Political Crossfire Forums

[Ek0nomik]

The popular argument here on Political Crossfire, or rather the argument I hear from some Democrats and Libertarians mostly, is that marriage is a religious institution and the state should have never recognized it. I myself had used that argument in real life when having a quick discussion with friends. I wanted to know more about the topic though, so I could really argue that viewpoint to the best of my ability. Upon researching it more, I have yet to find anything that shows marriage as strictly a religious institution.

I can have a lawyer /marry/ me. It doesn't have to be someone who is teaching and expressing their faith.

Someone who disagrees with the institution of marriage should help me figure this out. Also, someone who does support marriage should chip in as well. If you can, please provide links to some brief readings if you can.

I have to study Statistics before I head off to class, but I'll refresh the page once in awhile. :-D

[perdidochas]

Ek0nomik wrote: The popular argument here on Political Crossfire, or rather the argument I hear from some Democrats and Libertarians mostly, is that marriage is a religious institution and the state should have never recognized it. I myself had used that argument in real life when having a quick discussion with friends. I wanted to know more about the topic though, so I could really argue that viewpoint to the best of my ability. Upon researching it more, I have yet to find anything that shows marriage as strictly a religious institution.

I can have a lawyer /marry/ me. It doesn't have to be someone who is teaching and expressing their faith.

Someone who disagrees with the institution of marriage should help me figure this out. Also, someone who does support marriage should chip in as well. If you can, please provide links to some brief readings if you can.

I have to study Statistics before I head off to class, but I'll refresh the page once in awhile. :-D

I think it's probably too fuzzy of an issue to truly get an answer to, especially, since a lot of the origins of marriage get even more fuzzy due to the lack of a difference between church and state.

[Ek0nomik]

perdidochas wrote: I think it's probably too fuzzy of an issue to truly get an answer to, especially, since a lot of the origins of marriage get even more fuzzy due to the lack of a difference between church and state.

Than does that imply that it is a religious institution, or it can't merely be seperated because the difference is so minute?

[perdidochas]

Ek0nomik wrote: perdidochas wrote: I think it's probably too fuzzy of an issue to truly get an answer to, especially, since a lot of the origins of marriage get even more fuzzy due to the lack of a difference between church and state.

Than does that imply that it is a religious institution, or it can't merely be seperated because the difference is so minute?

I think it's both, and it has been both for most of it's existence. The problem is that since until fairly recently, church and state have been pretty much intermingled, it's hard to decide whether marriage is primarily religous or legal.

[inmylineofsight]

A union between 2 people doesnt implicate religous backgrounds. Unions in the past have been set in religous context because of tradition and the time period way different.

[Ek0nomik]

I don't mean to change the topic of argument, but if marriage is strictly a legal union than the homosexual rights argument would be non existant. Clearly there are many people who feel as though it is a religous institution.

[toddytodd]

Ek0nomik wrote: The popular argument here on Political Crossfire, or rather the argument I hear from some Democrats and Libertarians mostly, is that marriage is a religious institution and the state should have never recognized it. I myself had used that argument in real life when having a quick discussion with friends. I wanted to know more about the topic though, so I could really argue that viewpoint to the best of my ability. Upon researching it more, I have yet to find anything that shows marriage as strictly a religious institution.

I can have a lawyer /marry/ me. It doesn't have to be someone who is teaching and expressing their faith.

Someone who disagrees with the institution of marriage should help me figure this out. Also, someone who does support marriage should chip in as well. If you can, please provide links to some brief readings if you can.

I have to study Statistics before I head off to class, but I'll refresh the page once in awhile. :-D

To me, marriage seem to be two fold:1) the legal aspect, 2) the religious aspect. Marriage, in the USA, can be legally preformed (and thus recognized) by someone not of formal religious backing (Las Vegas' marriages, justice of the peace, etc). It would then be up to the 'church' to recognize said marriage as acceptable within their belief or not. This should have absolutely no effect on marriage's legal benefits. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case.

[TNBiologist]

toddytodd wrote:
To me, marriage seem to be two fold:1) the legal aspect, 2) the religious aspect. Marriage, in the USA, can be legally preformed (and thus recognized) by someone not of formal religious backing (Las Vegas' marriages, justice of the peace, etc). It would then be up to the 'church' to recognize said marriage as acceptable within their belief or not. This should have absolutely no effect on marriage's legal benefits. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case.

Exactly. I am a christian and would truely like to see the religious "marriage" and the civil union seperated. I see no problem with a gay couple having a civil union and recieving full rights as a longterm couple in the eyes of the government/employers. I do not want it called marriage unless it was performed by a religious official, and there are some churches that will marry gay couples but that should be left up to each individual church to decide their policy.

[Ek0nomik]

According to you two, marriage is a religious institution than?

[toddytodd]

Ek0nomik wrote: According to you two, marriage is a religious institution than?

I think it seems to have a religious background, to some degree. To me, (at least in the US - not sure about other countries for sure) it is as though the gov't accepted and legalized a religious institution.

[Fiduciary]

Ek0nomik wrote: The popular argument here on Political Crossfire, or rather the argument I hear from some Democrats and Libertarians mostly, is that marriage is a religious institution and the state should have never recognized it. I myself had used that argument in real life when having a quick discussion with friends. I wanted to know more about the topic though, so I could really argue that viewpoint to the best of my ability. Upon researching it more, I have yet to find anything that shows marriage as strictly a religious institution.

I can have a lawyer /marry/ me. It doesn't have to be someone who is teaching and expressing their faith.

Someone who disagrees with the institution of marriage should help me figure this out. Also, someone who does support marriage should chip in as well. If you can, please provide links to some brief readings if you can.

I have to study Statistics before I head off to class, but I'll refresh the page once in awhile. :-D

It a religious institution that the state has decided to formalize for the benefit of the state and its citizens. Our state has done this based in large part from its judeo-christian heritage. It's pragmatic as well, on the belief that a mother and father unit is the healthiest way to produce and raise children to be productive citizens.

OBVIOUSLY the reality is that marriage is TOUGH and many fail and/or produce negative effects...

[TNBiologist]

Ek0nomik wrote: According to you two, marriage is a religious institution than?

Yes, I view "marriage" as a religious institution. When most people get married it is a religious official performing the marriage and there is usually some religious scripture read during it. I am all for this personally. It was how my wife and were married. But I see where non-religious people or people that some religions may not aprove of (homosexuals) would still want the government and social benifits that come with a marriage and think the state should allow a non-religious leader (Justice of Peace, Judge, Sea Captian) to conduct a civil union that the state and society (employers, banks, hospitals, lawyers) recognize.

I have had this discussion with many of my friends, most are religious or were raised in the church and everyone has agreed that the "marriage" is a religious institution that needs to stay that way but see no problem with a civil union for homosexuals or anyone else who wants one. The problem some have is when the state says that two people (homsexuals) are "married" but teh service was not performed or sanctioned by any church or religious leader. They want the term marriage to be strickly used to discribe a union conducted by and sanctioned by the church. I agree with that myself. Many churches however will perform and recognize a marriage between homsexuals and I think that is fine to called a marriage as a church has performed and sanctioned the marriage.

[eynon]

TNBiologist wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: According to you two, marriage is a religious institution than?

Yes, I view "marriage" as a religious institution. When most people get married it is a religious official performing the marriage and there is usually some religious scripture read during it. I am all for this personally. It was how my wife and were married. But I see where non-religious people or people that some religions may not aprove of (homosexuals) would still want the government and social benifits that come with a marriage and think the state should allow a non-religious leader (Justice of Peace, Judge, Sea Captian) to conduct a civil union that the state and society (employers, banks, hospitals, lawyers) recognize.

I have had this discussion with many of my friends, most are religious or were raised in the church and everyone has agreed that the "marriage" is a religious institution that needs to stay that way but see no problem with a civil union for homosexuals or anyone else who wants one. The problem some have is when the state says that two people (homsexuals) are "married" but teh service was not performed or sanctioned by any church or religious leader. They want the term marriage to be strickly used to discribe a union conducted by and sanctioned by the church. I agree with that myself. Many churches however will perform and recognize a marriage between homsexuals and I think that is fine to called a marriage as a church has performed and sanctioned the marriage.

I understand where you're coming from, but believe that having the government define one state as "marrige" and the other as "civil union" based purley off the sanctioning of the church if pretty unconstitutional.....(that wall between church and state).

Personally I think that the government should reconginze all marriages as mearly "civil-unions", and that said unions should be open to all consenting adults. As to religious marrige, well I believe it very much exists, but it's between you and G-d.

Let me put it this way, I feel that the ideal system would involve my partner and I going down to the local court-house and getting a legal "civil-union"....then having the real marriage ceremony at a church with a minister.

then it'd be both legal and religious.......... :)

[gemma]

My husband and I were not married in a church; but we called it a wedding, we call what we have a marriage--we don't call what we have a "civil union" although technically I suppose it is.

The law (IMHO) should not stick its nose into defining what is a religious marriage and what is not; that's for the place of worship to recognize.

The law should decide on a legal term to be consistent. "Civil union" would be fine with me, though I'd probably still call it a marriage. :wink:

[Ek0nomik]

gemma wrote: My husband and I were not married in a church; but we called it a wedding, we call what we have a marriage--we don't call what we have a "civil union" although technically I suppose it is.

The law (IMHO) should not stick its nose into defining what is a religious marriage and what is not; that's for the place of worship to recognize.

The law should decide on a legal term to be consistent. "Civil union" would be fine with me, though I'd probably still call it a marriage. :wink:

It seems as though you're only calling it a marriage because that's what your accustomed to.

wannabe wrote: Let me put it this way, I feel that the ideal system would involve my partner and I going down to the local court-house and getting a legal "civil-union"....then having the real marriage ceremony at a church with a minister.

then it'd be both legal and religious.......... :)

That's a very good idea imo.

[F'losrix]

Ek0nomik wrote: marriage is a religious institution and the state should have never recognized it.
Limiting this for the moment to examining the issue with regard to marriage in the U.S.A.:

The premise you stated ignores one important fact - we inherit the government's initial involvement in marriage from a time before our current union of states was formed; a time when church and state were not considered separate.

As others have already indicated, the intertwining of church and state is rooted in antiquity, giving us a sort of 'chicken or egg' puzzle.

The answer it seems, is that marriage is both - a religious institution and a civil institution, now largely but not completely separate, since churches still have the power to act with civil authority when uniting a couple in marriage. But, as others have also noted, their power is not absolute on the matter - a couple need not be married in a religious rite at all.

I would argue, that while a church may deny marriage rites, it has no power to deny recognition by the government of marriages performed outside its domain, nor to insist upon the recognition of marriages performed within its domain if they don't fit the requirements set forth for civil marriage.

The problem then (as I see it), is one of churches and their governing bodies trying to usurp this power from the government by arguing against civil recognition for certain groups on religious grounds when they really ought to have no standing. The government has not interfered with the power of churches to exercise self-determination in deciding who is or isn't worthy of marriage rites within the context of that church's doctrines, nor is an expansion (or contraction) of the definition of civil marriage likely to change the relationship between church and state with regard to marriage.

As I've argued in other threads, if the church won't mind its own business and leave the regulation of civil marriage to the government, then it is time to remove them further from the process - I advocate revoking the power of religious entities to act with civil authority in order to further separate religious marriage from civil marriage.

Now, all that said, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the government should perhaps abandon the recognition of 'marriage', since it is viewed by so many as a religious institution. Short of an amendment prohibiting the practice, the government could still provide civil acknowledgement to any relationship under another name, however - including marriages

The greater question becomes - do we feel the government has a legitimate interest in regulating human relationships at all, and if so, to what extent? Most people will agree that children, who are generally given to impulsive acts and may be incapable of fully comprehending the ramifications of those actions should be protected from coercive and/or corrupting relationships. But you will find considerable disagreement regarding the arbitrary nature of age limits. Absent a means of testing for a mature understanding of the consequences of their actions, age limits appear to be the best we can do. Beyond that specific issue, you'll find considerably less agreement with regard to things liike incest, plural marriage and polygamy.

The actual source of disagreement surrounds what the government's interest in recognizing and regulating relationships really is. Until that conflict is resolved, it becomes somewhat pointless to discuss other parameters.

[islandhopper]

TNBiologist wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: According to you two, marriage is a religious institution than?

Yes, I view "marriage" as a religious institution. When most people get married it is a religious official performing the marriage and there is usually some religious scripture read during it. I am all for this personally. It was how my wife and were married. But I see where non-religious people or people that some religions may not aprove of (homosexuals) would still want the government and social benifits that come with a marriage and think the state should allow a non-religious leader (Justice of Peace, Judge, Sea Captian) to conduct a civil union that the state and society (employers, banks, hospitals, lawyers) recognize.

I have had this discussion with many of my friends, most are religious or were raised in the church and everyone has agreed that the "marriage" is a religious institution that needs to stay that way but see no problem with a civil union for homosexuals or anyone else who wants one. The problem some have is when the state says that two people (homsexuals) are "married" but teh service was not performed or sanctioned by any church or religious leader. They want the term marriage to be strickly used to discribe a union conducted by and sanctioned by the church. I agree with that myself. Many churches however will perform and recognize a marriage between homsexuals and I think that is fine to called a marriage as a church has performed and sanctioned the marriage.

OK, TNbio, I'll go along with this. As long as every straight couple who is civilly unionized by someone other than a religious person calls their union a "civil union" and not a "marriage". I doubt you'll find that. Therefore, as a gay woman who someday hopes to be legally unionized with my partner, I will refer to that union as a marriage; nothing less, nothing more. And she will be my wife, and I will be hers (wife 1 and wife 2, the Dr. Seuss version).

[toddytodd]

islandhopper wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: According to you two, marriage is a religious institution than?

Yes, I view "marriage" as a religious institution. When most people get married it is a religious official performing the marriage and there is usually some religious scripture read during it. I am all for this personally. It was how my wife and were married. But I see where non-religious people or people that some religions may not aprove of (homosexuals) would still want the government and social benifits that come with a marriage and think the state should allow a non-religious leader (Justice of Peace, Judge, Sea Captian) to conduct a civil union that the state and society (employers, banks, hospitals, lawyers) recognize.

I have had this discussion with many of my friends, most are religious or were raised in the church and everyone has agreed that the "marriage" is a religious institution that needs to stay that way but see no problem with a civil union for homosexuals or anyone else who wants one. The problem some have is when the state says that two people (homsexuals) are "married" but teh service was not performed or sanctioned by any church or religious leader. They want the term marriage to be strickly used to discribe a union conducted by and sanctioned by the church. I agree with that myself. Many churches however will perform and recognize a marriage between homsexuals and I think that is fine to called a marriage as a church has performed and sanctioned the marriage.

OK, TNbio, I'll go along with this. As long as every straight couple who is civilly unionized by someone other than a religious person calls their union a "civil union" and not a "marriage". I doubt you'll find that. Therefore, as a gay woman who someday hopes to be legally unionized with my partner, I will refer to that union as a marriage; nothing less, nothing more. And she will be my wife, and I will be hers (wife 1 and wife 2, the Dr. Seuss version).

It is amazing how society has gotten hung up on the word and not the actual meaning.

[MKSWEO]

I think its a religious concept.

Gen 2:18
And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

but to me priest doest seal my marriage...the love between two people does.

awwww totally girly on you guys!

[Superfly]

I have heard the term "marriage" meaning more than the union of two people. "Marrying" the ketchup in a greasy spoon diner, for instance.

Point being - I don't think that the term "marriage" specifically denotes a religious context, even though it's mentioned in the Bible.

Personally, the way I see it as people have priests or ministers marry them as a sign of their religious upbringing, but maybe also because they feel it will bring them luck in their marriage, because it's been blessed by a man of the cloth.