# What is Marriage.



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2008)

In light of the current decisions in California, Florida and Arizonia, as well as 27 other US States to outlaw same-sax marriage, and several others to recognize it either as marriage, a civil union, or domestic partnership, as well as the decisions of other nations on that matter I am putting it up for opinion here.

The question is:
What Is Marriage?


----------



## BrandiJo (Nov 8, 2008)

Marriage is between two people who love and care deeply for each other.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Nov 8, 2008)

If we use the actual dictionary defination we can see 



> a (1)*:* the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2)*:* the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex _marriage_> b*:* the mutual relation of married persons *:* wedlock c*:* the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2*:* an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; _especially_ *:* the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3*:* an intimate or close union


 
Looking at Wed:



> Pronunciation: \&#712;wed\ Function: _verb_ Inflected Form(s): wed·ded _also_ wed; wed·ding Etymology: Middle English _wedden,_ from Old English _weddian;_ akin to Middle High German _wetten_ to pledge, Old English _wedd_ pledge, Old High German _wetti,_ Gothic _wadi,_ Latin _vad-, vas_ bail, security Date: before 12th century


 
The Old English of Pledge and Latin Vas for secruity are void of any particular name such as Man Woman and whatever.

I put other in the Poll because by the wording for Marry:



> Pronunciation: \&#712;mer-&#275;, &#712;ma-r&#275;\ Function: _verb_ Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing Etymology: Middle English _marien,_ from Anglo-French _marier,_ from Latin _maritare,_ from _maritus_ married Date: 14th century _transitive verb_1 a*:* to join in marriage according to law or custom b*:* to give in marriage <_married_ his daughter to his partner's son> c*:* to take as spouse *:* wed <_married_ the girl next door> d*:* to perform the ceremony of marriage for <a priest will _marry_ them> e*:* to obtain by marriage <_marry_ wealth>2*:* to unite in close and usually permanent relation


 
We see again 1. To join in marriage which brings us back to Marriage which has  1)*:* the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2)*:* the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

So by the defination of the word anything can wed anything.
Marriage is a binding contract in which at the court house you sign paper.

The relgious union is a cermony of the Binding of the contract.

So Let those who wish to marry be married in good health!!


----------



## Big Don (Nov 8, 2008)

How about a legal definition? Tada


> marriage
> n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2008)

Or these from Wikipedia



> Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
> 
> Marriage may take many forms: for example, a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous heterosexual marriage; polygamy &#8211; in which a person takes more than one spouse &#8211; is common in some societies.[3] Recently, some jurisdictions[4] and denominations[5][6][7] have begun to recognize same-sex marriage, uniting people of the same sex.



Nolo says this:


> marriage
> 
> The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Nov 8, 2008)

The legal defination is Skewed.

The word Marriage as far as the legal wording is not Marriage.

Matrimony is not the defination of Marriage.



> Pronunciation: \&#712;ma-tr&#601;-&#716;m&#333;-n&#275;\ Function: _noun_ Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French _matrimoignie,_ from Latin _matrimonium,_ from _matr-, mater_ mother, matron  more at mother Date: 14th century *:* the union of man and woman as husband and wife


 See what happens when rules are made by people who have there own agenda and do not understand what the word means.

Matr which goes into matriarch which means:



a mother who rules her family or tribe; specif., a woman who is head of a matriarchy

a highly respected elderly woman
So you can see by defination and the root of the wording it does not fit.

Now if someone decides to percieve it as that then we are the victims of ignorance which is the result of misuse of the word.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 8, 2008)

What is Marriage?... oohh alright... 

Marwarrage, marwarrge is what brwings us togewther towday. 

(sorry Bob... couldn't resist)

I grew up taught that marriage is between a man and a woman. I still believe in that. If two men or two women want to live a life of cohabitation together like unto a marriage then that's okay, their decision and their life.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2008)

Now, I have a secondary question or 2.

If you believe that marriage is a -Spiritual- thing,

1- Should people who do not share your faith be allowed to marry? and
2- Should people who have no faith be allowed to marry?

If you believe that marriage is for -Procreation, should those who are unable to have kids be allowed to marry?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2008)

Marriage is a legally binding union between a group of people where individuals agree to share resources.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2008)

As history has shown, the definition of marriage is mutable. What once was an exchange of property (woman for dowry) is now a weirdly fuddled wedge issue.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 9, 2008)

Just to clarify my idea here, I'm not looking for this thread to be a debate.  Just a friendly listing of opinion/belief/position, a simple poll, and some extra supporting info.

We're doing tons of debate in another thread, think we can go light here. 



*My position:*
Marriage is the common term describing a legally recognized partnership between 2 people who are of the legally accepted age within their community. A couple so joined is recognized to posess specific rights, responsibilities and privilages in regards to society, their family and themselves. Those recognized as married by their community may also choose to be recognized by a faith that they may share, which may grant privilages, bestow responsibilities and recognize rights included with or seperate from those contained within the civil marriage.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In light of the current decisions in California, Florida and Arizonia, as well as 27 other US States to outlaw same-sax marriage,


 
I don't believe in Same-Sax marriage.  I think All Saxes should be required to marry Trombones.

But as far as Marriage between two people goes: I think the definitions vary from person to person... To some its a spirtual union, others, its a Financial one, to some, its a physical one (sharing space, not a sexual thing) some have multiple partners, so it's hard to define.  I did pick "A partnership between two people" in the poll, because I think thats most common.

Personally, if the government would get the hell out of it... we'd all be much better.  BUT that won't happen because then your wife couldn't get half your stuff when she leaves.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Nov 9, 2008)

> 1- Should people who do not share your faith be allowed to marry? and
> 2- Should people who have no faith be allowed to marry?
> 
> If you believe that marriage is for -Procreation, should those who are unable to have kids be allowed to marry?


 
Yes. And I think marriage is a universal concept. marriages exist in every major region. marriage does not need religion to meet the quota of what the defination of marriage is. Religion or better ritual custom has played a key role in marriage. But that role was used either as a sealed means of contract or celebration of union.

You need faith only in the other thing being married with. I use thing because people marry Barbies and animals in other countries:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

Hmm that third question would be a good one for the Dolphin!! :lfao:


----------



## bostonbomber (Nov 9, 2008)

To me, marriage ideally is an act of lifelong commitment between two people.  As long as those two people are consenting adults and know what they are getting themselves into, their gender doesn't matter to me.  

One argument of late is whether or not two people of the same sex getting married somehow weakens this institution.  I believe the true assault on marriage is the idea that if things don't work out we can just divorce and start over.  Now don't get me wrong, I do realize that sometimes things don't work out, but when we have high profile people getting married on Friday and divorced on Monday, then this is far more detrimental than two men finally getting married after a committed ten year relationship.


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 9, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Marriage is between two people who love and care deeply for each other.


 
I would have to agree with the above statement


----------



## elder999 (Nov 9, 2008)

Well, I've "married" some couples-there's a phrase I use to point out what "marriage is":_*I* don't marry you, the *"church"* dosen't marry you, the *government* doesn't marry you, and *God* doesn't marry you.*You marry each other.*_

Marriage is a covenant - a formal, solemn and binding agreement.

That said, in our society-indeed, in most societies today, there are _two_ marraiges-the one that constitutes that covenant-whether it be before a priest, minister, high priestess, medicine man, shaman, rabbi, imam, ship's captain(though this is a special case, as all the other's _might_ be), Buddhist monk, Taoist priest, Shinto priest, President of a biker club, minister, minister in the Church of Universal Life, heirophant, mednicant, officiant, facilitator, _best friend_, or simply the couple (or more!) exchanging vows on a mountain top under a star-filled night sky. 

People exchange promises to each other, and try to keep them while they live together. *That's* a marriage.

The other form of marriage is the one that sometimes requires blood-tests, and usually requires fees, a license, and a  certification from the state-though, in some states, any officiant (see above) can obtain (for a fee) the ability to certify marriages-just as I have in New Mexico- so there may in fact be only one ceremony-just as there may be if they choose to be wed before a Justice of the Peace, ship's captain (special!), or other person of _legal_ authority. This marriage has little to do with the covenant, and everything to do with property rights, custody, legal name changes, legitimacy of heirs, credit, insurance, etc., etc., etc. Is such an institution necessary? I dunno. It's been that way for  more than a hundred years now ; once, you got  "married by the church," or by "common law" (see:couple on mountaintop exchanging vows, etc..) and that was it. Now, the state is involved, and taxes and records are involved, and that may be a good thing-as in the lady in the Bentley with the vanity plates that say "WASHIS"-or a bad thing, as in the man who owned that Bentley with the vanity plates....:lol:

Or "good thing" as in simply being to sit with your loved one in the hospital, making decisions about their care and holding their hand while they die, and remaining legally able to stay in your home, raise your kids,and  collect insurance and pensions. 

In these senses, I chose "other." Having engaged in a brief experiment in polygamy in my early 20's, and having known some "polyamorous" unions of others, I'd say it could be between more than two people-though, I can't for the life of me imagine putting up with more than one woman on a daily basis _now_..:lfao:

At the end of the day, though-marriage boils down to that one thing: people exchange promises, and try to keep them while they make a life together. Indeed, those promises are the very basis of their life together. That's pretty much it, IMNSHO......


----------



## Kacey (Nov 9, 2008)

Marriage is a an agreement (legal, religious, etc.) between a group of people (group = 2 or more) who agree to share resources necessary for the welfare of the group and any children who may be produced by the group (and thereby commit to providing for the welfare of those children until they reach their majority), while providing for the mental, physical, and social needs of the adults within the marriage.

I can't recall where I read the above definition (and it is, therefore, a paraphrase, not a direct quote) but it's stuck with me for several decades.

Remember, too, that legal requirements of marriage and the religious/moral/social requirements have often been in disagreement throughout history.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Marriage is between two people who love and care deeply for each other



...and want to form a family unit (that may or may not include children). Or at least, that's how it _should _be.


----------



## Drac (Nov 9, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Marriage is between two people who love and care deeply for each other.


 


terryl965 said:


> I would have to agree with the above statement


 

Same here....


----------



## Lisa (Nov 9, 2008)

Marriage is commitment to someone.

It is accepting that person for all their good and all their faults.  It is a willingness to work through the bad times and share your joys.

It is allowing someone to love you for who you are.


----------



## kidswarrior (Nov 10, 2008)

Uh... don't tell me, let me guess. 

Marriage is decades of hard work, only to 'get there' and find out you're about to die from old age?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 10, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Marriage is between two people who love and care deeply for each other.


I agree. if two people want to get married then they should be allowed too whether man-woman, 2 men or 2 women. who are we to decided if it is right. Hell if people want to be that way lets go back to old old days and say that mixed race marriage are illegal. what ya think about them cookies? 

I believe its ignorance.

B


----------



## Lisa (Nov 10, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I agree. if two people want to get married then they should be allowed too whether man-woman, 2 men or 2 women. who are we to decided if it is right. Hell if people want to be that way lets go back to old old days and say that mixed race marriage are illegal. what ya think about them cookies?
> 
> I believe its ignorance.
> 
> B



ignorance is not knowing better.  Arrogance is knowing better and not caring.

People are arrogant.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 10, 2008)

Marriage is a legal contract.  Period.  Instead of a best man and maid of honor, you should walk down the aisle on the arms of your lawyers.

You'll probably never realize that unless you file for divorce, and at that point you may be completely shocked at what you signed up for when you walked down the aisle!

In my opinion, the government should have no place in personal relationships between consenting adults.  If you want a spiritual commitment, that should be between you, your partner, and the Creator.  If you want a legal contract, call your lawyers and get busy.  The issues of social security, taxes,  and health insurance are important, and should be egalitarian, IMO.  (Of course, I believe in universal health care, which would make the latter issue moot, but that doesn't exist yet.)

If you believe that current legal marriage affords you the right to make medical decisions or end-of-life decisions for your partner, you are in a fantasy world.  You must RIGHT NOW execute a health care proxy and power of attorney even if you are married.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unromantic or anti-relationship; I've been with the same man for more than 8 years, and we're very happy, thanks.  I just fail to understand what the State of New York has to do with it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Uh... don't tell me, let me guess.
> 
> Marriage is decades of hard work, only to 'get there' and find out you're about to die from old age?


 
If we were talking about my first wife that couldn't happen soon enough 

I can honestly remember standing in front of the priest and right after he said "untill death do you part" my very first thought was "That is an awfully long time" 

And to all that are not yet married, IF that is your very FIRST thought at that moment...You are in the wrong place

Thank you and good night


----------



## Kacey (Nov 10, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I agree. if two people want to get married then they should be allowed too whether man-woman, 2 men or 2 women. who are we to decided if it is right. Hell if people want to be that way lets go back to old old days and say that mixed race marriage are illegal. what ya think about them cookies?
> 
> I believe its ignorance.
> 
> B



Why should marriage be limited to 2 people?


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In light of the current decisions in California, Florida and Arizonia, as well as 27 other US States to outlaw same-sax marriage, and several others to recognize it either as marriage, a civil union, or domestic partnership, as well as the decisions of other nations...


 
I had a thought (weird, I know) while reading the thread about the Gay protests against the LDS, and I apologize if it is slightly off topic...
I am not a lawyer, so if my presumptions are incorrect, please enlighten me. In cities and states where homosexuals have been added to the list of protected classes, these measures are or can be easily shot down as unconstitutional (city/state constitution, obviously). I was talking to a lawyer who specializes in discrimination cases and what lawyers in this field are currently doing is arguing, and wining, cases for discrimination against homosexuals by painting that it is discrimination against one's sex (a protected class). Now, considering that they are setting this precedent, shooting down these measures against same-sex marriage should be relatively easy. Whether you like it or not, if you look at the precedents being set and the unavoidable trend towards making homosexuals a protected class, these measures will be overturned in a heartbeat, the same way a measure banning inter-racial marriage would be shot down as being unconstitutional. So, what's the point of these measures, really? Sure, I guess a statement is being made, but discriminatory laws against homosexuals will inevitably fade away.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

My understanding is that State Constitution beats all lower laws, but differs to Federal Constitution.

So, San Francisco can keep issuing marriage licences to gays, but California won't recognize them, and the government agency that oversees the governments side of marriage is the State. I can be ordained, marry 2 people, and they have no protection under NY law if they are same-gender. I might get em into Heaven (yeah, right), but I can't get Mr. Smith in to the hospital to see his husband without the State's ok.

The other problem is, the system is inefficient.  Hundreds of cases, scattered across the country, all seeking the same thing, draggin along for years.  For efficiency and consistancy, a ruling needs to come from above.  

Otherwise, you have to fight the same fight over and over and over again, and that's very expensive and tiring.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> For efficiency and consistancy, a ruling needs to come from above.


You don't think the supreme court is excitedly waiting for the issue to be laid at their door step, do you?  I'll bet they're frettin a bit.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

I think the correct phrase is "******** bricks".  If they were excited about it, they would have forced the issue I think.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 11, 2008)

An answer to the question of this thread by a complete pragmatist...
Marriage is an experiment. All relationships are experiments. These experiment may last 2 months or a lifetime. What is important is that you learn and grow during and after the relationship, no matter how long it lasts.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 11, 2008)

Marriage is a three ring circus.

First comes the engagement ring, then comes the wedding ring, then comes the _suffering_....:lfao:


----------



## Carol (Nov 12, 2008)

anyone remember me?  LOL  :ultracool

I don't really understand the spiritual protests over gay marriage.  People are  living in sin that want to make a legal and emotional (and maybe even spiritual) commitment to each other...and the "moral" solution is to NOT let them take responsibility for themselves?  :disgust:

Heterosexuals in general are not perfect models for stable relationships and long marriages (ask me how I know....lol)    

But that doesn't seem to be at issue.  The debate around gay marriage has been about gays.  And gays that could possibly marry.  The debate hasn't been about responibility.  Most of the people that are against gay marriage are afraid of some kind of bad behaviour becoming more prevalent.  But the way the debates have gone, the sexual orientation is discussed (and condemned) far more often than the issues of responsibility.  Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, regardless.

Unfortunately I dont' think many people agree with me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2008)

An interesting view, and I think I agree.

2 people want to make a commitment, but can't, because of someone elses moral view.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 17, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> An interesting view, and I think I agree.
> 
> 2 people want to make a commitment, but can't, because of someone elses moral view.



The problem for me is that moral/religious filter is being used by the state. That's the church's job.


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> The problem for me is that moral/religious filter is being used by the state. That's the church's job.



It can be very difficult to draw the line as to where the state should be silent upon an issue of morals.

To me, the concept of same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, and I do think the state can play a role in protecting or sanctioning human rights.  If the state does not take a stand and depends solely on the democratic process...then that can lead to a situation like we currently have in California, where the voting public voted to remove a right that was previously given to the people.


----------



## kidswarrior (Nov 18, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> anyone remember me?  LOL  :ultracool
> 
> Heterosexuals in general are not perfect models for stable relationships and long marriages (ask me how I know....lol)


My wife makes this point all the time... Hmmm 



> Unfortunately I dont' think many people agree with me.


I think you're right, and believe it's because we only learn to think in black and white, either/or terms. Anything with multiple or open ended possibilities just stumps the majority of people.


----------



## harlan (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm not 'married to the idea' that what was before is what should necessarily come after.

Marriage is committment. Everything else is extra.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> anyone remember me?  LOL  :ultracool



Yes. :wavey:



> I don't really understand the spiritual protests over gay marriage.  People are  living in sin that want to make a legal and emotional (and maybe even spiritual) commitment to each other...and the "moral" solution is to NOT let them take responsibility for themselves?  :disgust:


No, the moral issue is that some Christians believe homosexuals are clearly being swayed by Satan and this is the Christian Warrior's job - fighting sin and fighting Satan.  They consider it to be their core purpose in life - serving the trinity by combating evil.  Problem is, they are operating on an older idea of "evil" - something defined over two thousand years ago.  And, of course, to deny that we have better knowledge today would, IMNSHO, refrain from honoring the inevitable change and enlightenment granted to us by the same supreme being.  Remember - once we ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we became ashamed. 



> Heterosexuals in general are not perfect models for stable relationships and long marriages (ask me how I know....lol)


:lol2: - no need here. 



> But that doesn't seem to be at issue.  The debate around gay marriage has been about gays.  And gays that could possibly marry.  The debate hasn't been about responibility.  Most of the people that are against gay marriage are afraid of some kind of bad behaviour becoming more prevalent.  But the way the debates have gone, the sexual orientation is discussed (and condemned) far more often than the issues of responsibility.  Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, regardless.



You're too smart for Californians - and I can say that because I'm a native Californian.  And your point raises the following question: "What rights does a 'bad girl' or 'bad boy' have?  Well, Ladies and Germs ... the very same rights as you and me.



> Unfortunately I dont' think many people agree with me.



I saw several people interviewed in spurts (Northwest coverage) after 8 passed saying they were told by their priest/minister that their pastor would be arrested if they spoke in church against homosexuality and gay marriage under prop 8 and that it was a free speech issue.  I haven't had time to try to find an internet link to the footage I saw, but I hope to soon - especially because I think this is an important point to consider when weighing why the hell people would be so anti-human-rights in a state such as California.

So I don't think people necessarily disagree with you ... I think people are generally being lied to.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2008)

Interestinig numbers here.  75% say it's something other than only a man & woman.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 18, 2008)

Carol,

You're quite right. I was being glib, and just a tad irreligious. Yes, the state has a responsibility to protect rights. Morality definitely comes into play. I think it is immoral not to share rights based on same or different-sex couples; others believe it is immoral for that state to sanction the same thing I defend. 

In this instance, the hair that I am splitting is that we can have same-sex marriage, and churches and the faithful who are so inclined are free to dissent. Marriage certificates come from city hall and not the Almighty. If a preacher won't sign 'em, a judge will.

The churches organizing against this change are not forced to sanction these relationships. They seem to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thus all they need do is teach their own children not to exercise that choice.



> Originally Posted by *Gordon Nore*
> 
> 
> _The problem for me is that moral/religious filter is being used by the state. That's the church's job._





Carol Kaur said:


> It can be very difficult to draw the line as to where the state should be silent upon an issue of morals.
> 
> To me, the concept of same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, and I do think the state can play a role in protecting or sanctioning human rights.  If the state does not take a stand and depends solely on the democratic process...then that can lead to a situation like we currently have in California, where the voting public voted to remove a right that was previously given to the people.


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Carol,
> 
> You're quite right. I was being glib, and just a tad irreligious. Yes, the state has a responsibility to protect rights. Morality definitely comes into play. I think it is immoral not to share rights based on same or different-sex couples; others believe it is immoral for that state to sanction the same thing I defend.
> 
> In this instance, the hair that I am splitting is that we can have same-sex marriage, and churches and the faithful who are so inclined are free to dissent. Marriage certificates come from city hall and not the Almighty. If a preacher won't sign 'em, a judge will.



Sorry Gordon!  Engineer's disease, I tend to take words literally 




Gordon Nore said:


> The churches organizing against this change are not forced to sanction these relationships. They seem to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thus all they need do is teach their own children not to exercise that choice.



Some churches know that if gay marriage becomes legalized, there will likely be someone amongst the congregates that asks to have such a wedding sanctified in the church.  And that leaves the churches in a bind...they may lose members if they do, they may lose members if they don't.  I empathize with the folks trying to run a religous community in times like today...it cannot be an easy task.

However...the I don't think the answer is turning to the government for help.  Personally, I have more respect for the religious communities that stick by what they believe in because they feel it is the right choice no matter what, without turning to another entity for support or reinforcement.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 18, 2008)

An antiquated ritual carried over from a more primitive era.


----------



## kidswarrior (Nov 18, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> An antiquated ritual carried over from a more primitive era.


I see some of you have been talking to my wife behind my back. :lol:


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 18, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> In this instance, the hair that I am splitting is that we can have same-sex marriage, and churches and the faithful who are so inclined are free to dissent. Marriage certificates come from city hall and not the Almighty. If a preacher won't sign 'em, a judge will.
> 
> The churches organizing against this change are not forced to sanction these relationships. They seem to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thus all they need do is teach their own children not to exercise that choice.



I agree with you that people should have a choice, whether same-sex or not, to be with those who they love.  

That said, I can see how the various religious organizations are worried that once the government allows same-sex marriages, how long will it be before the government may mandate that any religion cannot discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples?  It is the function of most religions to define what is good and evil.  Many people want, and need, the boundaries that define what is good and evil, or what is and is not.  The government is supposed to be neutral.  That is why America is built upon the premise this nation does not have a government-sponsored religion.

I think many religions do not trust the government to say that this governmental interference with religious practices will never happen.

- Ceicei


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> I agree with you that people should have a choice, whether same-sex or not, to be with those who they love.
> 
> That said, I can see how the various religious organizations are worried that once the government allows same-sex marriages, how long will it be before the government may mandate that any religion cannot discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples?  It is the function of most religions to define what is good and evil.  Many people want, and need, the boundaries that define what is good and evil, or what is and is not.  The government is supposed to be neutral.  That is why America is built upon the premise this nation does not have a government-sponsored religion.
> 
> ...



On what legal precedent? 

Religions can deny sacraments (including marriage) to their congregates for nearly any reason they see fit.

Some won't allow marriage based on occupation (priest).

Some won't marry a couple because one or both people have not been deemed to be a member of the church in good standing.  

Some won't marry interracial couples.  Some won't marry disabled couples.   Some won't let an individual partake in other sacraments or honors of the church for similar reasons.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2008)

Ceicei said:


> That said, I can see how the various religious organizations are worried that once the government allows same-sex marriages, how long will it be before the government may mandate that any religion cannot discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples? It is the function of most religions to define what is good and evil. Many people want, and need, the boundaries that define what is good and evil, or what is and is not. The government is supposed to be neutral. That is why America is built upon the premise this nation does not have a government-sponsored religion.
> 
> I think many religions do not trust the government to say that this governmental interference with religious practices will never happen.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
A little perspective for both sides of what you (and Carol-Hi, Carol!) have posted.

My Dad was an Episcopal priest-over the 23 or 24 years I can recall observing him at work, he refused to marry quite a few couples, for a variety of reasons-it was his perogative. 

Catholics were even more selective when I was a kid-forget about interfaith marriages,or interracial ones, or sometimes ones where the bride to be was pregnant.

And, not to belabor a sore point or anything, but, for years your religion (Ceicei) denied people sacraments based upon the color of their skin, right into the  late 70's. The flip side of this is that while there was no government mandate for this to change, there is some (anecdotal) evidence that government pressure  led to the revelation that made that change.

Additionally, we've seen in Canada that leaders of faith communities have been cited for "hate speech" for speaking against "gay lifestyles." While the laws that led to this haven't become law here in the U.S., this is an understandable fear, as is the  possibility (likelihood?) of the subject coming up in elementary school-at the very least because it becomes more prevalent, and something children are exposed to by other children, if not because it's being taught  about in one way or another in school. 

Lastly, and mostly for Carol (Hi, Carol!) I'll point out that the U.S. government almost whollly controls, or tries to control, who can practice American Indian religion, and those who practice it-that it is illegal in several  (most)  states for most of you to participate in ceremonies that I participate in on  a regular basis. That  I , and many others, are required to have appropriate paperwork to possess the instruments and sacraments  for someof those ceremonies, in some cases licenses from the federal government, and in some of those cases we're expected to actually be _rationed_ those instruments by the federal government. That a number of those rituals were illegal even for Indians, by federal law, for a very long time-right into my lifetime, and some of them, in some places, still are.

Fear of government control of religion is no less a legitimate fear than that of losing gun rights, or the right to due process, or unreasonable search and seizure, or the loss of free speech......we  really don't have to worry about it, though-at least, not until we've started to lose those, right?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

The flip side of the whole "religious concern oer gay marriage," is that some churches are moving towards some sort of rite or blessing for gay unions. The Episcopal dioscese in California, for instance, as well as several individual churches in a variety of denominations across the country. 

How long is it before these unions take place, and the couples involved sue the state for not recognizing their marriage, and violating _their_ right to freedom of religion?


----------

