Marriage-a political or religious institution

[Confused]

I was watching the new this morning (on MTV so bare with me) when it was announced that New Jersey would no longer ban same sex marriages. As I sat there watching all the religious groups picketing outside the courthouse it got me wondering. What is it that religious groups oppose with same sex marriage. Now before you go ballistic, hear me out. The current Brittanica definition of marriage includes the following:

Main Entry: mar-riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 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 marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross

Nowhere in this definition is their any mention of a religious rite. No religious leader is required to perform a marriage (a judge can) and no religous leader is required to negate a marriage. However, for a marriage to be legal, paperwork must be filed with the state. Therby negating the separation of church and state if the religious grounds for denying same sex marriage are based on religious reasons.

So my question for debate:

1) Do you oppose gay marriage because the term marriage is used and you consider that a religious term?

2) After your marriage, did you not file the proper forms for it to be recognized legally, thereby negating it being a religious union only.

3) Do you not feel that having to file papers with the state after the ceremony negates separation of church and state?

[Confused]

Well let's see, I've never been divorced, my wife's parents have never been divorced, my parents, before my father died, were never divorced. None of my grandparents were ever divorced, nor have my aunts and uncles or cousins. In fact, in my family at least, there's only one person who has ever been divorced.

I've never been divorced. Christian when wed, atheist now.
My parents were never divorced. Lapsed Christian.
My wife's parents were never divorced. Presbyterian.
My siblings have never been divorced. Two sisters and one brother. No Christians.
My wife's brother was never divorced. Atheist.
Of my aunts and uncles, 5 couples. One divorce. Methodist.
Of my wife's maternal aunts and uncles. 5 couples. Three divorces, Baptist, Salvation Army and Pentecostal. Two still together, liberal christian and Baptist.
Of my wife's paternal aunts and uncles. 7 couples no divorces. mostly lapsed or liberal christians.

Small and biased sample, but you get the picture.

Gee, so do I get to be part of your family to? I am beginning to feel special. My family:

Moms parents: married until death
Dads parents: divorced: twice each: all catholic
Mom and Dad: divorced: Mom-believe in God, but nothing specific, Dad-catholic-remarried two more times-both Catholic-both divorced-.
siblings from oldest to youngest:
Diane: 1st marriage: chrisitan: divorced: second marriage:Chrsitian:still married
Gigi: never been married: no belief either way
Maria: first marriage: still married: Christian when it makes her look good
Tom: Married once; divorced: Christian
Theresa: married twice: neither belief either way
John: married once: divorced: no belief either way
Jane: second marriage: neither belief either way
Tony: never married: no beleif either way.

Overall my family has no luck with relationships and minimal relationships with God in any way.

[Confused]

But either way, all my family views marriage as a political institution, not religious. Only my parents were married in a church and Maria was married in a monastery garden. Otherwise, everyone else was married in "romantic places" like the beach, cliffs, etc.... by someone other than clergy to perform the ceremony.

[Cephus]

But either way, all my family views marriage as a political institution, not religious. Only my parents were married in a church and Maria was married in a monastery garden. Otherwise, everyone else was married in "romantic places" like the beach, cliffs, etc.... by someone other than clergy to perform the ceremony.

That's because marriage *IS* a political institution, all the facts point to it, there is no way to justify marriage as a purely religious event. No one recognizes a purely religious marriage as valid. You need that piece of paper from the state, period.

[Confused]

But either way, all my family views marriage as a political institution, not religious. Only my parents were married in a church and Maria was married in a monastery garden. Otherwise, everyone else was married in "romantic places" like the beach, cliffs, etc.... by someone other than clergy to perform the ceremony.

That's because marriage *IS* a political institution, all the facts point to it, there is no way to justify marriage as a purely religious event. No one recognizes a purely religious marriage as valid. You need that piece of paper from the state, period.

So viewing it as a political institution, why do I still see the religious zealots picketing against gay marriages? I am trying to see where their logic is.

[micatala]

So viewing it as a political institution, why do I still see the religious zealots picketing against gay marriages? I am trying to see where their logic is.

Some of them don't accept that religious law should not be made into civil law. See topaz's comments for example in the Christian Tolerance thread on the apologetics forum. He consider's the law of Moses to be 'universal' which I am interpreting to mean it should apply to all.

Some would claim that if a majority feel that a religious teaching should become the law, then it is OK to make it a law 'democratically,' even if this law discriminates against non-theists and even if there is no non-religious justification for the law.

[Cephus]

So viewing it as a political institution, why do I still see the religious zealots picketing against gay marriages? I am trying to see where their logic is.

They're religious zealots, they have no logic. I thought that part was obvious. They operate on pure emotion and fanaticism. They don't think about what they believe, why would they think about anything else rationally?

I think you answered your own question.

[Vladd44]

Didnt you hear?

Mexicans and gays are the new N****Rs of the right?

It is about division and scare tactics.

Most christians dont know why they oppose gays, it is simply a kneejerk reaction to the unknown, and their unscrupulous "leaders" who jerk their chain to get a predictable reaction.

Two men or women getting married has nothing to do with the dynamics of what goes on in my home.

Nor would polygamy change it either.

[Cephus]

Most christians dont know why they oppose gays, it is simply a kneejerk reaction to the unknown, and their unscrupulous "leaders" who jerk their chain to get a predictable reaction.

Most Christians don't know why they believe anything they believe, they've just been conditioned to mindlessly follow whatever the guy in the pulpit says and get led around by the nose. If Christians would just stop to think about what they believe rationally, the world would be a much better place.

But if they did that, there would be a lot fewer Christians. And come to think of it, that would be a good thing too.

[Goat]

When asked why gay marriage was so threatening, one woman told me it would surely lead to polygamy. And that once we have polygamy, all hell will break loose.

Just to humor her, I looked it up and found there is a small segment of the population that would like to see polygamy legal. However I highly doubt gay marriage would open that door.

In Utah, they already have polygamy. It's not against the law , since only one of the
'marriages' is registered with the state.

I also find it amusing that so many of the most vocal people I have seen who worry about Gay marriage destroying the 'sancity' of marriage have been married two , three or even four times.

[Goat]

In the end, if you don't like a polygamous marriage, don't have one. But you have no right whatsoever to tell other legal consenting adults what they can and cannot do based on your personal preferences.

And if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one??