• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marriage is a Legal Term

J

JPUK

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2019
Messages
75
Reaction score
28
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The state should not make laws for religious groups. Marriage is of course a religious institution, and the government should have no involvement in that, it is up to churches etc. to decide what institutions, ceremonies etc. they want to conduct.

But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges.

There should be no confusion between the two. Of course any couple should be entitled to legal marriage, but this should have no impact whatsoever on religious institutions, who should be able to allow or refuse religious marriage to whoever they want.

This distinction between legal and religious should not be difficult or confusing. Lots of things are legal that certain religions do not allow. The idea that the state ever has, or should be, defining religious marriage is a bad idea for everyone, religious or not.
 
JPUK said:
The state should not make laws for religious groups. Marriage is of course a religious institution, and the government should have no involvement in that, it is up to churches etc. to decide what institutions, ceremonies etc. they want to conduct.

But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges.

There should be no confusion between the two. Of course any couple should be entitled to legal marriage, but this should have no impact whatsoever on religious institutions, who should be able to allow or refuse religious marriage to whoever they want.

This distinction between legal and religious should not be difficult or confusing. Lots of things are legal that certain religions do not allow. The idea that the state ever has, or should be, defining religious marriage is a bad idea for everyone, religious or not.
Click to expand...

If that were true, atheists would be unable to marry.
 
Dragonfly said:
I don't think you've read the OP correctly.
Click to expand...

If you're going to define marriage as a strictly religious institution, then people with no religious affiliation would loose access to marriage.
 
JPUK said:
The state should not make laws for religious groups. Marriage is of course a religious institution, and the government should have no involvement in that, it is up to churches etc. to decide what institutions, ceremonies etc. they want to conduct.

But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges.

There should be no confusion between the two. Of course any couple should be entitled to legal marriage, but this should have no impact whatsoever on religious institutions, who should be able to allow or refuse religious marriage to whoever they want.

This distinction between legal and religious should not be difficult or confusing. Lots of things are legal that certain religions do not allow. The idea that the state ever has, or should be, defining religious marriage is a bad idea for everyone, religious or not.
Click to expand...

I get where you are going with this.

Here is the problem, religious institution(s) have made it clear they want a say so in governance but also want that to be a one way street. And now it is coming back on them.

It is reasonable to say that consenting adults should be able to get married, it is also reasonable to say that any church should not be forced to marry anyone that walks in the door, and lastly it is reasonable to conclude that in terms of "equality" that the role of governance is to ensure no one group is above others.

As you mention marriage is a term that has legal and taxation impacts, as long as that is the case then we have no choice but to ensure any consenting adults should be able to marry and obtain those same legal and taxation impacts.

The issue of Federal Government and State Government influences into what is marriage and who can obtain one has also made matters worse.

"Religious marriage" is a horrible term. The idea of marriage in the first place is a human construct, not a religious construct and at no time can we conclude that religion owns the practice. So by 1st Amendment principles all religion can do is determine who they will marry, but have zero influence on who can marry away from their church.

We are mostly in agreement here but our persistent issue is how frequently the church wants that one way street advocating for who can and cannot marry (in their church is almost irrelevant to their argument.)
 
bearpoker said:
If you're going to define marriage as a strictly religious institution, then people with no religious affiliation would loose access to marriage.
Click to expand...

Did you read only part of the OP? I believe that it simply states that religious institutions, churches, mosques and synagogues should have the Religious right to not marry some people based on their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.
 
JPUK said:
The state should not make laws for religious groups. Marriage is of course a religious institution, and the government should have no involvement in that, it is up to churches etc. to decide what institutions, ceremonies etc. they want to conduct.

But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges.

There should be no confusion between the two. Of course any couple should be entitled to legal marriage, but this should have no impact whatsoever on religious institutions, who should be able to allow or refuse religious marriage to whoever they want.

This distinction between legal and religious should not be difficult or confusing. Lots of things are legal that certain religions do not allow. The idea that the state ever has, or should be, defining religious marriage is a bad idea for everyone, religious or not.
Click to expand...

To me I can not find any faults in this statement. Also when it comes right down to it when a couple divorce after a certain amount of years the divorce is a legal transaction. That religion gets dropped right out the door. People still may have religious ideas and thoughts about divorce but court does not and I think that’s a good thing.

I think it was a documentary made in NY called One Of Us it was about the struggle of a certain ethnic group Jewish and how they do actually have their own branch of family court and they totally mix their Orthodox religion and heritage into the court system. It was a mess. Good doco though.
 
I apologise if my initial post was less than clear.

Marriage is a legal term. It has been for a long time. This has nothing to do with religious marriage. The government should not be making rules on religious marriage and religion should not be defining legal marriage.

Religious marriage and legal marriage are, and have long been, distinct and separate. They are both long established institutions.

A civil marriage certificate awarded by the state, with no religious ceremony, has no religious significance. A religious ceremony with no legal certificate, has no legal significance.

My point is that this distinction is very straightforward and is in the interests of religious and non-religious people alike. (Unless you're arguing for a total theocracy, and want to replace the constitution/laws with the Bible/Quran/etc)
 
JPUK said:
I apologise if my initial post was less than clear.

Marriage is a legal term. It has been for a long time. This has nothing to do with religious marriage. The government should not be making rules on religious marriage and religion should not be defining legal marriage.

Religious marriage and legal marriage are, and have long been, distinct and separate. They are both long established institutions.

A civil marriage certificate awarded by the state, with no religious ceremony, has no religious significance. A religious ceremony with no legal certificate, has no legal significance.

My point is that this distinction is very straightforward and is in the interests of religious and non-religious people alike. (Unless you're arguing for a total theocracy, and want to replace the constitution/laws with the Bible/Quran/etc)
Click to expand...

I think that’s well said and parts of a good argument for same sex marriage. Get them on the tax rolls just like the rest of us.
 
JPUK said:
A civil marriage certificate awarded by the state, with no religious ceremony, has no religious significance.
Click to expand...

I would add that a religious certificate signed by your religious officials of your choice have no legal significance at all. Ideally.
 
Pippi Longstock said:
I would add that a religious certificate signed by your religious officials of your choice have no legal significance at all. Ideally.
Click to expand...

It does only because that person has been empowered by the state to do so.


I hear boat captains can as well.
 
Pippi Longstock said:
As they should be. Can you imagine a bunch of crackpot religious people getting in the middle of your divorce.
Click to expand...

That would be hilarious, and probably make some fantastic TV.
 
bearpoker said:
If you're going to define marriage as a strictly religious institution, then people with no religious affiliation would loose access to marriage.
Click to expand...

The OP stated very specifically that marriage is both a legal and a religious term.

What about this is confusing?

From the OP:

"But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges."
 
OrphanSlug said:
I get where you are going with this.

Here is the problem, religious institution(s) have made it clear they want a say so in governance but also want that to be a one way street. And now it is coming back on them.

It is reasonable to say that consenting adults should be able to get married, it is also reasonable to say that any church should not be forced to marry anyone that walks in the door, and lastly it is reasonable to conclude that in terms of "equality" that the role of governance is to ensure no one group is above others.

As you mention marriage is a term that has legal and taxation impacts, as long as that is the case then we have no choice but to ensure any consenting adults should be able to marry and obtain those same legal and taxation impacts.

The issue of Federal Government and State Government influences into what is marriage and who can obtain one has also made matters worse.

"Religious marriage" is a horrible term. The idea of marriage in the first place is a human construct, not a religious construct and at no time can we conclude that religion owns the practice. So by 1st Amendment principles all religion can do is determine who they will marry, but have zero influence on who can marry away from their church.

We are mostly in agreement here but our persistent issue is how frequently the church wants that one way street advocating for who can and cannot marry (in their church is almost irrelevant to their argument.)
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) should make it clear that the legal "partnership" in marriage be as flexible and inclusive as the legal "partnership" in business, which also has legal and taxation impacts (yet no religious connotations). There is no limit on the number of (consenting adult) partners in a business partnership and no restriction on someone being a partner in multiple businesses (concurrently).

It is entirely a religious based restriction that a (traditional?) marriage partnership be limited to two partners and that one may be not be involved in multiple (marriage) partnerships concurrently, yet may be involved in multiple marriage partnerships serially (and that either partner may unilaterally dissolve the partnership).
 
KevinKohler said:
That would be hilarious, and probably make some fantastic TV.
Click to expand...

In the documentary I watched the women were always the looser. It could be made into a comedy I could totally see that. The name could be Paternalistic Island.
 
code1211 said:
The OP stated very specifically that marriage is both a legal and a religious term.

What about this is confusing?

From the OP:

"But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges."
Click to expand...

I don't think the state has ever attempted to define "religious marriage".
 
OrphanSlug said:
I get where you are going with this.

Here is the problem, religious institution(s) have made it clear they want a say so in governance but also want that to be a one way street. And now it is coming back on them.

It is reasonable to say that consenting adults should be able to get married, it is also reasonable to say that any church should not be forced to marry anyone that walks in the door, and lastly it is reasonable to conclude that in terms of "equality" that the role of governance is to ensure no one group is above others.

As you mention marriage is a term that has legal and taxation impacts, as long as that is the case then we have no choice but to ensure any consenting adults should be able to marry and obtain those same legal and taxation impacts.

The issue of Federal Government and State Government influences into what is marriage and who can obtain one has also made matters worse.

"Religious marriage" is a horrible term. The idea of marriage in the first place is a human construct, not a religious construct and at no time can we conclude that religion owns the practice. So by 1st Amendment principles all religion can do is determine who they will marry, but have zero influence on who can marry away from their church.

We are mostly in agreement here but our persistent issue is how frequently the church wants that one way street advocating for who can and cannot marry (in their church is almost irrelevant to their argument.)
Click to expand...

I feel that it's assumed that no church can dictate the actions of approvals of other churches regardless of their fervor.

The one-way street you reference confuses me.

The First Amendment says that this will be a one way street. In cases where the population of any government segment sanctioned adherence to religious dogma, that is what the government did.

The Religion may have campaigned for it, but the government did it. Is withdrawing that sanction what you are referring to?
 
Pippi Longstock said:
In the documentary I watched the women were always the looser. It could be made into a comedy I could totally see that. The name could be Paternalistic Island.
Click to expand...

I was leaning towards cluster**** land.
 
bearpoker said:
I don't think the state has ever attempted to define "religious marriage".
Click to expand...
Religions have tried to define legal marriage though, and have done successfully for several centuries all around the world. Only relatively recently have secular principles begun to weaken their influence.
 
Marriage began as a means to secure and consolidate wealth and power. It became religious when religion got into the wealth and power game.
 
Pippi Longstock said:
I think that’s well said and parts of a good argument for same sex marriage. Get them on the tax rolls just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I was not aware that not being married allowed anyone to avoid taxation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom