I support Marraige between man and woman (sic)

Okay, honest question and not just a hornet's nest poke. What about two people, one man and one woman, who want to be married that are atheist? If there is no civil or state sanctioned union, how would that work. It's still one man and one woman so no theological/religious/moral impediment.

If they don't recognize the "authority" of the clergy, are they banned from getting married, hitched, unionized (heh...see what I did there?) or what have you?

How about the civil "common law marriage" which varies from state to state? No clergy needed and to the best of my limited knowledge, no "license" needed either. Where does that fall?

I have an issue with the government at any level granting a "license" to a union, of any kind. Not their place. How else, though, do you formally recognize anything but a church service marriage since not everyone is going to be wed that way?

Just curious.

 

I agree 100%

I am the son of a Fire n Brimstone,pulpit pounding,tie loosin can I git an Amen preacher.
I will never be shaken from my core beliefs, but having been all around this blue marble I've come to see many things that have changed my points of view.

I have typed,erased,retyped this post several times now and still can't seem to find the proper words to convey my thoughts other than this simple-minded statement:

If a person wishes THEIR rights to be observed, they must be willing to respect the rights of others-no matter if those rights differ from one's own. In this case it is not MY business, nor is it the .gov's what happens in ANYBODY'S bedroom/home between two-or more consenting adults. The majority of this country's current problems can be traced back to one group or another "knowing what's best for the country" and THAT Ladies and Gents is a earthen container of excrement that is offensive to the olfactory senses..

My

 

Darklight... I don't have a good answer for either yours or BTPost's questions...

Heck I don't have a good answer for anything just viewpoints.

I do know you are not 'legally ' married without that paper. Without the 'legal' paper today you have no rights in the say so of your spouse or children... And common law marriages are difficult to prove. It can be done but is difficult.

 

How many queers does it take to screw in a lighbulb? Where'd the joke go?

 

I am not sure where you are stating that you disagree with what I stated...except possibly including "God" in the equation outside of the religious ceremony factor. I find most believers communicate with their particular god through the framework of their church, it's ministers and it's ceremony...so it would seem that the god was included. I am also pretty sure that I differentiated between that and the possible public interest in enforcing the civil marital contract via the court.

As the system now exists, they are the same. My post was an explanation of why I feel they should NOT be the same...in that the government should have no regulatory power, but neither should a particular belief system have power to regulate who another church might marry. Getting the government out of the picture also includes elimination of government sponsorship of the institution through special benefits for married couples.

I am not sure who you are talking to B...but I will answer.

It would be (and is) exactly the same to me as for 2 men, 2 women and any number and mixture that should choose to come together...these are the kind of regulation that needs to be eliminated by eliminating the base idea that there is a public interest in who marries whom.

Two words...contractual law.

 

@PaxMentis - Okay, I understand the concept of contractual law, I really do. My question as above stems from that second word...law. Laid down by whom? The government. If there's no license, okay, but the .gov is still involved.

Are we splitting hairs at this point? Perhaps. It's not a marriage at that point though. Are you saying that the only marriages that can exist are those done in a church, by clergy, for their members? If so, I kind of have a problem with that. One thing that I have always said and assumed was fact, was that the word marriage has been around for a lot longer than it actually has. I spent some time after my last post (the questions) looking up the history of the word marriage. It's interesting to note that I can find no reference to the word during the time the Bible was written but instead only after it was translated...repeatedly. The word "marriage" didn't even exist (etymologically) until until about 1300 (arguments put it between 1287 and 1294-5). That isn't to say that the concept didn't exist prior to that but people who get bent out of shape about using the word (including myself in the past...like really recent past...like up until about a half an hour ago) are presenting a straw man argument.

Conceptually, the biblical "act" of cleaving unto another, etc (no, not making light, just not going to post all of the references) has obviously been around, but it didn't start with the teachings of Jesus Christ either, or even the God of the Old Testament. It was around before then too. I bring this up because the whole secular vs. religious argument has, for me, broken down. That's a hard pill for me to swallow. Do I personally believe in 1 man 1 woman? I don't know but mostly I've gotten to the point of not caring. Now, with the word only being about 700 years old, I'm having a hard time making the same argument I used to. What does that have to do with secular, contractual law? Well, everything.

I'll go back to my original question and flesh it out a little. If marriage is only for religious acts but there is a secular equivalent that is bound by LAW, they aren't the same thing, they just aren't. Contractual LAW. The gov is back in bed with you and your relationship. Is it not in bed with you due to a religious marriage? If it is, then it's not just a religious act and has a legal component.

Now again, if anyone can do it because we don't require a "license" to get married any more, okay. Sign the contract so that there are responsibilities between the signatories. Got it, really don't actually have a problem with it. Do we still require someone who has gotten a religious, ceremonial "marriage" to sign the contract (no offense, but using the term here in a questionable sense, since it's only been around since 1300)? Do we then append each term (wedding, marriage, union) with secular and religious?

I know what I grew up thinking. I know what I was taught. I also know what I have seen, lived and experienced thought my life. Do I want to live in a non-heterosexual relationship or with more than one spouse? No, I do not. Do I really care about how someone else lives as long as it doesn't directly affect me? No, not anymore, I really don't.

What I do have a problem with in the long run is what others have mentioned and that's an agenda, anyone's agenda, being paraded in front of me with the expectation that they will receive my sanction. I don't care. But to that end I don't want to hear about it either. Realistically though, those that are the most vocal about it, on either side, are the minority but they make it so that the majority just don't want to hear it anymore. And yes, both sides do it. I'm sure homosexuals are tired of what some perceive as "parading our heterosexuality and being in their face" and there are those who actually do that, they go out of their way to be hetero and in your face about it. They make more of a deal out of something than needs to be done and it escalates and devolves and spirals out of control.

While I personally don't care, it kind of ends there. I don't care and since I don't care, I'm not going to invest any time, effort, energy or thought into the act of either changing my mind or sanctioning a lifestyle that I don't agree with, for whatever reason. Can I accept you as a person? Yes. Can I accept that you are in a relationship? Absolutely. Can I accept that it's what you think is right for you? Yeah. Can you and I and your significant other be friends? Sure. Can I give you my "blessing"? No. Can I accept that what you are doing is "morally" right? Nope. Can I see your point of view? No. Should a religion be forced to perform a ceremony that they are opposed to? No. Should you have the same rights, privileges and benefits in your partnership and relationship? Absofrikenlutely! You should get the "marriage penalty" come tax time just like the rest of us schmucks!

However. Will I openly or even in secret chastise you? No. Will I pray for your salvation? No, because it's not between you and I it's between you and God...if you even care. Will I try to change your mind? Absolutely not (the whole time, effort, energy, thought thing). Will I cross you off my Christmas Card list? Nah. Will I tell my children to avoid you and not allow them to hang around you? Not for the reasons above if I trust you...but if you're an a-hole because you're an a-hole then yes.

You're a "people" and with me, everyone starts not just at zero but with some credit. You have to work to lose that but man I tell you what, it's hard to gain it back once lost. Let me repeat what I've said before: I...don't...care. But do me the courtesy of not pushing something in my face that I haven't sought out and am not interested in, m'kay?

Is Marriage a religious institution? I think it's become that over time but it wasn't always, although the concept and institution were around long before the word. It's a word though, just a word. The word gay used to mean happy, now it means homosexual. A faggot was a bundle of sticks, now it's a vulgar slur. Prick used to mean to barely break the skin and draw blood. In a thousand years what will the word marriage mean?

I've gone on far too long and while I could bring up a number of other tangential issues, I won't. This started as a humorous thread that has kind of devolved and I'm sorry for being part of the problem.

 

I apologize for being so long winded and going on and on.

 

DL...say you have a business and you have a contract with your supplier. The government is not a party to the agreement, it does not specify what the agreement consists of nor does it regulate who can make a contract with whom. If one party believes the other party to the contract is not fulfilling their end, they can take that party before a "decider"...in this particular society, that is a civil court. Contractual law merely means the enforcement of an agreement made between informed parties.

With government out of the loop on marriages so to speak, a couple can choose a contractual agreement, a religious ceremony (through whatever religious body one might choose to officiate according to THEIR rules) or "merely" a private agreement between the parties based on trust and promises...or any combination of the above.

Whom are you imagining forcing some church to perform a ceremony involving those for whom they do not wish to perform with the government no longer regulating the practice?

I believe you are getting a bit too carried away into words. Words are symbols and we decide their meaning. My wife once ran across a sign that said something to the effect of "You say we cannot change the biblical meaning of marriage. Well..unless it is still possible to trade 2 goats and a donkey to your neighbor for his daughter, we already have changed the biblical definition".

If you mean by "pushing it in your face" by forcing you to take part I agree with you. If you mean 'Don't push it in your face" as "hide it from me so I don't know it's there" then it is up to you not to look if you don't wish to see. Without government regulation, nobody could force you to take part...actually they cannot now, but the laws that we have allowed to stand make it possible to run you out of business if you have a wedding related business and do not wish to serve all who are "marrying" according to regulation.

 

Pax... I reread your post and I see I missed your point my apologies...

 

I can tell you this, If I did not have to get as license to get married I wouldn't. What I am afraid of is MORE government intervention by declaring Marriage can be between any two consenting adults. If you make it law??? then you can sue anyone who refuses to marry you. It is for this reason Alone I would never support gay Marriage but will support them having the same rights under the civil side of it. Or;;;; they must have an exclusion to the law stating that Churches will not and can not be forced to perform weddings of gays. Every Christian I know is against the redefining of the word Marriage. We all can give a shit less if two gays want to have a legal union just dont lump them in with us. It really is about the definition of the word . WE DONT CARE WHAT THE STATE DOES. TYhey can issue licenses to people who want to marry cattle for All I care just don't call it marriage.

Broker really is right you know. If we took the law(state/government) out of marriage completely then there would be no problems. All the problems are related to laws passed or not passed regarding who can or cant engage in a union. I will stand with my Gods interpretation of the word that it is between one man and one woman. The State can marry whoever they want.

 

More concerning to me, is if the .gov can dissolve (as has been done with some states' civil unions, albeit temporarily) one type of marriage/union/whatever term you wish, what is to prevent it from legally dissolving the "typical" (one male, one female) marriages?
But I must admit it is quite low on my list of concerns...