Marital Politics

[jcrawford]

Marriage rights are a hot political topic these days. Many sexual, religious and political issues are involved and the topic ought to make for a wide-ranging discussion and debate on such life and death issues as reproductive rights, sexual relations, child-rearing, financial obligations and other legal responsibilites, plus a host of other topic-related subjects which any poster may wish to introduce.

The feminist Kate Millet wrote a book several decades ago called "Sexual Politics." Hopefully we may generate enough information, data, personal POV's, opinions and comments in this thread to provide text for a new book called "Marital Politics."

I know that's a tall order, but if we put our minds to it, I know we can do it. Whether any of us would want the book published or whether it gets edited not will not be up to any of us, since everything we post here is already the published property of our generous website host, "Debating Christianity."

To get the first chapter of our book started then, the first question will be;

What rights do men or women have in marriage or to get married at all?

[juliod]

My view, as I've expressed in other threads, is to leave these decisions to the various religions that choose to officiate over marriage. Government, in my view, should get out of the marriage business. So then rights would not be relevant.

DanZ

[jcrawford]

My view, as I've expressed in other threads, is to leave these decisions to the various religions that choose to officiate over marriage. Government, in my view, should get out of the marriage business. So then rights would not be relevant.

DanZ

Wow, that is certainly an interesting POV. Do people have the right to get married without government interference in their business? Is marriage a business or a private affair? Doesn't the state have the right to regulate and define marriage or is it only a religious affair? Have you read any books on the history of marriage in England and the US before the American Revolution?

What is marriage, anyway?

[Chimp]

Juliod makes a good point...if you removed the economic/legal trappings
of marriage, you would be left with a religious/personal ritual.

It seems like the definition of marriage is currently in flux, but I would
suggest that an approximate definition would be an agreement between
two people to be companions legally recognized by the "state".

[Cephus]

My view, as I've expressed in other threads, is to leave these decisions to the various religions that choose to officiate over marriage. Government, in my view, should get out of the marriage business. So then rights would not be relevant.

Actually, I feel the opposite. Religion should get out of the marriage business, not that they've got much to do with it today. All religion can offer is a ceremony, it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually getting married. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that little slip of paper from the state.

[micatala]

One of the founding principles of the U.S. is that (paraphrased)

. . . all men are created equal, . . . are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights . . among these is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think most people would think of the right to get married to the person of their choice to definitely be part of 'pursuit of happiness.' As such, I think the state has no business in regulating who can form lifelong partnerships (or even shorter partnerships) whether you call these 'marriage' or not. The only caveat I would suggest would be that the people involved not impinge on the rights of others (including each other!) in forming their union, and that they take responsibility for the consequences of the union (children obviously being a big one).

The government's role would simply be to treat all unions fairly and equally with regards to whatever laws relate to these unions. Thus, if the government says Mary and Jack get a tax deduction as a 'married couple', so should Frank and Fred, or Cindy and Alicia, or Henrietta and her 8 husbands.

[jcrawford]

Juliod makes a good point...if you removed the economic/legal trappings of marriage, you would be left with a religious/personal ritual.

Would you recommend separation of marriage and state? Common law marriages not recognized by the state exist now but having no state license, the partners have no legal marital standing, marital obligations or marital rights in statute law. A lot of people obviously want state recognized marriages.

It seems like the definition of marriage is currently in flux, but I would suggest that an approximate definition would be an agreement between two people to be companions legally recognized by the "state".

Besides definitions of marriage, the terms, conditions, rights, responsibilities, rules and laws governing the marital relationship have to be established. For the sake of further discussion and debate I will advocate from the viewpoint of single men who want to marry and raise a family. My fiance and I are going to have a traditional religious wedding and traditional religious marriage in order to have a traditional religious family life according to our own parent's religious tradition. The clergy at our religious institution are pleased with our decision and are prepared to officiate at our wedding and pronounce us man and wife. They tell us however, that without a state marriage license, the marriage will only be a religious marriage and will neither be legally registered nor recognized in the state in which we live or in any other state in the Union.

If we get the state's license to marry, the clergy then acts as an agent of the state in officiating the marriage, and mails the marriage certificate back to the state, but the state does not now recognize the religious officiation of the marriage as having created or established a religious marriage. Instead it regards it's granting the license to marry, which has now been officiated by the clergy as a marriage certificate, as certifying, creating and establishing a secular or state marriage which is subject to all the matrimonial, rules, regulations and statutory laws governing marriage and the relationship of the two people in it.

Thus, there is no such thing as a legally established religious marriage in the US which may be legally governed by any religious vow, obligation, responsibility, rule or law which the state does not recognize as having a legal foundation. What should I do?

[jcrawford]

My view, as I've expressed in other threads, is to leave these decisions to the various religions that choose to officiate over marriage. Government, in my view, should get out of the marriage business. So then rights would not be relevant.

Actually, I feel the opposite. Religion should get out of the marriage business, not that they've got much to do with it today.

What if marriage is not a "business" though, but a family, social and/or religious institution? How, and by whom may it be regulated other than by those who are married in a particular society and by their community's religious beliefs?

All religion can offer is a ceremony, it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually getting married.

That may be regarded as a secular POV which regards religion itself as only ceremonial and that marriage is strictly a secular affair of the secular state instituted and arranged solely for the purpose of governing sexual relationships and children.

You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that little slip of paper from the state.

Not true. You can walk down the aisle of one church and get married and stay married for the rest of your life. Just because some secular state fails to recognize your church marriage, doesn't mean you are not married in your own eyes, the eyes of your church, your family and others who love you, and in the eyes of God.

[jcrawford]

One of the founding principles of the U.S. is that (paraphrased)

. . . all men are created equal, . . . are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights . . among these is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think most people would think of the right to get married to the person of their choice to definitely be part of 'pursuit of happiness.' As such, I think the state has no business in regulating who can form lifelong partnerships (or even shorter partnerships) whether you call these 'marriage' or not. The only caveat I would suggest would be that the people involved not impinge on the rights of others (including each other!) in forming their union, and that they take responsibility for the consequences of the union (children obviously being a big one).

Without the state to guarantee the legal rights of all concerned though, your caveat may fall on many deaf ears even if it is well-intended. If irresponsible, negligent or destructive individuals in personal relationships, sexual partnerships and marriages don't need to be regulated by society, why should society be regulated at all? Sounds rather libertarian to me.

The government's role would simply be to treat all unions fairly and equally with regards to whatever laws relate to these unions. Thus, if the government says Mary and Jack get a tax deduction as a 'married couple', so should Frank and Fred, or Cindy and Alicia, or Henrietta and her 8 husbands.

Why should the taxpayers vote to give Henrietta and her 8 husbands tax breaks in a democratic society?

[Cephus]

What if marriage is not a "business" though, but a family, social and/or religious institution? How, and by whom may it be regulated other than by those who are married in a particular society and by their community's religious beliefs?

Currently, it is regulated solely by the government. No church can stop you from getting married, nor can any church confer social, economic or legal marriage status to anyone who walks down the aisle. Seems pretty clear to me that your way of thinking lost.

Not true. You can walk down the aisle of one church and get married and stay married for the rest of your life. Just because some secular state fails to recognize your church marriage, doesn't mean you are not married in your own eyes, the eyes of your church, your family and others who love you, and in the eyes of God.

You can walk down the aisle with a chicken and claim you're married, doesn't make it so. Just because you manage to delude others into thinking that your religious commitment is important doesn't mean a damn thing in the eyes of society or the law.