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?

[Cephus]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

[Confused]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

Which once again brings the issue back to the fact that marriage is a civil union, monitored by the government (state), not the church. So gay marriage shouldn't be an issue against religion per se. Yes, the bible notes marriage as an institution in Gods eyes, but we have separation of church and state. Just as a preist can't be compelled to testify about a confession made to him because the state has no rights to interfere, the state should have the right to acknowledge same sex marriages because religion has no grounds to interfere. It boils down to politicians to afraid to tick off one section over the other because of elections, donations, and support. That is sad.

[Goat]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

That is what makes marriage a political institution to a large degree.

Personally, I think all 'licences' should be made civil unions, and then let each couple find the church they want to get married in, or not. Let 'civil unions' be the area for government, and marriage be religious.

[Confused]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

That is what makes marriage a political institution to a large degree.

Personally, I think all 'licences' should be made civil unions, and then let each couple find the church they want to get married in, or not. Let 'civil unions' be the area for government, and marriage be religious.

Thats just it. They already are. You must get a license to get married-hence civil union. Now a justice of the peace can perform the ceremony or a preacher can. But there is no religious requirement involved in marriage currently. So why the issue? Why are politicians in a constant state of turmoil about this. Because they don't want to tick off the religious sects and lose their support. Pathetic as it may be, it is true. I just don't understand the grounds any religious organization has to stand on to oppose same sex marriages.

[Cephus]

Which once again brings the issue back to the fact that marriage is a civil union, monitored by the government (state), not the church. So gay marriage shouldn't be an issue against religion per se. Yes, the bible notes marriage as an institution in Gods eyes, but we have separation of church and state. Just as a preist can't be compelled to testify about a confession made to him because the state has no rights to interfere, the state should have the right to acknowledge same sex marriages because religion has no grounds to interfere. It boils down to politicians to afraid to tick off one section over the other because of elections, donations, and support. That is sad.

That's exactly what I've always said, marriage is a purely civil institution. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you have that piece of paper from the state. Church weddings mean nothing, they're just for show. That means that religion should have absolutely no say whatsoever in gay marriage, it's none of their damn business. They're certainly welcome not to let gay couples walk down their aisles, that's their right, but when it comes to the legal, civil institution of marriage, what they think God wants means less than nothing.

[Goat]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

That is what makes marriage a political institution to a large degree.

Personally, I think all 'licences' should be made civil unions, and then let each couple find the church they want to get married in, or not. Let 'civil unions' be the area for government, and marriage be religious.

Thats just it. They already are. You must get a license to get married-hence civil union. Now a justice of the peace can perform the ceremony or a preacher can. But there is no religious requirement involved in marriage currently. So why the issue? Why are politicians in a constant state of turmoil about this. Because they don't want to tick off the religious sects and lose their support. Pathetic as it may be, it is true. I just don't understand the grounds any religious organization has to stand on to oppose same sex marriages.

You see, it's the langugage. The people who are religious are concerned that calling gay unions 'marriage' would ruin the sancitty of their marriage. For many
it will run the sancintiy fo their first marriage than ended in divorce, their second marraige that also ended in divorce, and it would destroy the sanctity of Britney Spears 55 hour marriage.

[Confused]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

That is what makes marriage a political institution to a large degree.

Personally, I think all 'licences' should be made civil unions, and then let each couple find the church they want to get married in, or not. Let 'civil unions' be the area for government, and marriage be religious.

Thats just it. They already are. You must get a license to get married-hence civil union. Now a justice of the peace can perform the ceremony or a preacher can. But there is no religious requirement involved in marriage currently. So why the issue? Why are politicians in a constant state of turmoil about this. Because they don't want to tick off the religious sects and lose their support. Pathetic as it may be, it is true. I just don't understand the grounds any religious organization has to stand on to oppose same sex marriages.

You see, it's the langugage. The people who are religious are concerned that calling gay unions 'marriage' would ruin the sancitty of their marriage. For many
it will run the sancintiy fo their first marriage than ended in divorce, their second marraige that also ended in divorce, and it would destroy the sanctity of Britney Spears 55 hour marriage.

An all powerful organization nitpicking over a word????? Shouldn't they spend more time figuring out how to get the pope out of the mess he made of the Islamic nation???????

[Goat]

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.

True, but had they been married, that couldn't have happened, property rights default to the spouse in the event of no will. Just living together means nothing, as gays find out far too often.

That is what makes marriage a political institution to a large degree.

Personally, I think all 'licences' should be made civil unions, and then let each couple find the church they want to get married in, or not. Let 'civil unions' be the area for government, and marriage be religious.

Thats just it. They already are. You must get a license to get married-hence civil union. Now a justice of the peace can perform the ceremony or a preacher can. But there is no religious requirement involved in marriage currently. So why the issue? Why are politicians in a constant state of turmoil about this. Because they don't want to tick off the religious sects and lose their support. Pathetic as it may be, it is true. I just don't understand the grounds any religious organization has to stand on to oppose same sex marriages.

You see, it's the langugage. The people who are religious are concerned that calling gay unions 'marriage' would ruin the sancitty of their marriage. For many
it will run the sancintiy fo their first marriage than ended in divorce, their second marraige that also ended in divorce, and it would destroy the sanctity of Britney Spears 55 hour marriage.

An all powerful organization nitpicking over a word????? Shouldn't they spend more time figuring out how to get the pope out of the mess he made of the Islamic nation???????

Oh, it is not just the Catholics.. it is a lot of varous Christian sects.

Me, I don't understand it. I don't see how two gays getting married is going to have any effect on any marriage I have. Like Whoppie Goldberg said, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay.

I have noticed that a number of the more vocal opponents of Gay marriage have been divorced a number of times. One issue they brought up is the 'sanctity of marriage'.

Me, I wonder if they were worried about the sanctity of marriage, why did they get divorced (or remarried) to begin with.

[Confused]

The sanctity of marriage never truly existed. It's nothing more than a myth. I don't discount that when someone marries, they truly think they are in love, then serotonin comes along and makes the mundane the norm until dopamine and norepirnephrine come along and rebel against the mundane and there the tension starts, this is usually when the relationship begins to fail and while some resolve the tension, others dont. Marriage has no sanctity. It is just a word. The relationship is the most important factor. It is there that sanctity is formed and lasts.