Seperation of church and state marriage

[donttread]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.

[PolWatch]

It makes sense to me. We now have a requirement for a license and the option to have a secular or religious ceremony. Why not just eliminate that requirement for those who don't want a ceremony? The state would still get the same $$$ so they should be happy. The only change would be to eliminate the necessity of requiring the ceremony.

[PolWatch]

I can't resist this! The ad at the top of the page is asking me if I want to be an ordained minister. This is a perfect example of how unimportant and irrelevant a requirement for a ceremony by another official is! Anyone who wants to perform a marriage ceremony can get a license on the internet!

[Redrose]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.


We basically have that now. A priest or minister cannot marry you without a legal civil marriage license.

The priest or minister has the same legal weight as a marriage license clerk in the court house or a Captain on a ship or a notary. My daughter was married last month on a ship. The marriage was officiated by a licensed rep for the ship. They still had to produce a legal marriage license.

Even a civil marriage in the court house needs a ceremony, exchanged oaths. I hope we never become a society that is too ridgid, too "tradition" opposed to exchange vows of love to each other. I want to remember hearing my husband pledge his love to me, not by reading it on the license application that he checked off box "c".

Getting a marriage license, and having that suffice for the "wedding" would be no better, no more special than obtaining a driver's license or fishing license. Marriage means a lot more than that to me.

[PolWatch]

Changing the law to eliminate the requirement would not mean that people could not choose to have a ceremony...only that its not a requirement. When I married my husband it was a very important to both of us...however, we did not want a fancy ceremony It was a second marriage and our commitment to each other was not dependent on anyone else but the 2 of us. We would have been perfectly happy with nothing more than going to the courthouse and registering our marriage legally.

[donttread]

I can't resist this! The ad at the top of the page is asking me if I want to be an ordained minister. This is a perfect example of how unimportant and irrelevant a requirement for a ceremony by another official is! Anyone who wants to perform a marriage ceremony can get a license on the internet!

My niece's husband was a little drunk one night and signed up for this. He preforms marriage ceremonies with no church affiliation. He's a fun personal guy and I do enjoy his ceremonies, but what's the point?

[donttread]

I think this would take some pressure off churches who don't want to prefer same sex marriages, or maybe only want to preform marriages for same sex couples. No state authority, no state interference

[Mister D]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.

Amazing how it worked so well without fuss or muss for most of our history.

[Bob]

It makes sense to me. We now have a requirement for a license and the option to have a secular or religious ceremony. Why not just eliminate that requirement for those who don't want a ceremony? The state would still get the same $$$ so they should be happy. The only change would be to eliminate the necessity of requiring the ceremony.

All marriage licenses are merely the way the Government announces to you ... Government took over your life.

[PolWatch]

I know a couple of gay couples who married. They did not marry because they wanted a church wedding, they actually were interested in the legal aspects of marriage. They had both been living together and considered themselves married for years before. I have to agree with Aly about the state getting out of the marriage business and removing the penalties for being single. Common law marriages are now recognized for some legal purposes, so what is the difference?

[Bob]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.


I had one marriage in my church. The Bishop legally could marry us. The license came from the state selling it to us and it was the Bishop that signed it. No notary needed.

Next marriage in Nevada was private. The state sold us the license, and a private person married us.

For our parents, the church wedding was a lot more involved. My parents were delighted. I really liked my in-laws and they always said they liked me as much.

[Bob]

I know a couple of gay couples who married. They did not marry because they wanted a church wedding, they actually were interested in the legal aspects of marriage. They had both been living together and considered themselves married for years before. I have to agree with Aly about the state getting out of the marriage business and removing the penalties for being single. Common law marriages are now recognized for some legal purposes, so what is the difference?

Gay .... ughhhhh

I always notice it is the women that approve it.

[Dr. Who]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.
A perfectly rational approach. That's actually the way it is in France, so it's not revolutionary. I don't know why the church and state are so intertwined on this issue.

[PolWatch]

I'm just guessing, but I suspect the church wedding came first and the state sanctions later. The requirement for both was probably to ensure there would be no religious objections to requiring a license. This nation began as a Puritan colony and church was the ruling authority.

[Bob]

I am going to blame Democrats for marriage being mixed up with the Feds portion. States vary so much I have no clue.

Why blame Democrats? When they decided to mix marriage and Federal law.

(note to self) now you palooka, you gotta prove it. LOL

1st installment .... i am looking for the first ever federal revenue benefit to married, can you help me?

This covers some interesting points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_civil_marriage_in_the_United_States

[Bob]

I'm just guessing, but I suspect the church wedding came first and the state sanctions later. The requirement for both was probably to ensure there would be no religious objections to requiring a license. This nation began as a Puritan colony and church was the ruling authority.

I studied ancient roman law and marriage. Don't recall it being about church though.

[domer76]

I am going to blame Democrats for marriage being mixed up with the Feds portion. States vary so much I have no clue.

Why blame Democrats? When they decided to mix marriage and Federal law.

(note to self) now you palooka, you gotta prove it. LOL

Probably because the states were effing it up so much.

[Mister D]

I'm just guessing, but I suspect the church wedding came first and the state sanctions later. The requirement for both was probably to ensure there would be no religious objections to requiring a license. This nation began as a Puritan colony and church was the ruling authority.

The first colonies were in VA, they were not Puritan, and it would be well over a century before anything resembling a nation developed. Are you suggesting that the state was not involved in marriage until the Puritans?

[PolWatch]

no...I was guessing the Church was the authority for marriage well before the state became involved....

[Dr. Who]

Realistically, there shouldn't even be any need for a ceremony at the licensing office. It really should be a simple printed declaration in which each party agrees to be legally united. Each party shows ID, signs, the document is witnessed and presto, they are legally united. They are then free to have any religious or other ceremony they desire, without the need to find someone who is licenced to perform marriage.

[Dangermouse]

Marriage is a binding contract which legally determines inheritance and division of stuff. It also sealed political alliances. Back in the day, it was only for the elite, since they were the only ones who had political power, or enough stuff to worry about who inherited it. As such, the state had a legal interest. The Church glommed on to the process to achieve political and financial power for itself. It's only in the last 300 years or so that the couple were even consulted before being betrothed. Arranged marriages were the norm, and marrying for love was a ridiculous reason.
Get married by a state license, and have the union blessed in the religion of your choice should you wish. That's effectively what happens now at a wedding with a licensed preacher. it's just a question of separating the two.

[Redrose]

I married several couples as a Deputy Clerk in the county. They were nice, brief civil ceremonies.

[domer76]

Amazing how it worked so well without fuss or muss for most of our history.

For who?

[Dr. Who]

no...I was guessing the Church was the authority for marriage well before the state became involved....
Until the mid 19th century there was no requirement for a marriage license, however marriages were registered. Thus both church unions and common law relationships were generally recognized to that point. In fact a license wasn't generally required until 1929.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a-brief-history-of-marriage-licenses-in-the-us/blog-393357/

[Mister D]

For who?

For Americans. And just about everybody else.

[Bob]

Realistically, there shouldn't even be any need for a ceremony at the licensing office. It really should be a simple printed declaration in which each party agrees to be legally united. Each party shows ID, signs, the document is witnessed and presto, they are legally united. They are then free to have any religious or other ceremony they desire, without the need to find someone who is licenced to perform marriage.

Can we tie marriage history to the tax law created in 1913?

I am running into problems.

[Mister D]

Marriage is a binding contract which legally determines inheritance and division of stuff. It also sealed political alliances. Back in the day, it was only for the elite, since they were the only ones who had political power, or enough stuff to worry about who inherited it. As such, the state had a legal interest. The Church glommed on to the process to achieve political and financial power for itself. It's only in the last 300 years or so that the couple were even consulted before being betrothed. Arranged marriages were the norm, and marrying for love was a ridiculous reason.
Get married by a state license, and have the union blessed in the religion of your choice should you wish. That's effectively what happens now at a wedding with a licensed preacher. it's just a question of separating the two.

I started laughing at the bold. I'm sure the rest is just as silly.

[Mister D]

Until the mid 19th century there was no requirement for a marriage license, however marriages were registered. Thus both church unions and common law relationships were generally recognized to that point. In fact a license wasn't generally required until 1929.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a-brief-history-of-marriage-licenses-in-the-us/blog-393357/

The state has recognized and actively encouraged marriage since...well since there have been states.

[Dr. Who]

The state has recognized and actively encouraged marriage since...well since there have been states.
True, but the license was a much later addition to the process.

[Mister D]

True, but the license was a much later addition to the process.

All well and good but I would just like to set Pol's mind at rest. The state, as such, has always been involved in marriage.

Sorry, I'm just getting tired of this "and then the church got involved" nonsense.

[domer76]

For Americans. And just about everybody else.

Probably kinda like other discriminatory practices worked so well without fuss or muss as long as you were not in the groups sitting at the back of the bus (figuratively speaking).

I recall Haley Barbour talking about growing up in the 60s in Mississippi. He indicated it wasn't bad at all. I'm sure it wasn't for him. No fuss, no muss. It worked so well.

[Mister D]

Probably kinda like other discriminatory practices worked so well without fuss or muss as long as you were not in the groups sitting at the back of the bus (figuratively speaking).

I recall Haley Barbour talking about growing up in the 60s in Mississippi. He indicated it wasn't bad at all. I'm sure it wasn't for him. No fuss, no muss. It worked so well.

Gays have married throughout the ages, grasshopper, and the analogy to Jim Crow is pretty offensive to the groups who actually suffered under it.

[Dr. Who]

Can we tie marriage history to the tax law created in 1913?

I am running into problems.
There may be some relationship, however licensing came about because of “Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act” in 1923. Certainly there are tax implications.

[PolWatch]

I thought the state was the late arrival in the marriage game. I misspoke about the Puritans because I was aware that the first settlements were not those in New England. In fact, Sir John White of Roanoke Island fame is my grandfather...9 generations ago...according to family genealogy records.

[Mister D]

I thought the state was the late arrival in the marriage game. I misspoke about the Puritans because I was aware that the first settlements were not those in New England. In fact, Sir John White of Roanoke Island fame is my grandfather...9 generations ago...according to family genealogy records.

Whoa seriously!? :shocked: :cool2: That's pretty neat.

[Redrose]

I thought the state was the late arrival in the marriage game. I misspoke about the Puritans because I was aware that the first settlements were not those in New England. In fact, Sir John White of Roanoke Island fame is my grandfather...9 generations ago...according to family genealogy records.


Wow, that's fascinating. The only "sir" we had in our family was my aunts cocker spaniel, Sir Walter Raleigh.

[domer76]

Gays have married throughout the ages, grasshopper, and the analogy to Jim Crow is pretty offensive to the groups who actually suffered under it.


I'm talking about discrimination in general. You said we got along with no fuss or muss and it worked so well for so long. My question was so poorly answered with the sad - it worked out for "just about everyone else", I had to help you out on some history of discriminatory practices. That being it did work so well if you were not in the group that was crapped on. The story about Haley Barbour is true and appropriate. His childhood was also no fuss, no muss and it worked well for him because he was white in that environment. I guess I could have used myself and said the marriage thing has been no fuss and no muss for me because I'm a heterosexual. Would that make you feel better?

I don't know where you live, but there haven't been gay marriages where I do. Not legally recognized ones, anyway. As a matter of fact, not even until this year, much less "the ages".

[Dr. Who]

All well and good but I would just like to set Pol's mind at rest. The state, as such, has always been involved in marriage.

Sorry, I'm just getting tired of this "and then the church got involved" nonsense.
To my knowledge the state's involvement was initially more a matter of census information i.e. recording marriages, births and deaths, although there was a time when churches routinely kept track of that information in small towns - in particular the Catholic Church.

Of course the state always encouraged marriage as it was good public policy and helped ensure that people faced religious and community recrimination for abandoning their marriages or wives and children, particularly when the latter had no property rights. However the state also recognized common law marriages, since in many of the rural parts of the nation there were no churches.

[domer76]

I thought the state was the late arrival in the marriage game. I misspoke about the Puritans because I was aware that the first settlements were not those in New England. In fact, Sir John White of Roanoke Island fame is my grandfather...9 generations ago...according to family genealogy records.

I think the best I can do is a distant relative getting hung for horse thievery. Or maybe coming out West to avoid getting shot in the Civil War.

[PolWatch]

My father always said we had a relative that was hung for horse stealing in Mississippi...but I couldn't find him. I did find a relative of my husband's who was shot by a jailer's wife during a jail break in Holley Springs, Alabama. I guess she was a better shot than her husband....go figure

[Mister D]

I'm talking about discrimination in general. You said we got along with no fuss or muss and it worked so well for so long. My question was so poorly answered with the sad - it worked out for "just about everyone else", I had to help you out on some history of discriminatory practices. That being it did work so well if you were not in the group that was crapped on. The story about Haley Barbour is true and appropriate. His childhood was also no fuss, no muss and it worked well for him because he was white in that environment. I guess I could have used myself and said the marriage thing has been no fuss and no muss for me because I'm a heterosexual. Would that make you feel better?

I don't know where you live, but there haven't been gay marriages where I do. Not legally recognized ones, anyway. As a matter of fact, not even until this year, much less "the ages".

I know you were "talking about discrimination in general". Gays and their partisans do that a lot. That's probably because they realize, even if unconsciously, how trivial this particular cause is in terms of "civil rights" or, even worse, "human rights". Wax on about Haley Barbour. Oh, and mention separate lunch counters too. That's always good.

Sigh...Gay males married women and vice versa. That's because marriage did not encompass homosexual unions. Buggery is not the state's concern.

[PolWatch]

Whoa seriously!? :shocked: :cool2: That's pretty neat.

I was excited to discover the relationship. I didn't really believe it until I did a lot of checking.

[Bob]

I know you were "talking about discrimination in general". Gays and their partisans do that a lot. That's probably because they realize, even if unconsciously, how trivial this particular cause is in terms of "civil rights" or, even worse, "human rights". Wax on about Haley Barbour. Oh, and mention separate lunch counters too. That's always good.

Sigh...Gay males married women and vice versa. That's because marriage did not encompass homosexual unions. Buggery is not the state's concern.

Buggery? Oh I have other much more colorful terms to describe the habits of homosexuals. LMAO

[Mister D]

To my knowledge the state's involvement was initially more a matter of census information i.e. recording marriages, births and deaths, although there was a time when churches routinely kept track of that information in small towns - in particular the Catholic Church.

Of course the state always encouraged marriage as it was good public policy and helped ensure that people faced religious and community recrimination for abandoning their marriages or wives and children, particularly when the latter had no property rights. However the state also recognized common law marriages, since in many of the rural parts of the nation there were no churches.

The state's interest was (and is) first and foremost an existential one. The state has an obvious interest in population growth/stability and family life.

[Mister D]

I was excited to discover the relationship. I didn't really believe it until I did a lot of checking.

Most of us are just commoners. :rollseyes:


:wink:

Seriously, that's really cool.

[PolWatch]

The state's interest was (and is) first and foremost an existential one. The state has an obvious interest in population growth/stability and family life.

Interesting that you brought up the state's interest in population growth in relation to the gay marriage issue. Maybe its time for me to don a tin foil conspiracy cap but I find myself wondering about that. I don't think the state is concerned about a lack of population growth...in fact, I think the concern is more toward excessive population growth. Is it possible that the state involvement in allowing gay marriage is a way of discouraging population growth? I won't get my feathers ruffled if you think I need a new roll of foil...I wonder that myself sometimes. (I probably shouldn't post after 2 glasses of mead)

[domer76]

I know you were "talking about discrimination in general". Gays and their partisans do that a lot. That's probably because they realize, even if unconsciously, how trivial this particular cause is in terms of "civil rights" or, even worse, "human rights". Wax on about Haley Barbour. Oh, and mention separate lunch counters too. That's always good.

Sigh...Gay males married women and vice versa. That's because marriage did not encompass homosexual unions. Buggery is not the state's concern.

Of course, sodomy is not the state's concern. But that's not the issue, even though you wish it to be. Equal protection under the law IS the state's concern.

Why does the anti-same sex marriage crowd always try to turn it into a theme about sexual practices rather than the law? What is the fixation on gay sex?

[domer76]

The state's interest was (and is) first and foremost an existential one. The state has an obvious interest in population growth/stability and family life.

Then the sate has no interest in recognizing marriages where the couple has no intention of having children. Or geriatric marriage. That argument fails every time.

[Mister D]

Of course, sodomy is not the state's concern. But that's not the issue, even though you wish it to be.

Um...OK lol


Equal protection under the law IS the state's concern.

Like I said, gays have always married and were always allowed to.


Why does the anti-same sex marriage crowd always try to turn it into a theme about sexual practices rather than the law? What is the fixation on gay sex?

I'm really not sure. Perhaps you should ask one of those people fixated on gay sex. (shudders)

[Mister D]

Then the sate has no interest in recognizing marriages where the couple has no intention of having children. Or geriatric marriage. That argument fails every time.

It's not an argument. It's an accurate observation regarding the historical reality of marriage customs, law, and the state. You really don't seem bright enough to anticipate someone's argument. Do stop trying.

[Bob]

Then the sate has no interest in recognizing marriages where the couple has no intention of having children. Or geriatric marriage. That argument fails every time.

When the homosexuals hit the forum, they always revert to this stuff..

I had one long debate with one homosexual on an AOL forum that admitted I had some awesome points. Of course he still defended men so called marrying a man.

[Mister D]

Interesting that you brought up the state's interest in population growth in relation to the gay marriage issue. Maybe its time for me to don a tin foil conspiracy cap but I find myself wondering about that. I don't think the state is concerned about a lack of population growth...in fact, I think the concern is more toward excessive population growth. Is it possible that the state involvement in allowing gay marriage is a way of discouraging population growth? I won't get my feathers ruffled if you think I need a new roll of foil...I wonder that myself sometimes. (I probably shouldn't post after 2 glasses of mead)

IMO, this is a consequence of liberal individualism, the ascendancy of the legal at the expense of the political, and, ironically, the influence of Christianity.

You might like this:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22886-How-Christianity-gave-us-gay-marriage?highlight=Christianity

[domer76]

When the homosexuals hit the forum, they always revert to this stuff..

I had one long debate with one homosexual on an AOL forum that admitted I had some awesome points. Of course he still defended men so called marrying a man.

Let's see. I've been traditionally married 38+ years now. So you can drop the "when the homosexuals hit the forum" bullshit.

The argument for procreation as a necessary component for marriage simply fails in every respect. Especially as an argument against SSM. I can assure you, procreation in this country is not in any danger, with or without same sex marriage. You merely need it to rationalize your stance on the issue. It's a poor and trite diversion from the issue. Just as the previous mention of sodomy.

[domer76]

Like I said, gays have always married and were always allowed to.



I'm really not sure. Perhaps you should ask one of those people fixated on gay sex. (shudders)

The first is a lie.

The second is a response to your introduction of buggery into the topic. Apparently, you don't know the definition.

[PolWatch]

IMO, this is a consequence of liberal individualism, the ascendancy of the legal at the expense of the political, and, ironically, the influence of Christianity.

You might like this:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22886-How-Christianity-gave-us-gay-marriage?highlight=Christianity

It is certainly an idea I've never thought of! I think I need to some reading in the Democracy in America.

You and I are probably complete opposites on this subject. I believe morals are personal and government has no place in trying to legislate them. I live a very conventional life but its my choice. I think everyone should have the same choice.

[domer76]

It's not an argument. It's an accurate observation regarding the historical reality of marriage customs, law, and the state. You really don't seem bright enough to anticipate someone's argument. Do stop trying.

If you can't or don't recognize the inherent flaw in your own argument, I can't help you. But it's the same one I've seen time and again from the SSM bigots. I hope you aren't coming out of that closet, are you?

[Dr. Who]

I think that gay marriage really is in the interest of the state, since rampant promiscuity is arguably bad for the state from the perspective of spreading sexually transmitted disease. Stable relationships are generally better for all communities, whether they be straight or gay.

[domer76]

IMO, this is a consequence of liberal individualism, the ascendancy of the legal at the expense of the political, and, ironically, the influence of Christianity.

You might like this:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22886-How-Christianity-gave-us-gay-marriage?highlight=Christianity

Good article. Equality always wins. Excellent mantra.

[Peter1469]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.

Federalism. Priests and pastors are not licensed by the federal government. The Constitution was meant to limit federal government power.

[kilgram]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.
The major of a town/city does not have power to marry?

In Spain, the marriage is done when is signed the contract of marriage with two witnesses. The ceremony is optional.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've mentioned this on a few threads, but I don't believe I have posted it as a thread.
Here's the main question : Why do we convey priest and pastors the power to preform legal marriage? It seems counter productive in a society that is supposed to separate church and state?
What would be so hard about having a notarized marriage license serve as legal marriage. No fuss, no muss, no JP.
Then the couple could have the religious ceremony of their choice preformed by the pastor of their choice. Said pastor/ church could agree or accept to do the ceremony based upon his or her church's beliefs. But the ceremony would be a religious ritual with no legal weight.

Do pastors and priests issue marriage licenses or bestow the 1138 Federal rights and benefits given to married couples? No, they do not. There is no mixing of church and state here.

What we have are people who conflate the religious institution of marriage with the rights and befits given by government to married couples. Is it required that a couple have a pastor or priest to be married? No. All they have to do is go the country clerk's office and sign some paperwork. Again, no mixing of church and state.

[Chris]

Reading here and there I'd venture to speculate, and perhaps be not entirely incorrect: Marriage origins are clouded in myth and predate history, state and church. Anthropologically it likely arose from divisions of labor between men and women. Evolution selected those who formed partnerships to share in the fruits of divided labor, especially to care of children who, by the time we evolved to agriculture, were needed to work the farm. It seems to have evolved from initially personal agreements to contracts between families, sometimes within families--marriage initially had nothing to do with love. Once we speak of agreements and contracts, the state would surely get involved to protect those. Religion didn't really enter into it till the modern era. Love didn't enter into it until very recently. Polygamy was allowed till recently, and though not seen so frequently so was "gay marriage" with occasional resistance to it, and only recently has proliferated, and that largely because roles in marriage, once clearly defined, have eroded, and not so much because of liberalism but because love became to reason to marry.

[donttread]

We basically have that now. A priest or minister cannot marry you without a legal civil marriage license.

The priest or minister has the same legal weight as a marriage license clerk in the court house or a Captain on a ship or a notary. My daughter was married last month on a ship. The marriage was officiated by a licensed rep for the ship. They still had to produce a legal marriage license.

Even a civil marriage in the court house needs a ceremony, exchanged oaths. I hope we never become a society that is too ridgid, too "tradition" opposed to exchange vows of love to each other. I want to remember hearing my husband pledge his love to me, not by reading it on the license application that he checked off box "c".

Getting a marriage license, and having that suffice for the "wedding" would be no better, no more special than obtaining a driver's license or fishing license. Marriage means a lot more than that to me.

You can do all if you wish, however it's not necessary for everyone

[donttread]

Reading here and there I'd venture to speculate, and perhaps be not entirely incorrect: Marriage origins are clouded in myth and predate history, state and church. Anthropologically it likely arose from divisions of labor between men and women. Evolution selected those who formed partnerships to share in the fruits of divided labor, especially to care of children who, by the time we evolved to agriculture, were needed to work the farm. It seems to have evolved from initially personal agreements to contracts between families, sometimes within families--marriage initially had nothing to do with love. Once we speak of agreements and contracts, the state would surely get involved to protect those. Religion didn't really enter into it till the modern era. Love didn't enter into it until very recently. Polygamy was allowed till recently, and though not seen so frequently so was "gay marriage" with occasional resistance to it, and only recently has proliferated, and that largely because roles in marriage, once clearly defined, have eroded, and not so much because of liberalism but because love became to reason to marry.

Chris you over generalize the stone age peoples. They loved, had religion and yes it took a team to raise a child. Remember human children are dependent for years

[donttread]

Do pastors and priests issue marriage licenses or bestow the 1138 Federal rights and benefits given to married couples? No, they do not. There is no mixing of church and state here.

What we have are people who conflate the religious institution of marriage with the rights and befits given by government to married couples. Is it required that a couple have a pastor or priest to be married? No. All they have to do is go the country clerk's office and sign some paperwork. Again, no mixing of church and state.

Where are you? Because a ceremony is required here in America. The marriage license does not make you married.

[Chris]

Chris you over generalize the stone age peoples. They loved, had religion and yes it took a team to raise a child. Remember human children are dependent for years

They may have loved but that wasn't the basis for marriage until very recently. Just as they had government (I refer governance here) without state, they had religion without church.


And, yes, like everyone else, I was greatly overgeneralizing.

[donttread]

They may have loved but that wasn't the basis for marriage until very recently. Just as they had government (I refer governance here) without state, they had religion without church.


And, yes, like everyone else, I was greatly overgeneralizing.

To this day there are a great many marriage that turned from lust to love after the marriage.

[Mister D]

If you can't or don't recognize the inherent flaw in your own argument, I can't help you. But it's the same one I've seen time and again from the SSM bigots. I hope you aren't coming out of that closet, are you?

It wasn't an argument, domer. Again, it's an accurate observation regarding the historical reality of marriage customs, law, and the state. I'll stop short of a hat trick.

[Mister D]

I think that gay marriage really is in the interest of the state, since rampant promiscuity is arguably bad for the state from the perspective of spreading sexually transmitted disease. Stable relationships are generally better for all communities, whether they be straight or gay.

Gay males are notoriously promiscuous. Marriage won't impact that nor is it meant to.

[Mister D]

It is certainly an idea I've never thought of! I think I need to some reading in the Democracy in America.

You and I are probably complete opposites on this subject. I believe morals are personal and government has no place in trying to legislate them. I live a very conventional life but its my choice. I think everyone should have the same choice.

but it's not a matter of morals.

[Mister D]

The major of a town/city does not have power to marry?

In Spain, the marriage is done when is signed the contract of marriage with two witnesses. The ceremony is optional.

You need more kids.

[Captain Obvious]

You need more kids.

Off topic a bit but wasn't it old English common law practice way back to have children at official things like this like marriages or will readings or whatever then beat them afterward so that they remembered it for a long time in order to preserve the "record"?

[Chris]

To this day there are a great many marriage that turned from lust to love after the marriage.

Yes, in this day.

[Max Rockatansky]

Gay males are notoriously promiscuous. Marriage won't impact that nor is it meant to.
Males are notoriously promiscuous. Period. Put two of them together in a relationship and you're doubling that natural male promiscuity.

[Max Rockatansky]

Where are you? Because a ceremony is required here in America. The marriage license does not make you married.
Read it again. Ceremony, yes, but a pastor or priest is not required. Again, not a mixing of church and state. If you want a religious ceremony you can have it, but it isn't required to be religious.

I'm authorized to perform marriages in Texas per 2.202(3) as the Holy Lama of the First Church of Panentheist Zen Gnostic Christianity. I'm available on weekends.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:
(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
(2) a Jewish rabbi;
(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony;
(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, retired judge of a municipal court, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state; and
(5) a retired judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

[Mister D]

Males are notoriously promiscuous. Period. Put two of them together in a relationship and you're doubling that natural male promiscuity.

Exactly. better stated.

[Dr. Who]

Gay males are notoriously promiscuous. Marriage won't impact that nor is it meant to.
It impacts promiscuity in straight males, why not gay males. Apart from sexual preference, gay males are no more promiscuous than straight males, it's just that the former tend not to seek permanent relationships as readily as the latter, there being no societal encouragement to do so.

[Mister D]

It impacts promiscuity in straight males, why not gay males. Apart from sexual preference, gay males are no more promiscuous than straight males, it's just that the former tend not to seek permanent relationships as readily as the latter, there being no societal encouragement to do so.

Right. Gay males tend not to seek permanent relationships hence my point. Straight men wouldn't either if the females they desired didn't so often insist on it.

[Dr. Who]

Right. Gay males tend not to seek permanent relationships hence my point. Straight men wouldn't either if the females they desired didn't so often insist on it.
You don't believe that society encourages pair bonding in straight people?

[kilgram]

Right. Gay males tend not to seek permanent relationships hence my point. Straight men wouldn't either if the females they desired didn't so often insist on it.
Heterosexual are pretty promiscuous. And girls are not as promiscuous as they would like to be because the social norms prevent them to be. I mean, the existing sexism in society creates the figure of the bitch, whore of the women who are pretty promiscuous. But a guy that is promiscuous he does not have those problems, even is considered a hero.

[Dangermouse]

For Americans. And just about everybody else.

Even American history goes back longer than 1929!

[Mister D]

You don't believe that society encourages pair bonding in straight people?

both state and society rightfully encourage pair bonding. That said, the interaction between the sexes and their different biological dispositions play a major role in making that work.

Side note: the sheer idiocy of radical feminism can be see in how they endorsed "free love", which was merely a childish male fantasy, and thus surrendered the tremendous social power that women held.

[Mister D]

Even American history goes back longer than 1929!

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. I'm imagining it in a Scottish brogue but it still sounds stupid.

[Dr. Who]

both state and society rightfully encourage pair bonding. That said, the interaction between the sexes and their different biological dispositions play a major role in making that work.

Side note: the sheer idiocy of radical feminism can be see in how they endorsed "free love", which was merely a childish male fantasy, and thus surrendered the tremendous social power that women held.
At the end of the day, it's not really biology that makes relationships work, it's compatibility and love, intangibles that are just human, not generated by sexual orientation. Children can keep couples together for a while, but they are no panacea for a bad marriage.

[Peter1469]

Mutual respect goes a long way.

[Chris]

At the end of the day, it's not really biology that makes relationships work, it's compatibility and love, intangibles that are just human, not generated by sexual orientation. Children can keep couples together for a while, but they are no panacea for a bad marriage.

But love as a basis for marriage is a recent phenomenon. According to Love marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_marriage), " The idea that instead of duty, affection should be at the base of a shared life was first expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his popular novel Julie, or the New Heloise, in 1761. It was picked up by the emergent romanticists...." It wasn't till the women's movement that traditional duty was replaced finally. Some cultures, Africa, Middle East, are still duty-based and arranged by the family.

[Mister D]

At the end of the day, it's not really biology that makes relationships work, it's compatibility and love, intangibles that are just human, not generated by sexual orientation. Children can keep couples together for a while, but they are no panacea for a bad marriage.

Oh, I agree. The end result depends on a variety of factors. Considering the high divorce rate I'd imagine social expectations were among them. Anyway, I was speaking to the feminine undercurrent or even the foundation of civilized life.

[Mister D]

But love as a basis for marriage is a recent phenomenon. According to Love marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_marriage), " The idea that instead of duty, affection should be at the base of a shared life was first expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his popular novel Julie, or the New Heloise, in 1761. It was picked up by the emergent romanticists...." It wasn't till the women's movement that traditional duty was replaced finally. Some cultures, Africa, Middle East, are still duty-based and arranged by the family.

Romantic love in the context of marriage is a western peculiarity. A product perhaps of the (gasp!) Middle ages.

[Dr. Who]

But love as a basis for marriage is a recent phenomenon. According to Love marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_marriage), " The idea that instead of duty, affection should be at the base of a shared life was first expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his popular novel Julie, or the New Heloise, in 1761. It was picked up by the emergent romanticists...." It wasn't till the women's movement that traditional duty was replaced finally. Some cultures, Africa, Middle East, are still duty-based and arranged by the family.
Arranged marriages don't always work out either.

[Mister D]

Or perhaps not. You see those moments of mutual love in the Iliad, for example (between Hector, Andromache, and their baby boy).

[Chris]

Arranged marriages don't always work out either.

Of course. I was just giving historical perspective.