yustr

The California Supreme Court recently declared that a state ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. This got me thinking – always dangerous. This thread is not about whether homosexuals should or should not be allowed to marry. What is is about is: Why are marriages that are performed by a church recognized by the state?

I'm talking about the civil contract that is marriage. Churches can do whatever they choose within their given sphere – which should not be part of civil life in America. Can't go to heaven – so be it. Living in sin – so be that too. Child a ******* – well think whatever crap you want. Why does what the church – any church – say have anything to do with my wife getting my retirement when I die? (Or any of the other multitude of things that are “given” when two are married as opposed to when they are not.) Said another way: when Mrs. Yustr and I got married, the judge who married us (my Uncle btw) said: “...by the power invested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you man and wife.” Why does the State “invest power” in religions? Why not The Dog Catcher? Or Paresh from the neighborhood 7-11? (After all his mother named him that because he had 'supreme spirit'.) In my view not any sillier than Pastor John.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

Chode

Could it be that in order to perform a legal marriage, Churches must act in accordance with civil law? You know, that whole marriage license, blood test stuff. Could that explain why purely civil ceremonies performed in accordance with state law are legally recognized while the religious ceremonies that are performed outside of state law aren't?

Or, could it be just that you have to cough up some bucks to the state for a license to fuel the insatiable bureaucracy 'cause it's cheaper than court costs and attorney fees?

__________________
Sweet!

Drew1369

The reason churches are granted authority to marry others is because its religious, its the same as a judge that is granting the civil union.

The states grant authority to ALL religions to marry based on their own faith...

What the curches do is a ceremony(sp?) nothing more... thats why when the two go to sign the contract with the witnesses, thats when they are married not when the guy pronounces it.

At least thats how it is based on my understanding and signing that document on a couple of occasions.

Now could a faith arise that agrees with homosexuality and be granted state authority to marry? Might be an interesting loophole.

Get a 501c and create it yourself...

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

bry623

OK, so I kinda see the point here. I do not think state governors, legislatures or justice so should say one way or another whether gay marriage is legal or illegal. Leave it up to the people. The real issue to me is that the CA SC overturned a voter passed referendum and that to me sounds alot like legislating from the bench. The citizens of CA intend to pass a similar law as a constitutional amendment.

That is what we did in Ohio, and now the only way it would get overturned is if their were a US Constitutional amendment. I do not see that happening. Why? We have had 35 years of Roe v. Wade and I believe it takes an amendment to enforce that decision one way or the other (ABORTION IS NOT THE TOPIC).

At any rate I would like to see the people over rule the courts in this one and if they don't then I'd like to see pictures of Ellen's "wedding" on her show.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."
-Ronald Reagan

EnglishPaul

I like the metal picture of 2 lesbians being married by the local dogcatcher!
Thanks Yustr.

Chode

Drew, a purely religious ceremony is not a legal marriage. In order for the marriage to be legally recognized by the state in which it is performed, it has to conform to the same legal requirements as a civil ceremony; if all the paperwork to satisfy the state hasn't been done, there's no marriage in the eyes of the state, no matter what the Church of Your Choice says. In other words, church officials are generally granted the same authority to perform a wedding that a Justice of the Peace would have. No more, no less.

__________________
Sweet!

mommabear

I don't know all the history about it, but most marriages were performed by a minister, priest, spiritual advisor, or just the two people themselves with their vows to each other, up until fairly recent history. Most of that was because of religious reasons, especially in the western world.

It sanctioned the cohabitation and any resulting offspring, thus eliminating the "sin" of having sex without some kind of blessing on the union, and illegitimate children. God knows why, but that "sin" was laid on the poor child's head...through no fault of his own. Proof of that marriage was a notation in the family bible.

The original intent of needing a Marriage License by the State wasn't begun just to get money into the State coffers, although I'm sure the politicians realized that's a nice side-benefit. The idea probably took fruit as women and children were no longer thought of as chattel, which could be kept or discarded at will.

Many years ago, upon the death of the husband, it was a tradition for the husband's family to take any assets they accrued as a couple, including the children. The widow often ended up homeless, penniless and alone. Many had no place to go except to institutions called poor houses and homes for the indigent.

Having a state marriage license protects the rights of surviving spouses to inherit what used to be fought over by other relatives.

That's simplistic, but that's basically it.

Edit: Licensing the ministers eliminates the need for two "weddings"...the church one and the legal one.

Drew1369

Ahhh but now you are interfering and using the government to regulate religion which would be unconstitutional... (I know not you but it could be an interesting argument)

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

EnglishPaul

It seems to me that there are just criteria to be met if a church marriage is to be also seen as a legal one. That is not regulation as such; churches opt in.
And perhaps that is a good framework for gay marriage, allowing homo's to marry (not my choice of words) but allowing churches to not opt in.

What is more interesting is when a 'church' opts out, and practices outside the boundaries of the law. (Communes with child marriages, or polygamy).
I would much rather see two men marry than a 14year old bride.

yustr

My point exactly - except from the other side.

Doesn't that mean that granting unusual authority, such as performing marriages, is recognizing religion and is therefore unconstitutional?

Another example: why is what is said between a man and his priest considered indiscoverable on the same level as between a man and his lawyer?

How about tax exempt status? The Constitution clearly prohibits taxing churches excessively - - but why not treat them as any other business?

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

Drew1369

good point

Thats because they are treated like all other non-profit orgs out there.

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

sobeit

honeymoon in the dog pound???

__________________
Do not feed the trolls.

Chode

Granting ministers the right to perform marriages in accordance with civil law certainly isn't a violation of the Constitution. Lots of people want to be married by their religious beliefs as well as civil law. If ministers couldn't perform weddings in accordance with civil law, many couples would just require two ceremonies to be legally and spiritually married.

However, it would be unconstitutional to require that legal marriages could only be performed by the Most Holy Church of Cthulhu, or that the Federal Government could dictate standards to the states. That's why marriages performed in Maine are legally recognized in Texas, even though the two states might have different legal standards for marriage within the state. Same thing applies to divorces.

__________________
Sweet!

EnglishPaul

Its better than a honeymoon pounding the dog.

... or is it? Could it be more than coincidence that some lesbians are often referred to as Butch?

bry623

In one sentence, why should gays be allowed to marry?

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."
-Ronald Reagan

yustr

Because marriage is a contract between two people recognized by the State; a State that is not, can not and should not be controlled by the false and bigoted morality of organized religion.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

bry623

OK, so say you have a son and a daughter. Should they be allowed to marry? For arguments sake, let's say they get sterilized so you don't get freaky grandkids.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."
-Ronald Reagan