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?

[McCulloch]

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.

How about letting each couple decide? The government will issue marriage licenses for those who wish to document and formalize their marriage relationship and recognize their common property and other legal responsibilities related to marriage immediately and the government will legally recognize those marriage relationships through common law, for those who don't. A bit like the status quo (at least here). I see no reason to change.

Also, for those who wish to have their religion perform some sort of ceremony related to their marriage, they are free to do so. For those who don't, they are free to not do so. The marriage is a marriage either way.

[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.

How about letting each couple decide? The government will issue marriage licenses for those who wish to document and formalize their marriage relationship and recognize their common property and other legal responsibilities related to marriage immediately and the government will legally recognize those marriage relationships through common law, for those who don't. A bit like the status quo (at least here). I see no reason to change.

Also, for those who wish to have their religion perform some sort of ceremony related to their marriage, they are free to do so. For those who don't, they are free to not do so. The marriage is a marriage either way.

I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot agree with you. I am opposed to the licensing of marriage in general. To me, the definition of marriage is the capacity and commitment of a man and woman to love each other. Creating a form for marriage reduces marriage down to a form, in my honest opinion.

Like you stated before, if we licensed marriages, even loveless couples can be considered married (like they do today). Based on the historical definition of marriage, that's not marriage. That is simply two people living together as roommates.

I have lived with my roommate for 7 years now. If love and gender were not part of the equations necessary to establish marriage, we'd be considered married under the common law. That's just plain wrong. Love and gender are necessary to define marriage, IMO.

[McCulloch]

I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot agree with you. I am opposed to the licensing of marriage in general. To me, the definition of marriage is the capacity and commitment of a man and woman to love each other. Creating a form for marriage reduces marriage down to a form, in my honest opinion.

That is not a workable definition of marriage for society and law. Love cannot be measured.

Like you stated before, if we licensed marriages, even loveless couples can be considered married (like they do today). Based on the historical definition of marriage, that's not marriage. That is simply two people living together as roommates.

What history are you reading? Many loveless couples have been thrown together in marriage. Arranged marriage. Political marriage. Marriage because they had to. As long as the parties to such marriage are willing to continue as a married couple, for whatever reason (for the kids, for their families, for appearance sake, for the tax write off) we recognize them as being married. In the case where the couple claim that they loved when they got married, but now there is no love, we still consider them married until such time as they formally end the marriage. It is called divorce.

I have lived with my roommate for 7 years now. If love and gender were not part of the equations necessary to establish marriage, we'd be considered married under the common law.

If you were and your roommate were of opposite genders, do you think that you should be considered married under common law? Which of the girls do you think that Jack would have been married to under common law, in Three's Company?

That's just plain wrong. Love and gender are necessary to define marriage, IMO.

Love has no meaning under law. Many have a different opinion than yours regarding gender. What is it that makes your opinion correct? I would propose that consent and intent are all that is necessary to define marriage.

[4gold]

I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot agree with you. I am opposed to the licensing of marriage in general. To me, the definition of marriage is the capacity and commitment of a man and woman to love each other. Creating a form for marriage reduces marriage down to a form, in my honest opinion.

That is not a workable definition of marriage for society and law. Love cannot be measured.

Again, I was not forming a definition for law. I think that marriage licenses should be banned altogether. And I do know that it is a workable definition for society, because that's the way it was for the first 10 centuries under almost every single culture on earth -- especially Western cultures.

Like you stated before, if we licensed marriages, even loveless couples can be considered married (like they do today). Based on the historical definition of marriage, that's not marriage. That is simply two people living together as roommates.

What history are you reading? Many loveless couples have been thrown together in marriage. Arranged marriage. Political marriage. Marriage because they had to. As long as the parties to such marriage are willing to continue as a married couple, for whatever reason (for the kids, for their families, for appearance sake, for the tax write off) we recognize them as being married. In the case where the couple claim that they loved when they got married, but now there is no love, we still consider them married until such time as they formally end the marriage. It is called divorce.

I was referring to the history of marriage during the first 10 centuries of the Western world, specifically the Byzantine and Hellenistic cultures. The loveless marriages that you referred to were blessed by the church and not the state. State-sanctioned marriages were not recognized until the 10th century.

I have lived with my roommate for 7 years now. If love and gender were not part of the equations necessary to establish marriage, we'd be considered married under the common law.

If you were and your roommate were of opposite genders, do you think that you should be considered married under common law? Which of the girls do you think that Jack would have been married to under common law, in Three's Company?

Under my definition, love and gender would be the two main requirements for gender. Because of this, neither I nor Jack from Three's Company would be considered married under common law.

It still appears to me that under your definition of marriage, loveless relationships can be considered marriage. Am I reading you correctly?

That's just plain wrong. Love and gender are necessary to define marriage, IMO.

Love has no meaning under law. Many have a different opinion than yours regarding gender. What is it that makes your opinion correct? I would propose that consent and intent are all that is necessary to define marriage.

And once again, I am not looking for the law to create a meaning for love. It is not up to me, or you, or the state to determine if a couple is still in love. It is only up to that couple.

I feel as though our argument is not getting anywhere fast. I reject any definition of marriage that includes roommates as being too vague. And you reject any definition that involves love and gender as being too specific.

I do not think that you have formed a terrible or irrational argument for gay marriage. It is just that I feel my argument for marriage is better. Is there anything either one of can state that can persuade the other? I could be persuaded to your argument if your definition of marriage did not include roommates. To me, love is the most important element of marriage.

[McCulloch]

Again, I was not forming a definition for law. I think that marriage licenses should be banned altogether. And I do know that it is a workable definition for society, because that's the way it was for the first 10 centuries under almost every single culture on earth -- especially Western cultures.

And they did even longer without incorporated businesses. That does not mean that we should do away with incorporation.

I was referring to the history of marriage during the first 10 centuries of the Western world, specifically the Byzantine and Hellenistic cultures. The loveless marriages that you referred to were blessed by the church and not the state. State-sanctioned marriages were not recognized until the 10th century.

And have been recognized by the state for about one millennium. You wish to toss away something which has been found to be useful for centuries? Some of the loveless marriages that I referred to have occurred in the past 10 centuries.

It still appears to me that under your definition of marriage, loveless relationships can be considered marriage. Am I reading you correctly?

Yes, under the status quo, loveless relationships can be considered marriage, where both parties to the relationship wish the relationship to be marriage. Would you deny the status of marriage to those who are no longer in love? What if they make up?

And once again, I am not looking for the law to create a meaning for love. It is not up to me, or you, or the state to determine if a couple is still in love. It is only up to that couple.

So, if they say that they are in love, then they should be allowed to be recognized as being married.

I could be persuaded to your argument if your definition of marriage did not include roommates. To me, love is the most important element of marriage.

As I stated, consent and intent are all that is necessary to define marriage. If there is no intent for you and your roommate to be married, then you should not be recognized as being married. If, however, you intend to be a married couple, then why not?

[4gold]

As I stated, consent and intent are all that is necessary to define marriage. If there is no intent for you and your roommate to be married, then you should not be recognized as being married. If, however, you intend to be a married couple, then why not?

It looks like this is going to have to be one of those debates where we'll have to agree to disagree. Neither one of us seems willing to accept the other's premises on marriage. To me, a definition of marriage that includes roommates is absurd. To you, a definition of marriage that includes love is absurd.

If we cannot get past this, then every argument we bring up to support our premise is moot.

[McCulloch]

As I stated, consent and intent are all that is necessary to define marriage. If there is no intent for you and your roommate to be married, then you should not be recognized as being married. If, however, you intend to be a married couple, then why not?

It looks like this is going to have to be one of those debates where we'll have to agree to disagree. Neither one of us seems willing to accept the other's premises on marriage. To me, a definition of marriage that includes roommates is absurd. To you, a definition of marriage that includes love is absurd.

If we cannot get past this, then every argument we bring up to support our premise is moot.

I exclude roommates. Roommates have no intent to be married. Love, while desirable in marriage, is subjective. Would you remove the recognition of the marriage status from a couple who have been married for decades but discover that they do not love, even if they are willing to remain married?

[4gold]

I exclude roommates. Roommates have no intent to be married. Love, while desirable in marriage, is subjective. Would you remove the recognition of the marriage status from a couple who have been married for decades but discover that they do not love, even if they are willing to remain married?

I do not understand how you can exclude roommates from your definition. If my roommate and I consented and intended to get married for the purposes of getting a tax write-off and no other reason, this would be allowed under your definition. Am I reading you incorrectly?

Under my definition of marriage, no one could define a couple as unmarried except the couple themselves. Not the church, not their family, not me, not you, and not the state. Only they themselves know whether they still have the capacity and commitment to love each other. As with the historical definition, only in obvious and extreme examples could outsiders state the commitment to love is gone (spousal abuse, flagrant adultery, etc.). So to answer your question, if spousal abuse and flagrant adultery were absent, I would not remove marital status from anyone who was married for decades. It's not any of my business to define how they should love each other. Only they need to know that they still love each other. If they claim love still exists, that's good enough for me.

If they do not love each other, but wish to remain together for whatever reasons they have...that couple are roommates, are they not?

[McCulloch]

I do not understand how you can exclude roommates from your definition. If my roommate and I consented and intended to get married for the purposes of getting a tax write-off and no other reason, this would be allowed under your definition. Am I reading you incorrectly?

And under your definition of marriage there would be nothing to stop you and your roommate from (falsely) declaring your love, getting married and receiving the tax benefit. I see no real world difference.

Under my definition of marriage, no one could define a couple as unmarried except the couple themselves. Not the church, not their family, not me, not you, and not the state. Only they themselves know whether they still have the capacity and commitment to love each other.

On this point, I agree with you with a few caveats. Marriage, whether common law or by license, involves legal obligations. Dissolving a marriage, therefore, might involve legal action, especially if the two parties do not agree. I would guess by what you have already stated, that you would join me in support of no fault divorce. I agree with what you have stated that the church or other religious body should be able to prohibit a couple from being recognized as married. You appear to disagree with your own stated position with regard to same-sex marriage. The only objection to the recognition of same-sex marriage is on the basis of religious values. I agree with you that the state should not arbitrarily withhold recognition of marriage from any couple who have consented and intended to be married. If the couple so chooses, they can register their nuptials with the state or they can be married under common law. I do not see how the marriage license is in any way a state barrier or obstacle.

If they do not love each other, but wish to remain together for whatever reasons they have...that couple are roommates, are they not?

No they are not.

[4gold]

And under your definition of marriage there would be nothing to stop you and your roommate from (falsely) declaring your love, getting married and receiving the tax benefit. I see no real world difference.

Actually, we couldn't. Under my definition, gender would also play a role. But I understand what you are saying, so what if Jack from Three's Company declared his love in order to get a tax benefit? Under my definition of marriage, there is no state recognition of marriage, so there would be no tax benefit for being married. But let's say they got married for the purposes of health insurance benefits. I would leave that up to each individual employer to determine who and how they want to hand out the benefits.

On this point, I agree with you with a few caveats. Marriage, whether common law or by license, involves legal obligations. Dissolving a marriage, therefore, might involve legal action, especially if the two parties do not agree. I would guess by what you have already stated, that you would join me in support of no fault divorce. I agree with what you have stated that the church or other religious body should be able to prohibit a couple from being recognized as married. You appear to disagree with your own stated position with regard to same-sex marriage. The only objection to the recognition of same-sex marriage is on the basis of religious values. I agree with you that the state should not arbitrarily withhold recognition of marriage from any couple who have consented and intended to be married. If the couple so chooses, they can register their nuptials with the state or they can be married under common law. I do not see how the marriage license is in any way a state barrier or obstacle.

The original purpose for a marriage license was to distinguish those who were in a loving monogamous relationship from those who were simply being sexually promiscuous. To have a stable and optimal society, monogamous relationships are better that promiscuous relationships, they argued.

I disagree that the only objection to the recognition of same-sex marriages is on the basis of religious values. Same-sex couples cannot procreate. As the original purpose of the marriage license was to bless those families that were stable, same-sex couples would not be able to produce a family.

Under my definition of marriage, if a gay couple chose to live in a loving relationship and called it marriage, let them be. If a church chose to bless that union, so be it. It is none of my business. To me, their relationship violates the original definition of marriage, but what difference does it make to me?

But if the purpose of marriage licenses are still about sanctioning the union of a stable family, nature disqualifies the gay couple and the barren couple. This is another reason why I support the banning of marriage licenses. If state marriage licenses were banned, then it is of no consequence to me as to whether barren couples or gay couples are married or not, even though they violate the original intended purposes of marriage licenses.

It seems to me that in today's world, people want to make the definition of marriage so vague and so diluted just to make sure that no one is discriminated against. While this makes us all feel good, a word that includes everyone (roommates, for example) is a word that has lost all positive association. I would like to see marriage keep its original definition, because I really do believe marriage is all about the love between a man and woman.

No they are not.

A loveless relationship living in the same household...I'm not sure why they could not be called roommates.