i'm wondering..........
yes, it is interesting how "marriage" became the de-facto commonly accepted term to describe what we "confuse" it to be today......that of ......being a civil &/or religious union..........hmmm.....
don't suppose ~ we could promote to the states...........and unity08:
essentially, equal billing...sorta speak.
of course there is/are the contentious issues of "divorce" ........a civil (state) matter...only ?
( another variation on separation of church vs state theme....)
lnk ~ separation of church & state forum
essentially, equal billing...sorta speak....(my preference)
Divorce, which is the termination of a civil contract, would be recorded and administered by the State, just like a bankruptcy or going out of business. If individuals for reasons of their own feel like they need a more formal (or ritualized)act of divorce, then they could take this to their spiritual community.
We may have to come up with a new word for 'civil divorce' so as not to offend: an official divorce (a la The State) would be legally binding, whereas a church-sanctioned 'divorce' would not necessarily be without the accompanying 'public act'. Official divorces would be legally binding whether or not an ecclesiastical authority recognized them. God, of course, would not have to accept this, but that would be between God and the divorced.
We may be on to something here.
JR
I have a solution, Let's Vote.
How about the Gay Militant Atheists STOP attempting to force society to recognize what is clearly UNNATURAL through the Court System?
Their proclivities violate both natural law and biological law.
Let's decide this the American way!!!
Let's Vote.
In 2024, how about EACH and EVERY state vote on this?
Certainly the redefinition crowd isn't afraid of voting on this issue.....Are you?
Even in Massachusetts this would fail, wouldn't it?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
What crowd are you running with?
I've met lots of gay people, lots of atheists, and a few gay atheists.
I have never met a gay MILITANT atheist.
Browncoats Unite!
Personally, I believe that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. However, I (and you) have no business defining (or redefining) marriage: it is up to each individual and his/her religious/cultural institutions to define what marriage means. Government should support a broad notion of civil union that applies equal treatment to all forms of civil partnership. Leave the notion of "marriage" to individuals and churches. In my opinion, this is the only way to achieve unity on this issue.
I (and you) have no business defining (or redefining) marriage
It is one of the basic societal term in the English language and culture for the last 1.5 - 2 thousand years. Can you let English language to define what word "marriage" means for King Arthur, William Shakespeare, Thomas Pitt, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and both Roosevelts?
To all real and remotely possible legislators in USA marriage always meant union between one adult man and one adult woman.
it is up to each individual and his/her religious/cultural institutions to define what marriage means.
Sharia defines marriage as one man and multiple women? Is it OK with you to practice such marriages by US citizens? Even more, same Sharia allows marriages between adult man and 6 year old girl (Prophet Muhammad had such wife). You do not have any problem with that girl being practically sold for sexual slavery, do you? How about group of N men and M women being married? Any objections to marriage between a man and his donkey? How about marriage between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister?
It is one of the basic societal term in the English language and culture for the last 1.5 - 2 thousand years. Can you let English language to define what word "marriage" means for King Arthur, William Shakespeare, Thomas Pitt, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and both Roosevelts?
To all real and remotely possible legislators in USA marriage always meant union between one adult man and one adult woman.
That's because sometime around 320 AD "church" got mixed up with "state" and right down to this day we're still dealing with the repercussions of that mistake. It's time to separate the two again rather than continuing to argue that "this is the way we've always done it." There's a civil contract that we call "marriage" that is really just about two individuals agreeing to share their resources in a formal way over an indefinite period of time. And then there's the religious institution called "marriage" that has its own definitions and conditions set down by God or Allah or whomever. Someone else suggested that we need two different names for these relationships, and I'd agree: using "marriage" for both just confuses the issues and makes the conversation too difficult for anyone to move forward.
it is up to each individual and his/her religious/cultural institutions to define what marriage means.
Sharia defines marriage as one man and multiple women? Is it OK with you to practice such marriages by US citizens? Even more, same Sharia allows marriages between adult man and 6 year old girl (Prophet Muhammad had such wife). You do not have any problem with that girl being practically sold for sexual slavery, do you? How about group of N men and M women being married? Any objections to marriage between a man and his donkey? How about marriage between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister?
Marriage in the civil sense is about a contract between two people. There's no reason why a civil marriage law cannot specify a minimum age, so that eliminates any problem with minors. There are also excellent public health reasons to prohibit brother/sister or other close-relative marriages, so that can be done too. If society doesn't like the idea of N men and M women in a "marriage" there's no reason that this particular civil contract can't be defined as between two individuals only and limited so that no one can have more than one of these contracts in place at any given time. I don't see any particular reason to limit the contract beyond that: what's the difference if it's formed by two consenting of-age women or one man and one woman? As someone else commented, it's up to the individual to get the relationship blessed by a religious institution -- or not. But in terms of the civil concept of creating a one-to-one agreement to share resources indefinitely, why should anyone care beyond the fact that both individuals are of-age adults of sound mind? In fact sex may or may not even be involved: there are other good reasons for a civil marriage that wouldn't violate anyone's church mores or require a blessing from a church. And I can even envision some situations (perhaps a widow and widower with independent means of support) where two people may want to marry in their church but not create the civil union.
As far as Sharia or the Book or Mormon or any other religious text that allows sex with 6 year olds or whatever, the court out in Colorado last week convicted Warren Jeffs for acting on religious law outside of civil law, so we have the answer: when permissions given for certain acts by religious law go outside the bounds of our civil law, they will not be permitted.
Uh, oh, I think I'm on some dangerous ground here....I'm going to go hide in my cave before the civil libertarians come roaring out to grab me :-) Seriously though, this is one of those points where we are brought face to face with the reality that church and state are not completely separate in our society. Sooner or later we find ourselves with State infringing on Church (as in the Jeffs decision) and sometimes with Church infringing on State (as in legal proceedings that require a definition of when life begins). Our challenge is not to make these arenas all purely defined, but to ensure a balance. That's what the Founding Fathers were all about: they aimed to ensure that the State would not be able to impose any particular religion upon the citizens, but they acknowledged fairly explicitly that Biblical principles (the 10 commandments in particular) were at the foundation of the law. And whenever we fail to acknowledge either impulse in our Constitution, we should know that we're headed for trouble.
Cindy
That's because sometime around 320 AD "church" got mixed up with "state"
It goes earlier than that time. Romans have the same definition of marriage and even so beloved by gomosexuals Greeks did not call widely spread homosexual unions marriages. For Greeks marriage was also reserved for adult man and adult woman.
Someone else suggested that we need two different names for these relationships, and I'd agree: using "marriage" for both just confuses the issues and makes the conversation too difficult for anyone to move forward.
Yes, yes, yes. Invent the new name for civil unions and set any rules legislator will find appropriate for them. And watch for "civil unions" not to conytradict other important laws and principals (health concerns, gender equality, human rights and protection of minors).
I have an immediate, simple, solution. Get the state out of the marriage business. If two people wish to arrange some contract or other, that is their affair. Marriage, by definition, is a religious action, and is seperated from our secular gov't.
If it weren't for the special priviledges offered to marriages, there would be no discussion. Eliminate the priviledges. They are not fair anyway.
Marriage generaly assume sexual relations. Some cultures allow marriage and threfore sex with minors. I think, it is everybody business and government has to step in and treat it as rape.
Of course. Pedophelia is a civil matter.