Common Sense on Marriage
I like a guy who thinks outside the box. In this case, Paul Jacob talks about marriage- gay marriage, by extension. He suggests government is too involved in marriage as it is. Why should government be involved in officiating marriages, or requiring someone to officiate, when all the two people in question need do is testify they've met the requirements, sign a form and that's it?
Granted, he doesn't get into changing the terms used- marriage for churches, civil unions for government- as I have. This also might not necessarily get around the problem of some county clerks not wanting to fill out forms for gay couples, but he does have a point.A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-designated third party for a fee or “donation,” to finalize their marriage contract?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:50 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Marriage is a civil act. A contract. Stop bowing down to religious fundamentalists. They only want power and money. They don't care about marriage.
Common sense? So religion and all of its ancient myths are common sense, while legal contracts aren't? Wow. You have a warped sense of reality. Being surrounded by local conservatives has not helped your thought process very much.
Where did I write that marriage isn't a civil act? Where was Paul Jacob supporting or encouraging religion? Did you even read the linked article?
The magistrate is there to make sure no shenanigans are going on. Making sure it's a real marriage. Not a brother and a sister or some jokesters. Or making sure it's a man and a woman in many states. The article states that clergy members should have this power, but the government shouldnt. That is encouraging religion and allowing it to be the powerful political force that it is.
Fine. Lets take it one step further. If we are going to stop using magistrates officiating marriages, let's also stop using priests from doing the same. Religious marriages have no place in society anyways. All that hocus pocus means nothing. It's a civil contract only. Let the people sign the paper in the courthouse and it's done.
I think admitting marraige isn't a sacred thing would be a good start.
The article states that clergy members should have this power, but the government shouldnt.
From the article: “No one in the debate,” Mr. Woolverton asserts, “questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.”
That quote merely brings up that no one has questioned whether someone needs to officiate marriages in the first place, and that perhaps they should.
In other words they're saying no one needs officiate at a marriage, at least as far as government is concerned. All government need do is provide a form- a legal contract- that is filed by both parties.
I suppose you could stretch that to say government officials should not officiate marriage ceremonies. I'm not sure I can get that it means religious officials should.
If they do, it's a religious ceremony separate from government, or at least should be. The churches should be allowed to perform whatever kinds of ceremonies they should chose to.
Taking the liberty of thinking I know what point the writer is trying to make, he's saying anyone can have any kind of ceremony they want, but it's not the government's role to do that. All government should do is record the contract.
"Let the people sign the paper in the courthouse and it's done."
I believe that is exactly what the writer intended to point out and you're misreading him.
No. Religions can't perform any kind of ceremony that they would like. Sacraficing humans and animals used to be common practice, but it's no longer allowed. Religions can't use peyote in ceremonies. What a strange argument to make. Marriage isn't really even a ceremony, its a CONTRACT. Sure, people like to make it an elaborate party often, but strictly speaking its a contract.
Religions can have whatever sort of ceremonies they chose and many people see marriage as some sort of joining between two people by God. A surprising number of people, I might add.
As far as government should be concerned, though, marriage is only a contract.
I hope so. If that's the case, the title of the post should read "getting government AND religion out of marriage".
Call me cynical, but I've got a sinking suspicion that most "conservatives " would cry and whine if religion were stripped of that power.
You give religion a free reign. Big surprise. Bowing down to power is nothing new.
Yeah, it's surprising that people would think that a man in the sky chooses thier life mate for them. Amuricans are superstitious children on so many issues.
I'd suggest government still has a role in marriage if only because it's a contract. Government is often used to settle contract disputes, thus it will always be involved to some extent.
How exactly religion would be stripped of its power, I'm not sure. Churches will always be able to perform their marriage ceremonies. Even now, church people go to the county clerk to get wedding licenses before or after their church weddings.
But, again, the guy's commentary doesn't address the issue of county clerks, or at least some of them, who might not feel right about issuing wedding "licenses" to same sex couples and that puts us back at square one.
That's why I've suggested changing the name of traditional marriage licenses to something like a domestic partnership contract, or some such. But, if I do that I'd be "attacking marriage" wouldn't I?
"it's surprising that people would think that a man in the sky chooses thier life mate for them."
Their beliefs are just as valid to them as yours are to you.
Ummm....i believe marriage is a contract. It's written into our laws. It really exisits.
There is no evidence for an all powerful, all knowing man floating in the sky telling people who they should have sex with. Spare us your little "beliefs " and stick to the conversation about marriage.
Funny how the title if the post is based on "common sense" when the topic is religious centric. Cuz religion makes so much sense, right?
Your obsession with religion here baffles me. I see little, if any, connection to the article with religion.
You dont see a connection between religion and marriage in the article? The word religion is used in the first two paragraphs. The entire reason that this is even an issue is because religion and its followers refuse to admit that marriage is a civil issue.Face it, religion is obsessed with owning marriage, even though it is a civil manner. You keep reinforcing this point that religion should have something to do with marriage. A few months ago you even went as far to say that religion should OWN the word. Why bring up marriage if you arent willing to admit what is happening? Is it just a joke or a divisive issue or do you actually have any conviction about this? Bowing down to religion just reeks of pandering.
To a large segment of the population, marriage is a religious function. As I see it we need to separate the civil and religious aspects of marriage to settle this. I don't see any problem with letting them say you can only get married in a church. They shouldn't be able to say others can't engage in contract.
Jacob's suggestion goes along the same lines. He's saying the state or religion shouldn't be an element in who officiates in marriage. It should simply be a contract recorded (and enforced) by government civil authority.
As I already wrote, he doesn't address the issue of a county clerk who may not feel comfortable issuing a certificate to same sex couples, but at least his idea would void one half of the argument.
I think most of all of the arguments against same-sex marriage are coming from religious folks. So the question is why. Power? Control? I agree that the government should not be involved. The only purpose (and that would be a registration one) is to provide proof that the marriage occurred on such and such a date because their are legal implications for the marriage. This is the same role that the government plays in recording home purchase documents.
Post a Comment
<< Home