister authorized by the state, it has no force or effects insofar as the law is concerned; so that no rights and no duties can be demanded by either spouse in regard to the other, not with the enforcement power of the state.

Now with the rise of the secular state, we have two marriages in the same wedding, if it is performed in the church or by a religious minister, namely, the religious rite and the civil marriage proper that is the one given any civil effects.

For Protestant churches, the religious ceremony is just for religious garnish and blessings from God, but the real marriage is the civil one.

For Catholics, since the Catholic Church claims that it alone has the authority to define marriage, at least for her members, then a wedding officiated by a priest is in reality two marriages superimposed on each other: the Catholic marriage which is called the sacrament of matrimony and the purely civil contract.

Now, you can have a sacramental marriage with a priest not authorized by the government, hence without the civil contract. This sacramental religious marriage is seriously binding in your church, however worthless and even against the law in a secular state, but it's being done in the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, if you are Catholic and you get married without a priest but before a civil official like the justice or mayor, then you are not married before God, not the Catholic God; although your marriage is binding in the civil jurisdiction -- you can't get out anymore without the law coming in again.

Where am I?

Gazing Eyes says:

The basic assertion that I hold is that "marriage" as defined by the secular laws should be a secular contract and nothing more. And since so many fundamental religious advocates want to keep the name, let them keep the rites of "marriage," or "handfasting," or whatever else their religion calls it within their religion and only within their religion, so that it has nothing to do with the outside secular laws.

Marriage anywhere is a contract by whatever name you call it. In civil law of Western society if you don't make that contract with the participation of an officiating minister authorized by the law, then it is not binding.

You are right, Gazing, as far as the state is concerned in Western society, you can have any kind of marriage in your religious congregation you want, but without compliance with the requirements of the civil law you have no civil marriage, that is, no contract which will endow both parties with rights and obligations. So don't come crying to the government if anything goes wrong and you want the government to help out, even though you had the biggest, most expensive, and longest wedding in the world in your peculiar religious institution.

That civil contract is what gays and lesbians want between them, even of the same sex, exactly like what the law gives to a man and a woman contracting the conventional civil marriage; gays and lesbians are not concerned with any religious wedding, unless they are also devoutly religious people.

Susma Rio Sep

[Kaldayen]

Exactly Susma,

Gays don't ask for a religious (christian in this case) recognition of their union. They just want the same rights than other married couples (inheritance, legal status for both parents when they adopt a kid, general recognition, ...)

Here in Quebec, the government has created "Civil unions" which is basicaly the same thing as marriage but without the name and is only legal here in this province of Canada. It's a step in the right direction but instead of secularizing gays even more with a different term for their union, why not allow them civil marriage?

Even our own prime minister in Canada delays the discussion because he doesn't want to force religious groups to allow religious marriage between gays. He doesn't understand that no one ever asked that... or maybe he does and only wants to confuse the population... ahh politicians

Kal

[Baud]

In Belgium and France (the two legal systems I know besides the US), religious marriage has no legal value at all. Marriage is a contract that can only be drafted by City Hall officials. Religious marriage can be performed in parallel (before or after), and has only the binding quality one wants his or her faith to give it.

Belgium has created civil unions for gay people, only one small step away from marriage as far as benefits are concerned. The Netherlands allows full gay marriage (but the Netherlands is probably one of the most tolerant/innovative country in the world).

On the other hand, in the US, and subject to any State law limitation, any person legally recognized as a priest (like me) may marry others and make the marriage legal by filing the certificate with the secretary of state. Of course, if the State's definition of marriage excludes gay marriage, you can be as much of a priest as you want, you will not be able to marry gay people.

In my opinion, marriage is a contract, but one that has strong religious implications if both parties want it so. Under the pure contract theory, I fail to see how one can limit marriage to a man and a woman. From a religious point of view, I also fail to see how the state can limit marriage to a man and a woman without thereby endorsing some religions' vision of marriage above the view of some other religions.

It is true that it is all just a question of name, but why should there be different levels of "committed people willing to live with each other for the rest of their lives".

Baud

[okieinexile]

It is true that it is all just a question of name, but why should there be different levels of "committed people willing to live with each other for the rest of their lives".

Some of those can make babies when they have sex.

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

Some of those can make babies when they have sex.

Ok, Okie ol'boy... so you're saying that because I'm not fertile, I shouldn't be able to get married? Or that my wife (who's also not fertile) shouldn't be able to get married? What about couples (about 10%, if I remember the statistics right - don't have the link handy) who are fertile separately, but not fertile together? Mandatory testing of each couple before issuing a marriage license? Should the marriage license expire at menopause?

The problem in all of this is that the legal and social aspects of marriage are mixed up (hence religious overtones everywhere, where the legal aspect is a partnership in the formal legal sense of the word - joint property ownership and liabilities), and hence the furor over what should be a simple problem. If you're worried about the religio-moral aspect, then you either have to legislate the entire spectrum, or recognize that since this does no harm to others, and in fact is supported by some religions (and groups within almost all religious organizations), there is no religion-neutral argument against it.

[Gently Gazing Eyes]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

Exactly Susma,

Gays don't ask for a religious (christian in this case) recognition of their union. They just want the same rights than other married couples (inheritance, legal status for both parents when they adopt a kid, general recognition, ...)

Here in Quebec, the government has created "Civil unions" which is basicaly the same thing as marriage but without the name and is only legal here in this province of Canada. It's a step in the right direction but instead of secularizing gays even more with a different term for their union, why not allow them civil marriage?

Even our own prime minister in Canada delays the discussion because he doesn't want to force religious groups to allow religious marriage between gays. He doesn't understand that no one ever asked that... or maybe he does and only wants to confuse the population... ahh politicians

Kal

Do you mind if I ask how that works out with only one Province in the nation honoring same-sex unions? Here in the United States of Confusion, we have laws that require all the states to honor marriage licences and other legal documentation formed in other states. Which means, basically, if two people get married in New York, their marriage licence is valid in Florida and must be so honored. Are there no such laws in Canada that would force other provinces to honor the relationship of the two persons joined in a same-sex union while they are in another province, or do all provinces honor it while only one province has accepted the responsibility of actually signing and making the documents?

[Gently Gazing Eyes]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

Ok, Okie ol'boy... so you're saying that because I'm not fertile, I shouldn't be able to get married? Or that my wife (who's also not fertile) shouldn't be able to get married? What about couples (about 10%, if I remember the statistics right - don't have the link handy) who are fertile separately, but not fertile together? Mandatory testing of each couple before issuing a marriage license? Should the marriage license expire at menopause?

The problem in all of this is that the legal and social aspects of marriage are mixed up (hence religious overtones everywhere, where the legal aspect is a partnership in the formal legal sense of the word - joint property ownership and liabilities), and hence the furor over what should be a simple problem. If you're worried about the religio-moral aspect, then you either have to legislate the entire spectrum, or recognize that since this does no harm to others, and in fact is supported by some religions (and groups within almost all religious organizations), there is no religion-neutral argument against it.

Very well said!

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

Ok, Okie ol'boy... so you're saying that because I'm not fertile, I shouldn't be able to get married? Or that my wife (who's also not fertile) shouldn't be able to get married? What about couples (about 10%, if I remember the statistics right - don't have the link handy) who are fertile separately, but not fertile together? Mandatory testing of each couple before issuing a marriage license? Should the marriage license expire at menopause?

The problem in all of this is that the legal and social aspects of marriage are mixed up (hence religious overtones everywhere, where the legal aspect is a partnership in the formal legal sense of the word - joint property ownership and liabilities), and hence the furor over what should be a simple problem. If you're worried about the religio-moral aspect, then you either have to legislate the entire spectrum, or recognize that since this does no harm to others, and in fact is supported by some religions (and groups within almost all religious organizations), there is no religion-neutral argument against it.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is for procreation; but if procreation is not possible, at least as a remedy to concupiscence.

Of course I don't accept that doctrine.

If you ask me, let there be marriage, the full program, for the same sex and for whatever parties not willing or not capable of biological reproduction; it does not take away anything from people who want to marry the old way and for the old reasons.

Susma Rio Sep