Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Marriage

  1. Nov 3, 2004 #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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2004 #2

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. Nov 4, 2004 #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.
     
  5. Nov 4, 2004 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  6. Nov 4, 2004 #5

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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).
     
  7. Nov 9, 2004 #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
     
  8. Nov 10, 2004 #7

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  9. Nov 10, 2004 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  10. Nov 16, 2004 #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.
     
  11. Nov 24, 2004 #10
    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.
     
  12. Nov 25, 2004 #11
    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?
     
  13. Nov 25, 2004 #12

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why not just grant the appropriate rights to civil unions, rather than tinker with definitions?
     
  14. Nov 29, 2004 #13

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Because not all gays want civil unions, they want marriage.
     
  15. Nov 29, 2004 #14

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  16. Nov 29, 2004 #15

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. Nov 30, 2004 #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
     
  18. Dec 1, 2004 #17

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Dec 1, 2004
  19. Dec 1, 2004 #18

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.*
    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: Dec 1, 2004
  20. Dec 1, 2004 #19

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 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:) in Title XXVIII, section 280003, defines hate crimes as:
    ?? Anyway, it may not matter and is rather off-topic. I'll let it go :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2004
  21. Dec 1, 2004 #20

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Marriage
  1. Marriage (Replies: 31)

  2. Science ? marriage (Replies: 17)

  3. Secince and Marriage (Replies: 4)

  4. Marriage document (Replies: 2)

  5. No mixed marriages (Replies: 211)

Loading...