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?

[Goat]

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.

I would put it more precisely as marriage is an ECONOMIC institution.

[McCulloch]

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 'sanctity' of marriage have been married two , three or even four times.

In some Muslim countries, polygamy is also legal in certain circumstances. This leads to diplomatic difficulties when they seek to travel in or immigrate to Western countries. The Bible itself never outright condemns polygamy. Yet some of the opponents of same-sex marriage seem to behave as if homosexuality is a worse sin than polygamy.

[Cephus]

I would put it more precisely as marriage is an ECONOMIC institution.

Largely, but not entirely. There's more than financial rights guaranteed by marriage, there are also plenty of legal rights as well. The one thing that is not guaranteed by marriage at all are religious rights, which is the whole point.

Marriage is a secular institution, period.

[4gold]

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?

I am not married, so questions 2 and 3 do not apply to me.

I am opposed to gay marriage, so please let me explain why:

For the first ten centuries of the Christian church, there were no marriage ceremonies involving a priest or rabbi. The Byzantine and Hellenistic cultures did have marriage ceremonies, but the priests and rabbis were witnesses in the ceremony.

The only requirements for marriage were (1) the capacity and (2) the commitment of a man and woman to love each other. Once a man and woman left their parents to live with each other, and they embodied these two requirements, they were considered married. No marriage license. No priests. No blessing from the church. Only the man and woman themselves could determine whether or not they were still married. The church did declare certain people unmarried if the evidences were obvious: spousal abuse, adultery, etc. Outside obvious evidence, only the man and woman could get married or divorce, and it was only up to them. If the man and woman loved each other, that union was blessed by God, and that's all that mattered.

In the tenth century, the church began to bless marriages as holy and sacred. Somewhere between the 10th century and the 21st century, the state also began to bless marriages with a license.

Follow me here. What the church today calls "living in sin" is exactly what the early Christian church considered a blessed and sacred union. Can sins change based on culture? Or do sins always stay the same? Don't answer those questions. They're for a new topic. Just something to chew upon.

Anyways, I think that the Christian church has perverted the meaning of marriage. They have reduced it down to a form. I believe that marriage is the blessed union between a man and a woman who have the capacity and commitment to love each other. I think that each time we add another requirement to marriage, it perverts the original meaning of marriage...the sacred definition (to me). Marriage isn't about forms, or priests, or churches, or state. Marriage is about the capacity and commitment of a man and a woman to love each other. I realize that my definition does not conform to your definition from the dictionary, but if I used your definition, I could not adequately explain why I am opposed to gay marriage.

I realize this is a political thread, so let me tell you my political leanings on this issue: let's ban state marriage licenses altogether.

[McCulloch]

Let's ban state marriage licenses altogether.

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

[4gold]

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

[McCulloch]

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

If there were no property rights or other legal obligations with regard to marriage, then I would agree with you. In a business partnership no one owns the other. They have common ownership of the tangible and intangible assets of the business. Yet the state licenses business partnerships. Unless you are incredibly ignorant, you cannot stand by your assertion that there are no property rights with regard to marriage. Not that a spouse is property but that spouses can and do hold property in common.

[4gold]

If there were no property rights or other legal obligations with regard to marriage, then I would agree with you. In a business partnership no one owns the other. They have common ownership of the tangible and intangible assets of the business. Yet the state licenses business partnerships. Unless you are incredibly ignorant, you cannot stand by your assertion that there are no property rights with regard to marriage. Not that a spouse is property but that spouses can and do hold property in common.

Did you know that 16 states already have laws (called common law marriage) that shares property for those without a marriage license? A couple that lives together for a certain amount of time split their property whether they have a marriage license or not.

The license is not what determines property in common. It is the capacity and commitment to love each other which determines the marriage.

[McCulloch]

Did you know that 16 states already have laws (called common law marriage) that shares property for those without a marriage license? A couple that lives together for a certain amount of time split their property whether they have a marriage license or not.

Sixteen out of how many? 50? Most countries outside of the USA recognize some form of common law marriage. Mine does.
But that is not the point. There is also a common law concept of a contract, business partnership, professional obligations, even property ownership. However, it is not always beneficial to rely on common law. Often it is a best practice to formally recognize a relationship (business or otherwise).

The license is not what determines property in common.

No, but it is the license which determines that there is property in common until such time as the common law provisions kick in. And in some jurisdictions, there is a difference between the provisions of common law and licensed marriage. It is the prenuptial agreement, or in the absence of a prenuptial agreement, the parties themselves (if they agree) or the courts (if they don't) which determines the property in common.

It is the capacity and commitment to love each other which determines the marriage.

Ideally, perhaps. Legally no. A couple that has a loveless marriage, but are content to remain married, for whatever reason, are still married, common-law or otherwise.

[4gold]

Looks like we just have a difference in opinion, McCulloch. I feel I have demonstrated that a license is not necessary to establish property in common, and you agreed but still felt a license was better for the reasons you gave.

I don't know where else I can take this argument/debate. I do not feel a license is better for the reasons I gave, and you feel a license is better for the reasons you gave.