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?

[4gold]

heh, You must live in a different USA than I do. More like a constitutional dictatorship.

I have no desire to convince the rest of the country I am right, I just want them to quit prying into other peoples lives and let them make their choices for themselves. Even if that includes barren gay loveless mariages of roomates.

Which means that you have a desire to convince the rest of the country you are right.

Considering your view that the USA is a constitutional dictatorship (was that said seriously or tongue-in-cheek?), I have a feeling that we share almost no premises on which to base an argument.

[McCulloch]

Why is a gay marriage license better than a common law gay marriage?

It is not.
Why should heterosexual couples be granted a different set of legal options than same sex couples?

[4gold]

It is not. Why should heterosexual couples be granted a different set of legal options than same sex couples?

Hmmmm. Maybe we have common ground after all!

Under my system, heterosexual couples would be afforded the same legal options as same-sex couples. Both would be able to lay claim to property in common, neither get a tax benefit or penalty, and the state stays out of both affairs.

The only difference is that under my system, the relationships would not be called marriage. It would fall under common law.

Semantics? Perhaps. I don't know why I am so adamant about refusing the semantics of a definition of marriage that can include such absurd relationships as roommates or loveless friendships, but I am. I feel that we pervert the definition of marriage beyond what it really means.

[McCulloch]

I feel that we pervert the definition of marriage beyond what it really means.

I feel that it means whatever we (collectively) decide it means.

[Confused]

It is not. Why should heterosexual couples be granted a different set of legal options than same sex couples?

Hmmmm. Maybe we have common ground after all!

Under my system, heterosexual couples would be afforded the same legal options as same-sex couples. Both would be able to lay claim to property in common, neither get a tax benefit or penalty, and the state stays out of both affairs.

The only difference is that under my system, the relationships would not be called marriage. It would fall under common law.

Semantics? Perhaps. I don't know why I am so adamant about refusing the semantics of a definition of marriage that can include such absurd relationships as roommates or loveless friendships, but I am. I feel that we pervert the definition of marriage beyond what it really means.

The concept of marriage was perverted long before the issue of same sex marriages came along. Until recently, the concept of marriage was nothing of what you have given examples of. It has always been a civil union and always will. It has either been motivated by power, politics, or necessity (pregnancy). The use of love being grounds for it is an relatively new concept and despite how much you wish to deny history, it remains history.

[4gold]

The concept of marriage was perverted long before the issue of same sex marriages came along. Until recently, the concept of marriage was nothing of what you have given examples of. It has always been a civil union and always will. It has either been motivated by power, politics, or necessity (pregnancy). The use of love being grounds for it is an relatively new concept and despite how much you wish to deny history, it remains history.

But this question was directed toward Christians in a debating-Christians forum. The definition of marriage in the history of the Christian church has always involved love as part of the equation. I gave the examples of the Byzantine and Hellenistic cultures of the first century CE.

I realize that other cultures, and even Christianity, have had forced marriages, political marriages, and bounty marriages. I do not deny this, but you cannot tell me there has ever been a time in the Christian church's history where love has not been part of the equation. Has this definition been perverted by the church and kings and skewed for power, politics, and money? Yes! I can find examples of Christian kings selling their daughters to a rival king for lands. But for as long as the history of the Christian church has existed, love has been part of the definition of marriage. Remember, the Christian church did not interfere with marriages until approx. 10th century CE.

I can give you examples of how the Christian marriages have evolved over the centuries from the book "The History and Philosophy of Marriage":

The first Christians, while they were themselves scarcely tolerated, were not inclined to attempt a social revolution by opposing the established system of monogamy; but they attempted to oppose only its vices, and to remove them. They insisted, from the first, upon purity and chastity in men and women equally. They denounced prostitution, adultery, and frequent and capricious divorces, and did what they could to eradicate their practice. But before they attained any degree of civil or religious freedom, or were in any situation to introduce the purer system of polygamy, they had themselves become thoroughly Romanized.

Christianity was not fully tolerated in Europe till the time of the Emperor Constantine the Great, in the former part of the fourth century; and was not established by law as the religion of Rome, till the reign of Theodosius, in the very last part of that century.

At the council of Caesarea, A.D. 314, it was decided and decreed, in the first canon, that, if a priest should marry after his ordination, he must be deposed from office. The seventh canon forbids a priest to be present at the marriage of a bigamist.

At the first council of Carthage, A.D. 348, by the second canon, it was ordered that all Christians who had violated their vows of virginity by subsequent marriages should be excommunicated; and, if they were priests, they should be deposed from office. Siricius, Bishop of Rome, in 385 ordered that every priest and every deacon within his diocese who should marry a second wife, or a widow, should be deposed from office.

At the council of Toledo, in A.D. 400, it was ordered, by canon seventeenth, that every Christian that had both a wife and a concubine should be excommunicated; but he should not be excommunicated who had only a concubine without a wife. At the fourth council of Carthage, A.D. 401, it was ordered, by canon seventieth, that all bishops, priests, and deacons, who had wives, must repudiate them, and live in celibacy, under penalty of deposition from office.

As you know, the early Christian church was predominantly Byzantine or Hellentistic. So I pulled this quote from "Classical Greece and the Hellenistic World":

Greek marriages were arranged by the patriarchal household head, and husbands could divorce their wives at will. Women were restricted to certain portions of the household. Other cultural divisions were also based on social status.

And this quote from the Encyclopedia:

(Otto) negotiated unsuccessfully with the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Phocas (913?69) for an alliance between the Byzantine and Holy Roman empires, but was able to arrange a marriage between his son Otto II and Theophano (955?91), daughter of the Byzantine emperor Romanus II (93963).

As J.H. Erickson points out in "The Challenge of Our Past", pp. 46-47, the ecclesiastic blessing of a marriage only became a canonical requirement in the tenth century. As Erickson points out on page 48, this canonical requirement changed marriage from "the capacity and commitment of the couple themselves" to a "required form".

You can see that the definition of marriage has changed throughout the centuries of the Christian church. But at no time during that history were "the capacity and commitment of the couple themselves" not a part of the definition.

[4gold]

I feel that it means whatever we (collectively) decide it means.

Exactly! And since this is a political forum and in our two countries, the definitions are decided by the majorities, I want to try and persuade people that my definition of marriage is best: marriage is the capacity and commitment of a man and woman to love each other. I realize that you are trying to persuade people to your definition: marriage is the intent and consent of any two adults for any purpose.

[McCulloch]

I feel that it means whatever we (collectively) decide it means.

Exactly! And since this is a political forum and in our two countries, the definitions are decided by the majorities, I want to try and persuade people that my definition of marriage is best: marriage is the capacity and commitment of a man and woman to love each other. I realize that you are trying to persuade people to your definition: marriage is the intent and consent of any two adults for any purpose.

But in our two countries the definitions are not decided absolutely by the the majorities. We both have constitutional provisions to avoid the tyranny of the majority. These provisions protect certain rights held by those in the minority. In fact, in my country, it was the courts interpreting the protection of minority rights not the house representing the majority which brought the same-sex issue to the fore.

[4gold]

But in our two countries the definitions are not decided absolutely by the the majorities. We both have constitutional provisions to avoid the tyranny of the majority. These provisions protect certain rights held by those in the minority. In fact, in my country, it was the courts interpreting the protection of minority rights not the house representing the majority which brought the same-sex issue to the fore.

I am not as familiar with Canadian law, as I am with the United States. Under both your definition of marriage and my own, same sex and heterosexual couples receive equal rights under the law, so the point of the tyranny of the majority is kind of moot.

Is there something within Canadian law that is not within US law that would make the Courts decide the definitions of marriage, while the US courts continue to leave the definition of marriage up to the legislatures (except in Massachusetts)?

[McCulloch]

Under both your definition of marriage and my own, same sex and heterosexual couples receive equal rights under the law, so the point of the tyranny of the majority is kind of moot.

Granted. But there is very little likelihood that your proposal would ever be adopted in either of our countries. There is a very real possibility that part of your proposed definition (marriage must be between two differently gendered people) without the other part (marriage has no meaning under law).

Is there something within Canadian law that is not within US law that would make the Courts decide the definitions of marriage, while the US courts continue to leave the definition of marriage up to the legislatures (except in Massachusetts)?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bit different than the US Bill of Rights. For instance we constitutionally protect against discrimination "based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." The US bill of rights does not protect against discrimination based on sex (other than in voting XIX). Still waiting for the ERA ...

Our courts have ruled, that provisions in law that limit the definition of marriage based on the gender of the partners violates the provision of the equality under the law without discrimination [...] based on sex. Since the US constitution has no such protection, the US courts have not the opportunity to rule this way.