BobC: Why hasn’t anyone raised the issue of separation of church and state with regard to marriage. Marriage in every culture has been a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony. The state has recognized the importance of the family as the foundation for society, and thus has supported this religious institution. However, by going beyond civil unions, which can be a state mechanism for defining the contractual relationship between individuals with defined “rights,” and redefining the religious institution of marriage, the state is intruding on religion. We need to protect religion from incursions by the state.
mari: BobC, they refuse to acknowlege the separation of church and state because it’s an inconvenient reminder that appropriating the term “marriage” is a violation of religious liberty, our first amendment. Also, the religious have a clearly stated right to freely express their religious beliefs, that means they have a right to defend them from the state violating their protections.
42 comments
The state doesn't give a fuck if the church recognizes the marriage.
The concept of marriage (or a union, at least) came way before religion did.
You're right, the state should get out of marriage. No joint filings on taxes, no kinship rights, and so forth.
If civil unions were never an issue, then why did several states reject those as well? Gee I don't know, maybe ignorant fcuking bigotry?
Further, marriages have always been a social and cultural institution (religion was attached as religious authorities became the social authorities as well).
Besides all the other things that wrong in this, this doesn't work even if it IS a religious issue.
They seem to fail to consider that a hell of a lot of priests and other religious figures DO want to marry gay couples. Sure, it might not be the majority, but these people are still trying to infringe their religious freedom by saying that they aren't allowed to just because some other religious people say that it isn't right.
I am certain that it again was the exact same thing with interracial marriage. Some priests were against it, some were for it. The ones against it shouldn't have the power to say what the ones who are for it are allowed to do.
Marriage is no longer a solely religious rite and it stopped being one once the state granted benefits for them. There may be a religious ceremony involved MOST of the time, but legal marriage is just a contract, and it no longer has anything to do with that ceremony, except that some people can optionally have it with the contract as part of a package deal. The term "civil unions" is not synonymous with this form of marriage, though your description of what civil unions are matches up with it.
This is not a church and state issue. If that is a reason why you oppose it, then I think that gay marriage proponents need to make that clear.
Er, historically, marriage has never been a religious institution. Rather, it is a social institution, binding two families together, and insuring that property and wealth would remain within the family, or to secure political alliances. You fail at history.
So if there was a religion that accepted gays, you'd be happy for them to get married? Same as you're happy with your religious definition for marriage covering Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
And what about the non-religious who get married in registry offices? I don't see you campaigning against them.
Why hasn’t anyone raised the issue of separation of church and state with regard to marriage. Marriage in every culture has been a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony.
When you need to enforce or protect your marital rights, do you go to a church or a courthouse?
"Why hasn’t anyone raised the issue of separation of church and state with regard to marriage. Marriage in every culture has been a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony."
Good point. In the US marriage is a civil contract not a religious ceremony so fundie witch doctors should not have any say in marriage law.
Idiots. Marriage existed long before the Bible or Christianity. It is a civil state. The religious state is another matter entirely.
The civil state applies legal requirements on the couple getting married. The church wedding applies religious considerations set forth as vows.
So there are two competely separate issues here. Have your religious ceremony by all means. But don't interfere in the state's role for regulating who gets married and what that may mean.
In most European countries these two elements are completely separate and usually take place on diffent days. Here in France one is married in the local Mairie (town hall) by the Maire (Mayor) and then the religious wedding takes place later on - sometimes days later - in a church.
What is so difficult about making this very simple distinction in the American mind?
Besides, it's great having two parties!
"Why hasn’t anyone raised the issue of separation of church and state with regard to marriage."
Excellent point my man, I've been wondering that myself. Oh wait, you're arguing ... AGAINST gay marriage ??
"It is good for a man not to marry. But, since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband"
I Corinthians, 7:1-2, NIV
So, according to Paul (the true founder of fundamentalist thought), marriage is nothing more than a concession to weakness. It seems then that the ones who are truly anti-marriage are you and your ilk.
"Marriage in every culture has been a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony."
LIAR
You're a total liar and YOU know it
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.