Rassales
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 564
- Reaction score
- 166
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Okay, so it seems we're hung up on a definition. I'd argue that while marriage has its roots in religion, those roots go back to a times when there was no distinction between religion and law. Religion WAS the law in many case. In places were religion and law were distinct, the law was immediately used to enforce this "rite."The idea of freedom of religion is at the core of the entire arguement. Religions are exempted from many things within the law because of very specific core beliefs held within. This is at the heart of the first amendment itself. All religions have some form of marriage ceremony and marriage is a religious rite, civil marriages, while technically called that are nothing more than recognized civil unions. The rite aspect of marriage is what makes it a right.
Nope, you have to get a license to get married, which is why it can be tried in civil court. That is law which is directly against the first. Marriage is a covenant, not a true contract, that was a failing years ago in an effort to make more tax dollars. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself how governments got to license a religious ceremony, there is plenty of good reading on the subject. The rite predates any law, the first amendment of the constitution predates any law regulating marriage, thus the laws are not within the true spirit of the constitution as they civilly regulate something that is protected as religious.
As for modern day marriage, we're talking about two distinct things--marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a contract. I don't believe that we have an argument here beyond the already well-worn discussion about "marriage vs. civil union," but the OP already suggests that creating a bright line distinction between these is highly unlikely. I hate getting bogged down in semantic arguments. I'd stipulate that "marriage," in the context of a discussion about "rights" has to be a legal concept.
I don't think anyone wants to force churches to violate their tenets by forcing anyone to perform a rite that doesn't make sense within that particular religion.