- 8 years ago
- Wedding: February 2012
You give, present, bestow, endow.
You give, present, bestow, endow.
This has made me wonder what marriage really is etc etc. It has also made me consider two other things:
– The opposite sex couples who campaigned to have civil partnerships rather than marriages (yes, really).
– Whether it was really worth the name change because of all the legal problems it could potentially cause.
That’s just my two cents. Very interesting thread though. The argument which I find most interesting is the distinction between marriage and holy matrimony. But then a new question arises… what is holy matrimony?
As an aside, I should also say that I know ministers who would gladly give a religious blessing to a same sex civil partnership, but who would be less keen to bless a same sex marriage. Equally, there are some who wouldn’t mind and some who wouldn’t do either…
BUT… you can also do that without being married, right? So what is marriage?
This is, believe it or not, actually an argument used by the heterosexual couples who campaigned to get civil partnerships opened up to them in the UK. It makes sense, because technically then religious weddings do not have any legal standing here at all. The only reason they are recognised is because a legal clerk is present during the service and they fill out the paperwork for you to sign immediately afterwards. But it’s the presence of the registrar at the service and the signing which makes it legal… NOT the ceremony itself. I know people who would think this is a great idea, for both religious and non-religious reasons.
You are of course entitled to your religious beliefs. That is what makes this country great. The problem is that YOUR religious beliefs and freedoms should not be allowed to trump my civil rights as a gay American woman. So, if I have a gay marriage you think my beliefs of equality are being forced on you? Yet, you feel entitled to force your beliefs on me? Do you see the contridiction here? Your God and your definition of religion is not the only one in this country, so why do your beliefs get to decide my civil rights? If you want a religious marriage, please go get married within your church. But the LEGAL rights bestowed by marriage are totally seperate. And a civil union is not enough, because seperate but equal can NEVER, EVER, be Equal.
You can get married in a church and have a religious marriage but never need a state license for a “legal” marriage so why apply for a state license if all you need is to be married in the eyes of God?
“never need a state license for a “legal” marriage” I’m confused… so in the US you need a license for a religious marriage, but not a legal one?
Because in the UK then a religious ceremony is not legally binding at all without a license, which you require for any ceremony which you want to have any sort of legal status, religious or non-religious.
Interestingly, despite this, it is more difficult to get a legal license if you want the marriage to take part as part of a religious ceremony… there are additional requirements. Because of this, I know people who had to have a legal signing in the morning, and then their religious ceremony in the afternoon, because they couldn’t get a legal license for a religious ceremony!
No, no it is not the end of the story. That entire statement right there is solely your opinion, which you are entitled to. However you need to realize that when you make such sweeping and generalized statements, like “…ultimately individuals have accept that Marriage is not a man made thing..” that you are including everyone into that word you used: “individuals”. You’re going to have to come up with a much more compelling argument than that one to get anyone on your side or to understand what you’re talking about.
The other posters on here saying the want the same rights as heterosexual couples have come up with excellent arguments and topic points to consider. You have given us your personal opinion. I’m sorry if this is coming across as harsh, however perhaps you’ll be better prepared to take on this topic again in the future.
legal rights can bestowed to a civil union. What is wrong with that? I do not feel that church’s or other religious organizations or believers should be penalized for their beliefs. I feel it is an assault on our God and our beliefs. Our children are being taught the opposite of what they are being taught at home. It is not fair and not right.”
American law is complicated by the fact that certain issues are left to the states and each and every state is allowed to pass its own laws in regard to that issue. So technically marriage is defined 50 different ways and your rights as a married person are different depending on which state you reside in.
The problem with civil unions is this:
If a man and woman marry in Florida, then all 49 other states are required by federal law to recognize their marriage as legal and grant them the same rights and benefits of a couple legally married in any state they move to or visit.
If two women marry in California (where it is currently legal), whether their marriage is valid in each of the other 49 states depends on each state’s law regarding marriage (this is allowed by the still legal 3rd provision of DOMA.) So if the women move to Florida where marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and expressly forbids marriages between persons of the same sex, the marriage which was valid in California ceases to exist when the women move to or visit Florida. This means if the women move to Florida to take new jobs and then one of them gets and dies, Florida law will treat them as strangers unless they have other legal documents such as a Health Care Surrogacy or Power of Attorney or Will showing otherwise, However, it gets worse because if the dead woman’s family disagrees with the still living partner, they can stomp all over most of the legal documentation in court in Florida.
Here’s an example of what can happen: http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2013/04/why-a-statewide-domestic-partnership-registry-matters-to-me/
As for licensing laws, in order for a marriage to be considered legal by the state, you must apply for a marriage license and send it back to be filed with the court. Technically, you can still be married in your church by your cleric without a state marriage license but most clerics require a license because without the state marriage license, you will not receive any state or federal benefits based on your marriage. Europe is very different in my understanding in that the legal process of marriage is completely separate from the religious process of marriage. Here they are very intertwined even though there is supposed to be a separation between church and state.
PM me if you have more questions because it’s a very complicated topic due to the fact that marriage in each state is so different.
One argument in it’s favour was that other countries recognise marriage, but not civil partnership. I thought this was tenuous, because countries which do not have same sex marriage are not bound to accept the same sex marriages of other nations. But in the US I think there is no other option than marriage, because of how your legal system works.
Anyway, I thought that this raised fascinating questions about what marriage is… the perspective is far more fascinating from a UK perspective than from a US one, I think, because of all the factors I have already mentioned (equal legal rights for civil partners and married partners, heterosexual civil partners, the status – or, in fact, non-status – of religious marriage, etc etc). Makes it more of a philosophical topic to debate.
“Europe is very different in my understanding in that the legal process of marriage is completely separate from the religious process of marriage. Here they are very intertwined even though there is supposed to be a separation between church and state” Yes… the irony! Of course, most European countries have no separation of church and state at all, in theory… but in practise then we are very secular societies. Not only that, but many European countries do not have freedom of religion AT ALL. Not even for the state religion, in some cases (confusing, I know)! We do have the European Human Rights Act, which covers religion (sort of), but it’s not the same thing.
The simple response (which really should need no more) is: LOVE KNOWS NO GENDER. PERIOD.
However, this is how i explained it to someone on a more legal and civil rights note and why you can’t look at the bible or any of those other crazy excuses you hear.
“Religion and state are designed to be separate entities in our the United State’s government. The idea of “marriage” that is being discussed is how the government would recognize the union, not how God or any religious entity would. A marriage, under God (or whichever higher power you believe in), is beautiful and there is nothing wrong with that. That is why people who are religious have the choice to be married in a building and with an officiant that is recognized by their religion. But because this is a government issue, and only a government issue, it is therefore a human rights issue. It is about how people are treated, under our laws as a society. According to our constitution, everyone in America should be treated equal. They should be allowed to have the same personal rights. Period. To call one thing “Marriage” and one this “civil unions” is the same thing as saying “if you’re white sit in the front of the bus, and if you’re black sit in the back.” Yes, you still get a ride on the bus, but how does that make each individual feel? And what does that do to a society?
Marriage is a right, and thus, it deserves the equality promised by our constitution. Seperate but equal is never equal.
Personally, I’d love to see the day when all religious also embrace love, regardless of it’s form. But for the moment, religious laws or ideas play no part in this debate. It is about the laws of our society and ensuring equal human rights for all within this beautiful United States of America.”
You still need ‘consent’ to marry. An animal can not give consent – I always laugh at people who say this.
The government definition is man-made because our government doesn’t recognize religion in its decision (or shouldn’t because our constitution says they are not the same).
I am one that believes that romantic and intimate love is originally made for a man and the opposite (man and woman). Then again, I believe that this is how my God ordained it. But, that is my opinion. I don’t understand how people can be mad that I don’t believe what they believe. I am not mad that you believe this. I think that nature makes certain rules.*shrugs shoulders* But, I can never have this type of argument without someone getting all bent out of shape so I will exit.
The topic ‘Definition of Marriage – how do you respond?’ is closed to new replies.