• 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

KevinKohler said:
Marriage began as a means to secure and consolidate wealth and power. It became religious when religion got into the wealth and power game.
Click to expand...


Maybe it could have been ethnic first and then tied to likemindedness in tradition tied to gods.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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).
Click to expand...

At this point I consider the waters so muddy on these terms that change is required.

What I was really trying to get at is dealing with the term marriage in relation to who has a say so in who can get married to who. In this case religion clouded the debate, and it may be getting worse now that various states are going down the "religious freedom act" route allowing placement of personal ideologies to become legal means to tell someone else no outside of the church.

But legal definitions of "partnership" in marriage and "partnership" in business is a whole new level of mess.
 
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...

Nobody here has suggested any such thing. Again, read the OP. All of it.
 
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...

Well that's not exactly true. People who are ordained ministers can perform marriages the problem is ordination cannot be regulated or recognized by the government so you can ordained yourself in the Church of pippi Long stockand then you have this much power to marry people into the legal document as any priest does.
 
bearpoker said:
I don't think the state has ever attempted to define "religious marriage".
Click to expand...

Does a state need to define anything as being religious or not religious to sanction the existence of it and allow rights and privileges that may result from it?

Interestingly, I was married when pretty young in Catholic Church. The State recognized the marriage although there were no civil servants involved in the ceremony.

The very predictable end of the marriage resulted in a state granted divorce. Now, about 40 years on, I am seeking an annulment since the Church did not recognize the divorce.

The two governing bodies that I have recognized and therefore empowered as controlling authorities differ on the existence of my marriage. Conflict!

As with all attempts to control the actions of others, the power to govern is granted by the governed.

Without the consent of the governed, governing power is nothing important whether asserted from church or state.
 
WCH said:
I believe you have to petition the Church for permission to divorce. Guessing Muslims have similar issues.
Click to expand...

Only to be an accepted member of that church though. You are legally free to divorce without the Church's permission.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well that's not exactly true. People who are ordained ministers can perform marriages the problem is ordination cannot be regulated or recognized by the government so you can ordained yourself in the Church of pippi Long stockand then you have this much power to marry people into the legal document as any priest does.
Click to expand...

Well I kinda see the whole you have to have some certified person perform a marriage ceremony the problem. It’s not like they have some magic dust or crystal ball that we need. I’m always pro less middle man.
 
Pippi Longstock said:
Well I kinda see the whole you have to have some certified person perform a marriage ceremony the problem. It’s not like they have some magic dust or crystal ball that we need. I’m always pro less middle man.
Click to expand...

Anybody can be a magistrate that's really eliminating the middleman. having to go to the courthouse and do the circle jerk with a bureaucracy is more complicated than it should be.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Anybody can be a magistrate that's really eliminating the middleman. having to go to the courthouse and do the circle jerk with a bureaucracy is more complicated than it should be.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The circle jerk a church can create around marriage and divorce far out supersedes any paper bureaucracy. In fact it’s just a built in complication, the church.
 
Lots of the same 'oll arguments. Nothing new on this topic, I see. Have fun chasing your tails :)
 
Pippi Longstock said:
Are you kidding me? The circle jerk a church can create around marriage and divorce far out supersedes any paper bureaucracy. In fact it’s just a built in complication, the church.
Click to expand...
Church? Who said anything about church? You can go online and fill out the little questionnaire then asks you your name and your address and Bam just like that you're ordained.


I just had my dog ordained in this one.

https://www.themonastery.org/landin...jYZGVXVKmKhxeJyd-gSDd_V0p7ak1L_QaAmspEALw_wcB
 
code1211 said:
The State recognized the marriage although there were no civil servants involved in the ceremony.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there? Was there a license involved that you had to get from the government first? one that the Priest signed and then you returned to the government? The only other possibility might be a common law state, but still that inolves government determining what criteria would make for a common law marriage.
 
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...

Separate indeed. My parents married in Paris, twice on the same day. Church in the morning, town hall in the afternoon. The church
wedding would not have amounted to a legal marriage by itself.
 
maquiscat said:
Wasn't there? Was there a license involved that you had to get from the government first? one that the Priest signed and then you returned to the government? The only other possibility might be a common law state, but still that inolves government determining what criteria would make for a common law marriage.
Click to expand...

Probably had a license. My recollection of the whole thing is a bit cloudy.

A few high points and nothing at all regarding the paperwork.

Truth be told, I don't even remember the priest. :eek:
 
Casper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a civil institution. Those members of the clergy who are authorized to act as agents of the state in this regard have the power for formalize marriages in the same way the judges do. There are no laws that I know of that force any member of the clergy to formalize a marriage that conflicts with the teachings of their religion. And I certainly hope that there never are.
 
code1211 said:
Probably had a license. My recollection of the whole thing is a bit cloudy.

A few high points and nothing at all regarding the paperwork.

Truth be told, I don't even remember the priest. :eek:
Click to expand...
You probably didn't deal with legal end of it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
kitsune said:
Marriage is a civil institution.
Click to expand...

This is what kills me. There are several different institutions of marriage. Saying that "Marriage is a *blank* institution" is essentially trying to claim that there is only one type of marriage. Now saying "Marriage as a *blank* institution..." contextualizes which form.of marriage we are talking about. And ultimately it makes no difference which came first.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
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 civilized people do not control the parameters of legal marriages you could end up finding evolutionists marring their asssumed nearest relatives, the Homobonobo.
 
maquiscat said:
You probably didn't deal with legal end of it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The whole thing was a mistake in that it led to a poorly considered marriage.

Whether we're talking about the marriage or the wedding, the few parts that were dealt with by me were dealt with poorly.
 
WCH said:
Of course but, to remain in good standing....
Click to expand...

Most people will find another church or do it on their own. That is what my grandmother did after her divorce from my grandfather, and subsequent remarriage (and then divorce from him). She was Catholic, considered herself Catholic until the day she died, but she never stepped foot in another Church after her divorce. Yet she did say prayers every morning for 4 hours, without ever talking or doing anything else until they were done. People will do what they need to do to fit their beliefs and their lives, what they feel is right for them together, to make those things mesh.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Church? Who said anything about church? You can go online and fill out the little questionnaire then asks you your name and your address and Bam just like that you're ordained.


I just had my dog ordained in this one.

Universal Life Church - Become a Minister Online
Click to expand...

I've been ordained for about a year now. Could easily log into the site, pay about $30, and get myself registered with my state to perform marriages. My own officiant did basically the same thing, as a Navy wife, and would perform any sort of wedding someone asked for. She told me she even did one in a bathing suit, in a hot tub for a couple and had no issue with performing naked weddings if wanted. She did it for extra money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom