![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Return of Civility
Jul. 9th, 2006 10:20 pmThere are few hot button issues nowadays hotter than gay marriage. Proponents of gay marriage suffered yet another defeat this week with the denial of their case at the New York State Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court. Having looked at both decisions, I don't think they went far enough.
I think we ought to ban marriage outside of the church.
Let's get a few things straight. The debate centers on the definition of "marriage". When one side uses the term, they mean marriage in all its religious glory. They mean the time honored, white wedding, man and wife thing. When the other side uses the term, they mean the legal and civil contract that entitles two people to specific rights as a family unit.
In the first, or religious case, there is a real problem. Not every church agrees on the procedure involved in getting married. The ceremonies differ widely. Many churches don't recognize marriages performed in some other churches, and some churches don't recognize any marriages performed outside their own. The Jews, for instance, have very strict guidelines about who is allowed to marry in the synagogue. Catholics are not likely to accept a Pagan ceremony as valid for marriage. Furthermore, different churches recognize different age limits for marriage, and some have none at all.
Do I need to cover the issue of Polygamy? I think just saying the word gives you the picture.
Then there is the issue of divorce. Some Christian churches would have a good percentage of the population stoned if they could get away with it. With real rocks. I did read of an interesting case under Sharia Law. It seems a muslim man talked in his sleep and managed to repudiate his marriage in the proper formula not once, but three times during the requisite three consecutive menstrual cycles. The local authority had decided that the couple were divorced, the couple disagreed and stayed together, citing a different scholar who said a couple cannot be compelled to divorce by intoxication or other means.
Religious authorities can agree on neither the procedure nor the process of divorce.
So the civil authorities step in. They set rules for who can conduct a marriage and who can get married. They start issuing licenses. Because the religions could not agree on marriage or divorce procedures, they set up laws governing them. Over time, married couples are given rights, both legal and civil, according to their marital status. These rights govern everything from adoption, to hospital visitation, to inheritance. Married couples are given preferential treatment with respect to loan applications, and therefore are given housing preferences.
But the civil authorities made a big mistake. They called it "marriage". What they sought to govern back then, and what their laws cover is not marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution - a loaded word that carries many meanings to many different people. The government never had any business overseeing marriage. I can't see why any church would want the government meddling in their religious ceremony.
The state should not recognize marriage. The church need not recognize marriages outside their own jurisdiction. The Catholic Church has done it for years, folks! Your marriage in front of the Justice of the Peace is no more legal to the village priest than that of your gay uncle who got married in Canada.
What the government now considers marriage should be civil union for both gays and straights. It should be separate from any religious marriage ceremony that may take place. It is merely a legal contract. Let the churches have their due, let them define marriage as they please. But when it comes to doling out rights and privileges, the First Amendment says the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I think we ought to ban marriage outside of the church.
Let's get a few things straight. The debate centers on the definition of "marriage". When one side uses the term, they mean marriage in all its religious glory. They mean the time honored, white wedding, man and wife thing. When the other side uses the term, they mean the legal and civil contract that entitles two people to specific rights as a family unit.
In the first, or religious case, there is a real problem. Not every church agrees on the procedure involved in getting married. The ceremonies differ widely. Many churches don't recognize marriages performed in some other churches, and some churches don't recognize any marriages performed outside their own. The Jews, for instance, have very strict guidelines about who is allowed to marry in the synagogue. Catholics are not likely to accept a Pagan ceremony as valid for marriage. Furthermore, different churches recognize different age limits for marriage, and some have none at all.
Do I need to cover the issue of Polygamy? I think just saying the word gives you the picture.
Then there is the issue of divorce. Some Christian churches would have a good percentage of the population stoned if they could get away with it. With real rocks. I did read of an interesting case under Sharia Law. It seems a muslim man talked in his sleep and managed to repudiate his marriage in the proper formula not once, but three times during the requisite three consecutive menstrual cycles. The local authority had decided that the couple were divorced, the couple disagreed and stayed together, citing a different scholar who said a couple cannot be compelled to divorce by intoxication or other means.
Religious authorities can agree on neither the procedure nor the process of divorce.
So the civil authorities step in. They set rules for who can conduct a marriage and who can get married. They start issuing licenses. Because the religions could not agree on marriage or divorce procedures, they set up laws governing them. Over time, married couples are given rights, both legal and civil, according to their marital status. These rights govern everything from adoption, to hospital visitation, to inheritance. Married couples are given preferential treatment with respect to loan applications, and therefore are given housing preferences.
But the civil authorities made a big mistake. They called it "marriage". What they sought to govern back then, and what their laws cover is not marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution - a loaded word that carries many meanings to many different people. The government never had any business overseeing marriage. I can't see why any church would want the government meddling in their religious ceremony.
The state should not recognize marriage. The church need not recognize marriages outside their own jurisdiction. The Catholic Church has done it for years, folks! Your marriage in front of the Justice of the Peace is no more legal to the village priest than that of your gay uncle who got married in Canada.
What the government now considers marriage should be civil union for both gays and straights. It should be separate from any religious marriage ceremony that may take place. It is merely a legal contract. Let the churches have their due, let them define marriage as they please. But when it comes to doling out rights and privileges, the First Amendment says the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
