As in a recognized legal commitment. I think that there should be legal unions of individuals that are considered contracts, and Marriage should lie in the hands of religion. Otherwise this is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Marriage should not be legal
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
Huh? Marriage IS a legal contract issued by the state. Ain't got nothin' to do with religion or beliefs or none of that hocus-pocus.
How does marriage violate separation of church and state? A church can't issue a marriage license, so .... You're confusing me, Ham.
Besides, can the Holy Church of Baron Max issue marriage licenses? If not, why not?
Baron Max
i don't think there is any such "law" as separation of church and state.
It comes from some silly little blurb in the Constitution ..something about the government to allow for any and all religious freedoms ...or somesuch crap as that.
Baron Max
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The First Amendment to the Constitution, one of the first ten collectively called "The Bill of Rights."
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Marriage is a union before God. The church of Baron Max can marry people, but until it is licensed by the state, and the people get a license, then legally, the marriages made by the church of Baron Max are void. Contract law would be a good replacement for marriage law. If you want your partnership recognized in the eyes of Baron Max, then you can have a ceremony at his church, if you don't care, a contract making you next of kin for the other person should be enough, shouldn't it?
So the government being held out of religious affairs applies. Marriage is a religious ceremony, the licensure of the marriage in ceremony is called marriage, but the union should be in effect at the courthouse when the legal documents are signed, ceremony and ritual can be ignored.
So the government being held out of religious affairs applies. Marriage is a religious ceremony, the licensure of the marriage in ceremony is called marriage, but the union should be in effect at the courthouse when the legal documents are signed, ceremony and ritual can be ignored.
Actually, JDawg, I'm suggesting a way to shut the moronic fundies up, and allow homosexuals to have parity with heterosexuals... Being Bisexual, myself, I have some alternate views from either side...
When was marriage not a religious ceremony? I'd like to know more about that...
When was marriage not a religious ceremony? I'd like to know more about that...
Back when people used to broker the deal based on how much livestock they would give/receive? Back when it only served to strengthen the workforce?
And shutting the fundies up shouldn't be what we're looking to do. They'll never shut up until they've taken over the world, so why should we be looking to appease them? The point is making marriage available to them so that the whackjobs aren't using religion to minimalize their relationships and families. Enough is enough.
Why not take marriage away from the fundies, then? That's all I want to do... Make all legal marriages into civil unions, and marriage becomes irrelevant...
So the sole purpose was the dowry, and it was recognized without some sort of religious authority? I thought that even within shamanism you find a ritual binding ceremony...
Again, that only hurts the people trying to be included in the process, like gay people. All they want is equality, and if you take marriage of the law books, then you still have people who are married, and those who are not. Even if it's just a symbolic gesture, it's no different than allowing black folks to use the same restrooms as whites, or sit at the front of the bus.
But there are religious parties of all sorts who will perform gay marriage... I know several local to me... The problem is that so long as you allow religion to suggest a legality, you will not have equality. Thus, take the religion out of it. You then have people who WANT to be married, and people who don't care, as long as things are legal...
Yes marriage puts one at a big disadvantage. I don't recommend unless one has a prenup. In fact if you are going to get married prenups should be mandatory!
joe-what tangent are you talking about?
Well that's not what you said earlier. You said take the legality out of it, which is stupid.
I would say that marriage ceremonials were nearly universal features of societies until recently. Ceremonial was a necessary method of recording an important fact -- i.e. of binding it into the memories of the members of the tribe and leaving no room for doubt -- prior to the introduction of alternative means of recording, i.e. written documents. (Holding ones women in captivity was an alternative means of avoiding the need for ceremonial, as that also left no room for doubt.)