Should the government even be in the business of marriages?

[otseng]

I think the whole issue of states allowing gay marriages, bans on gay marriage, laws on what defines a marriage are all misplaced. There's an even more fundamental question to all of this which I do not really see much discussion on.

Should the government even be in the business of marriages?
Should it be in the jurisdiction of state/federal governments to decide who is married or not?

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't know how it works in your jurisdiction, but here religious officers are licensed by the state to perform weddings. The couple is considered married, for purposes of their religion, by whatever criteria that religion specifies and for legal purposes when they affix their names on the document provided by the state and administered by the religious officer. I don't know anyone who has both a religious and a civil ceremony. Those who opt for a civil ceremony, essentially do the same thing, without the trappings of the religion.

I'm not saying that many people have a civil "ceremony", but that they have to go the Probate Court and apply for a marriage license. According to the Probate Court, they are married after they sign the paperwork and pay the fees. Yes, religious authorities are bestowed rights by the state to perform marriages. But, the point is that we already now have a "religious marriage" and a "civil marriage". With each declaring that they are married. Separating the two into "marriage" and "civil union" would make things less ambiguous and not simply be just a play on words.

When I got married at the Justice of the Peace's office, I had to provide a marriage certificate, and go through a "vows" ritual. It was clearly spelled out for me that without that ritual the JP would not sign our marriage certificate. (Although it may just be that JP had some secret religious agenda - I don't accuse, just speculate)

[McCulloch]

I'm not saying that many people have a civil "ceremony", but that they have to go the Probate Court and apply for a marriage license. According to the Probate Court, they are married after they sign the paperwork and pay the fees. Yes, religious authorities are bestowed rights by the state to perform marriages. But, the point is that we already now have a "religious marriage" and a "civil marriage". With each declaring that they are married. Separating the two into "marriage" and "civil union" would make things less ambiguous and not simply be just a play on words.

Not surprisingly, there is a procedural difference between our two jurisdictions. Marriage in Ontario does not require any action from any court.

To be married in Ontario, you must get a marriage licence. This is available in person from any municipal clerk’s office, as long as you meet the legal requirements, have the right id and fee. You are not married, however, until a ceremony has been performed by someone who has received authorization from the Office of the Registrar General to perform marriages in Ontario under the Marriage Act. This may be religious official of a recognized religious organization, an Ontario judge, justice of the peace or municipal clerk. The person who performed the marriage must forward the completed and signed marriage licence to the Office of the Registrar General for registration. The couple is only legally married when the license has been signed by the couple, their witnesses and the official. The involvement of a Probate Court seems to me to be an unnecessary complication.