Marriage church vs state

  • #1
I have an idea for an amendment that would have two marriages, a church marriage, and a state marriage the amendment would read

Henceforth the united states of america will only recognize state marriages, and stage marriages shall be defined by the respective states

what this would do is separate church and state by not validating any church marriage for legal (tax and such) purposes so any religions could perform their ceremony, and it would be a spiritual thing between you/spouse, member of the cloth, and respective deity

then you would have a "state marriage" or civil union, which would be the only one that the state would recognize for taxes and such, and everyone would have to get one after they have done their church wedding, if they choose to have a church wedding

like I said I think this would separate church and state and would be overall more fair, I have alot more on it, however I don't feel like typing what is your opinion, good? bad?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
according to my state (infamous Oregon), a minister cannot marry a couple until they have purchased a license from the county offices. the minister is authorized to sign the license to validate and witness vows were exchanged, no different then the justice of the peace. the minister acts like a notary in this witnessing as well as having the two additional witnesses sign the license. the minister then mails the document to the county for the actual finalization of the legal marriage.

I was married this past July and purchased my license from the county here in Oregon (Multnomah) that was famous for freely issuing the marriage licenses to same sex couples. the lines inside the county offices to purchased them were incredible! very long and filled with many same sex couples eager to tie the knot.

my main point is however, Multnomah county DID have a civil union option just prior to the same sex marriage issue! any same sex couple could be legally tied to one another! then the push came along to have it "labeled" as marriage, thus began the battle, and NOW there is neither civil unions nor legal marriage for them. while i understand their urge for equal rights, it seems now their urges led them to a worse position then where they were before.

America will integrate "God" within the complicated web of politics for as long as possible. while this perspective exists, it will affect every moral issue we contend with. until our country separates completely the religion factor and the law, we will be doomed to the morals of those in power. we do want to uphold standards of conduct that do not affect others rights, but then we have the morals that if broken only affect those who choose to be involved-such as the gay marriage issue. who does it affect really? Those who fear something different then what they were taught to believe.
 
  • #3
well I mean needing a to purchase a licence from the government, so that a church can marry you, that's clearly not separation of church and state.
 
  • #4
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
You can get married by the state ( a judge or justice of the peace), without any religious body being involved at all. The state and religious bodies have each there own interest in marriage, and they do not overlap. Or at least they didn't before the gay marriage hassle.
 
  • #5
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
theriddler876 said:
well I mean needing a to purchase a licence from the government, so that a church can marry you, that's clearly not separation of church and state.
exactly what SA said...it is the person's choice to be married by the state or church, however you do have to purchase the license from the countyr (state).
 
  • #6
yes, but if you did not give any significance to a religios marriage, then the church would have no say, and thus no power, and thus it would be separated. and a civil union could be a constitiutional right guaranteed to everyone, but it would be nothing spiritual, very much like filing your taxes isn't spiritual
 
  • #7
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
theriddler876 said:
yes, but if you did not give any significance to a religios marriage, then the church would have no say, and thus no power, and thus it would be separated. and a civil union could be a constitiutional right guaranteed to everyone, but it would be nothing spiritual, very much like filing your taxes isn't spiritual
that's what i am saying, the church has no power when it comes down to marriage, it is the state ultimately that recognizes it. a person can choose to have either a priest or a judge marry them, among others.
 
  • #8
Evo
Mentor
23,164
2,864
Kerrie said:
America will integrate "God" within the complicated web of politics for as long as possible. while this perspective exists, it will affect every moral issue we contend with. until our country separates completely the religion factor and the law, we will be doomed to the morals of those in power. we do want to uphold standards of conduct that do not affect others rights, but then we have the morals that if broken only affect those who choose to be involved-such as the gay marriage issue. who does it affect really? Those who fear something different then what they were taught to believe.
I completely agree.

I was married by a justice of the peace in a civil ceremony. As has been previously stated, the church is allowed by the state to witness a marriage, the church by itself has no legal authority.
 
  • #9
yes, but if every state did not recognize a church wedding, then it's meaning would be purely spiritual, and there would be separation of church and state.
 
  • #10
76
0
hmmm... maybe it is becuz i read this thread pretty fast but theriddler it seems like you are confused. as evo said the church by itself has no legal authority the wedding is purely spiritual.
 
  • #11
38
1
I like the idea of theriddler876's amendment because it seems to explicitly emphasize the separation of church and state, something that is sorely needed in these dangerous theocratic times.

I was wondering: under the law, is a civil union identical to a marriage? In other words, does a civil union carry with it the same rights, responsibilities, etc., as a marriage? Is this something determined state by state?
 
  • #12
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Why not just grant the appropriate rights to civil unions, rather than tinker with definitions?
 
  • #13
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Because not all gays want civil unions, they want marriage.
 
  • #14
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
But why? What do they find so important about the label "marriage" that would compel them to go on a dictionary rewriting campaign, and what justification do they have?

Quite honestly, the only reason I've heard stated is that it's a quick way to attain their desired legal status. My imagination, however, has also lead me to assume that they think this Orwellian attack on the English language will lead to social and religous acceptance by making it awkward to make a verbal distinction. And, as has been mentioned, this attack seems to have backfired spectacularly.
 
  • #15
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
Hurkyl said:
But why? What do they find so important about the label "marriage" that would compel them to go on a dictionary rewriting campaign, and what justification do they have?

Quite honestly, the only reason I've heard stated is that it's a quick way to attain their desired legal status. My imagination, however, has also lead me to assume that they think this Orwellian attack on the English language will lead to social and religous acceptance by making it awkward to make a verbal distinction. And, as has been mentioned, this attack seems to have backfired spectacularly.
I agree completely Hurkyl. But, in their perspective, they are seeking a sense of equality and not to have their affections for their partner "downplayed" to a lesser sort of relationship then what a heterosexual married couple are portrayed in society as. Perhaps for some of the same sex couples seeking legal marriage they are desiring to earn a societal approval of something once considered extremely immoral here in America. From what I have read, there are other countries that allow same sex marriage.
 
  • #16
well actually the countries youre talking about are in scandanavia, and what they have is legal civil unions for gay couples, which gives them same benefits as heterosexual couples
 
  • #17
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
Your amendment is unnecessary. 1) A person doesn't need to get a marriage license to get married. The license is only needed if they want their marriage to be recognized by the state, which gives them certain legal rights and privileges. Whether or not people are married in any other sense (in the eyes of their god or friends) does not concern the state. 2) The 1st Amendment already guarantees the separation of church and State.

The law cannot arbitrarily treat people differently. The question is whether the homosexual distinction is arbitrary or not. Since gender is already recognized as an arbitrary distinction (19th Amendment), it's harder to make the case for the homosexual distinction, IMO.

As far as labels go, would anyone here actually not mind being legally defined as a "halfcitizen"? Maybe you can remove any difference in the legal definition of two terms, but you cannot remove the difference it makes in the hearts and minds of people, where a different label is a difference. There is no legal justification for using two different terms anyway, and there may even be legal reasons not to use different terms. (It depends on what effect the law has in the real world.)

Whether this would open the door to polygamy and the like is irrelevant. The law cannot infringe on a citizen's rights in order to avoid other negative consequences. There are laws against cruelty to animals, yet animal sacrifice is allowed when it is part of a religious ceremony because to not allow it would be an infringement on 1st Amendment rights. (the 5th and 14th Amendments are the relevant ones here)

The "tinkering with the dictionary" argument is IMO ridiculous, and it is classed with the polygamy argument anyway, as a negative consequence.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
Hurkyl said:
But why? What do they find so important about the label "marriage" that would compel them to go on a dictionary rewriting campaign, and what justification do they have?
They are justified in seeking the same label, and they legally deserve the same label, if a different label results in them being discriminated against.*
Kerrie said:
Perhaps for some of the same sex couples seeking legal marriage they are desiring to earn a societal approval
Perhaps, but social approval isn't relevant; Equal protection under the law is relevant. Of course, whether or not equal protection applies depends on whether or not the law determines homosexuality to be an arbitrary distinction.

*I cannot remember the case (I will look), but it involved a law which, as it was written, was not discriminatory, but, in practice, resulted in racial discrimination. Race has already been determined to be an arbitrary distinction (13th Amendment) and a protected group, so the law was deemed unconstitutional.
Edit: I couldn't find it. We need a Google Law!
 
Last edited:
  • #19
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
Actually, "hate crime" legislation may be decisive in this case. I think there is even federal hate crime legislation including sexual orientation (called Matty's/Matthew's law, after Matthew Shepherd?). I'll look for this also, and edit it in.

No, according to http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000245----000-.html [Broken] only race, color, religion, and national origin

Yes, since the Crime bill, which passed in 1994 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:h.r.03355: [Broken]) in Title XXVIII, section 280003, defines hate crimes as:
In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.
?? Anyway, it may not matter and is rather off-topic. I'll let it go :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
Er, sorry for so many posts, but it's a complicated issue :redface:

I guess, in this forum, what the law ought to be is more relevant that what the law is, so I'll just add that I think sexual orientation ought to be protected 1) if it is not a choice, for the same reasons race is protected, and 2) if it is a choice, for the same reasons religion is protected.
Happy thoughts,
Rachel
 
  • #21
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
They are justified in seeking the same label, and they legally deserve the same label, if a different label results in them being discriminated against.*
Would not this argument also advocate, for instance, ending racism by calling everybody white? Or ending sexism by calling all women men?
 
  • #22
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
Hurkyl said:
Would not this argument also advocate, for instance, ending racism by calling everybody white? Or ending sexism by calling all women men?
Sorry, to clarify, I was talking about the label "civil union" not "homosexual". It isn't matter of the law acknowledging differences but of treating people differently. By giving people the same set of rights and privileges, but calling that set by different terms depending on the recipient's sexual orientation, the law is treating the recipients differently. Acknowledging differences between people is different from acknowledging differences between the rights you give them. Make sense? One is a difference in people, the other a difference in rights and privileges.
 
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
19,946
6,436
I can't believe I missed this thread and I apoligize if I belatedly repeat anything.
theriddler876 said:
I have an idea for an amendment that would have two marriages, a church marriage, and a state marriage the amendment would read

Henceforth the united states of america will only recognize state marriages, and stage marriages shall be defined by the respective states

what this would do is separate church and state by not validating any church marriage for legal (tax and such) purposes so any religions could perform their ceremony, and it would be a spiritual thing between you/spouse, member of the cloth, and respective deity

then you would have a "state marriage" or civil union, which would be the only one that the state would recognize for taxes and such, and everyone would have to get one after they have done their church wedding, if they choose to have a church wedding

like I said I think this would separate church and state and would be overall more fair, I have alot more on it, however I don't feel like typing what is your opinion, good? bad?
This actually has two flaws, one that has already been addressed (there already are two marriages and the two are separate) and one that hasn't....

The one that hasn't been addressed is that the recent controversy isn't just over gay marriage: its over state vs state vs federal power/laws. Its actually a fairly large Constitutional issue. Your amendment addresses the state vs federal issue by saying that the fed will recognize any state marriage. But it doesn't address the tougher issue of state vs state powers.

If one state says a certain type of marriage is ok and another state says it isn't, both states need to pass laws clearly defining what is/isn't acceptable because otherwise one could just get married in a different state and bring their marriage to their home state. But where these laws conflict (and I'm sure some of the laws passed last month will cause conflicts), it will inevitably lead to some states refusing to accept the legality of certain marriages from other states, followed by legal challenges to these new laws.

There are quite a number of state vs state conflicts, from running across a border to get an abortion to running across a border to get a cheap bottle of wine.

Regarding the church/state issue, it is, of course a tenuous separation: as long as people's beliefs are based on their religion, the laws they pass will be based on their religion. There is nothing wrong with that, except when it leads to laws about religion.

One other relatively minor (for now) issue is that there are federal regulations regarding marriage dating back to when some states were territories. Polygamy was first outlawed federally, for example and was challenged all the way to the supreme court (in a decision that affirmed that yes, the government can legislate morality). It may very well happen that the gay-marriage issue results in the Fed taking marriage away from the states. IMO, issues primarily about rights, such as marriage, should be decided federally.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
honestrosewater said:
Er, sorry for so many posts, but it's a complicated issue :redface:

I guess, in this forum, what the law ought to be is more relevant that what the law is, so I'll just add that I think sexual orientation ought to be protected 1) if it is not a choice, for the same reasons race is protected, and 2) if it is a choice, for the same reasons religion is protected.
Happy thoughts,
Rachel
i think it ought to be protected too, but this is an idealist perspective in the reality of a conservative administration currently...the proof of sexual orientation being a biological tendency rather then a choice of will isn't put in front of those steering the law or those voting in the law...

Perhaps, but social approval isn't relevant; Equal protection under the law is relevant. Of course, whether or not equal protection applies depends on whether or not the law determines homosexuality to be an arbitrary distinction.
ideally no-social approval isn't relavant, but realistically that is what it will take to change the way things currently are...
 
  • #25
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
The US was founded as a constitutional republic. It remains one today. IMO, to think that the issue of gay rights will change the US into a form of "elective despotism" is unrealistic. Looking first to the US Constitution then working your way down is a realistic way to decide the issue. My money is on reason, patience, and persistence.
Does anyone have anything to add about the stave v. state issue? For some background info, see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art4.html [Broken], page 831 (the first section following the table of contents).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Marriage church vs state

  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
64
Views
7K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
81
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
622
Replies
99
Views
10K
Top