Divorcing Religion from Marriage

Frankly/personally, I really don't care what we call it ... if it is CIVIL UNIONS, so be it - but we demand and expect equal benefits both at the Federal & State level for said CIVIL UNION. I know, many people disagree and are fighting this battle of the term MARRIAGE. But that being said, if a STRAIGHT couple got married outside a religios institution (e.g., Justice of the Peace, Vegas, etc.), then THEIR "marriage" should be stated as a Civil Union on their legal document.

I think France has the only resonable solution to the questions of civil/religious marriage:

Civil Ceremony
In France there is first a civil ceremony that takes place at the local Marie (Town Hall). If the couple is also having a religious ceremony, the civil ceremony acts as a private family wedding. The mayor of the town where the wedding is taking place usually performs the civil ceremony. Once the civil ceremony is complete, the couple will receive a livret de famille, the French marriage certificate. This is an official document and, should the couple have children, each child's birth will be recorded in the livret de famille. There is no cost to get married civilly in France.

Religious Ceremony
If the couple chooses to have a religious ceremony, it will take place after the civil ceremony and acts as kind of public wedding. The religious ceremony MUST take place after the civil one. Whomever performs the religious ceremony will be required to see the couple's livret de famille - as proof of a civil ceremony, before the religious ceremony can take place.

Tradition
Both ceremonies will take place on the same day, one right after the other. After the religious ceremony there will be a vin d'honneur, this acts as a public reception. Then there will be a private family dinner and celebration.
The idea behind having two ceremonies is that the civil one acts as a declaration before man, and the religious one, a declaration before God of the couple's love.
`
http://www.americansinfrance.net/Culture/Marr...

It's a perfectly logical and practical solution. The problem is that this is NOT a logical or practical issue for those against SSM. It's an emotional and religious one. They have absolutely no desire to have their relationships called the same thing as the relationships of gay folks, be it marriage or civil union. I strongly doubt that it would fly.

No matter what. A gay marriage will ALWAYS be a play marriage.

I like the French idea that was brought to our attention. Everyone must be united secularly and if they wish, they follow it up with a religious ceremony. I think it's workable solution.

Danny wrote:

I like the French idea that was brought to our attention. Everyone must be united secularly and if they wish, they follow it up with a religious ceremony. I think it's workable solution.

Correct...any man or woman together must be united on way or another. Other than that there is no equation.

Honestly, I find it difficult to believe the Crimson staff posted such a naive opinion. Surely they realize that civil unions have been vehemently opposed by the same institutions that oppose marriage equality. Surely they realize that Referendum 71 in Washington nearly passed--and may indeed have passed if so much attention hadn't been focused on Maine. Surely they understand that the institution of civil whatchamacallits has no meaning outside the jurisdictions that have defined it.

Perhaps they overlooked that states don't even agree what to call these new-fangled relationships, let alone the rights and responsibilities that accompany them. Maybe that didn't think about the willingness of those who insist that marriage be withheld from same-sex couples would be unlikely to downgrade their own relationship to a whatchamacallit.

It must not have occurred to them that, in order to create the new institution, fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government all need to rewrite marriage laws based on these whatchamacallits. And then we need to get the rest of the world to make the same change so that Americans are not divorced by crossing a border.

Does all this sound like a good idea to them? How about just including everyone in the institution that everyone already understands?

fedupwiththemess wrote:

No matter what. A gay marriage will ALWAYS be a play marriage.

You will always be fed up because your head is a complete mess. And you show no desire to red it up.

nhjeff wrote:

Honestly, I find it difficult to believe the Crimson staff posted such a naive opinion. Surely they realize that civil unions have been vehemently opposed by the same institutions that oppose marriage equality. Surely they realize that Referendum 71 in Washington nearly passed--and may indeed have passed if so much attention hadn't been focused on Maine. Surely they understand that the institution of civil whatchamacallits has no meaning outside the jurisdictions that have defined it.
Perhaps they overlooked that states don't even agree what to call these new-fangled relationships, let alone the rights and responsibilities that accompany them. Maybe that didn't think about the willingness of those who insist that marriage be withheld from same-sex couples would be unlikely to downgrade their own relationship to a whatchamacallit.
It must not have occurred to them that, in order to create the new institution, fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government all need to rewrite marriage laws based on these whatchamacallits. And then we need to get the rest of the world to make the same change so that Americans are not divorced by crossing a border.
Does all this sound like a good idea to them? How about just including everyone in the institution that everyone already understands?

I agree. People against SSM are vehemently opposed to any kind of recognition of our relationships, no matter the name. R-71 proved that beyond a doubt, it was just barely defeated.

And I also think that trying to use a different term in all the myriad regulations and laws, both state and federal, would be impossible. I don't think you can slap a cover memo on the Code of Federal Regulations (all 50 titles) that says, "Substitute the words "civil union" for the word "marriage" wherever it appears in these documents."

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
You will always be fed up because your head is a complete mess. And you show no desire to red it up.

SPOT ON!!!!!!!!

i wish this would work but i know it won't

IGetAKickOutOfYou wrote:

I think France has the only resonable solution to the questions of civil/religious marriage:
Civil Ceremony
In France there is first a civil ceremony that takes place at the local Marie (Town Hall). If the couple is also having a religious ceremony, the civil ceremony acts as a private family wedding. The mayor of the town where the wedding is taking place usually performs the civil ceremony. Once the civil ceremony is complete, the couple will receive a livret de famille, the French marriage certificate. This is an official document and, should the couple have children, each child's birth will be recorded in the livret de famille. There is no cost to get married civilly in France.
Religious Ceremony
If the couple chooses to have a religious ceremony, it will take place after the civil ceremony and acts as kind of public wedding. The religious ceremony MUST take place after the civil one. Whomever performs the religious ceremony will be required to see the couple's livret de famille - as proof of a civil ceremony, before the religious ceremony can take place.
Tradition
Both ceremonies will take place on the same day, one right after the other. After the religious ceremony there will be a vin d'honneur, this acts as a public reception. Then there will be a private family dinner and celebration.
The idea behind having two ceremonies is that the civil one acts as a declaration before man, and the religious one, a declaration before God of the couple's love.
`
http://www.americansinfrance.net/Culture/Marr...

I agree, partly. Actually, the state has no right to know that the couple had its marriage 'blessed' in a church after the civil ceremony. All the state needs to know is that the civil ceremony was done before a civil magistrate. The civil and religious ceremonies are two very distinct processes.

The confusions was caused when the government allowed duly ordained ministers to act as the civil magistrate when performing a marriage. Then, people began to confuse the marriage as a religious thing indistinct from the civil aspect.

Fedup, why are you so hellbent to deny others their rights? You seem so STUCK on your catchphrase ("it's just a PLAY marriage!") that you are unwilling to ask yourself, how does this harm me? How does this AFFECT me? Really, it's none of your damn business!

Even a lawyer in California who represents the efforts to defeat gay marriage there, when asked by a judge to explain HOW gay marriage can be a detriment, could only reply "I don't know". And this is from the LAWYER who was hired to DEFEND the position of "traditional" marriage. Hint: "I don't know" is not a very powerful defense.

Do you have any good REASONS for saying that same-sex marriage would only be "play"? I mean, REALLY GOOD ones? Any? Or will you just be repeating your catchphrase again for us?

Ye Olde Fart wrote:

The confusions was caused when the government allowed duly ordained ministers to act as the civil magistrate when performing a marriage. Then, people began to confuse the marriage as a religious thing indistinct from the civil aspect.

Yep. You are spot on, YeOlde ...

I really don't care if any church would recognize my (potential) marriage/civil union only that, governments (state, local, federal and the courts,IRS, Social Security etc.), all employers, service industries (housing, hospitals, schools, funeral homes etc.) and all insurance companies would.

I agree completely with the article. I've been saying for a while that straight couples who commit in front of a justice of the peace should be said to be in a civil union, not a marriage. Marriage is a commitment made before God. However, if we had the same ceremony set up as France, it wouldn't truly solve the problem of gays not being "married" because so many religious institutions have been corrupted. Gays would find someone who would "marry" them, and the term would end up with its meaning changed after all. This would be a backdoor way to achieve it at least for some gays.

Besides, I don't think this is going to satisfy those gay folks, many of whom seem to want "marriage" to validate gayness. They want to be able to say they are totally equal in every way to straight people. They have chosen the term "marriage" to achieve that. If they can't find a church to "marry" them despite their strong disbelief in God and and absolute disdain about all things spiritual, then they will still feel they have been discriminated against. In other words, I don't think they will accept this. They want the word "marriage" for every gay person's use, and they will rebel against the system and religion until they either get what they want or they are forcefully shut up.

DustyShadow wrote:

I agree completely with the article. I've been saying for a while that straight couples who commit in front of a justice of the peace should be said to be in a civil union, not a marriage. Marriage is a commitment made before God. However, if we had the same ceremony set up as France, it wouldn't truly solve the problem of gays not being "married" because so many religious institutions have been corrupted. Gays would find someone who would "marry" them, and the term would end up with its meaning changed after all. This would be a backdoor way to achieve it at least for some gays.
Besides, I don't think this is going to satisfy those gay folks, many of whom seem to want "marriage" to validate gayness. They want to be able to say they are totally equal in every way to straight people. They have chosen the term "marriage" to achieve that. If they can't find a church to "marry" them despite their strong disbelief in God and and absolute disdain about all things spiritual, then they will still feel they have been discriminated against. In other words, I don't think they will accept this. They want the word "marriage" for every gay person's use, and they will rebel against the system and religion until they either get what they want or they are forcefully shut up.

you see you view gays as evil for some reason in reality all we want is equality...and as far as gays and religion goes there are plenty of gays that are considered Christians i personal believe in god and Jesus but not so much the bible...What makes you think gays are so evil? why do you feel we are just out to "get the Christians" ???

DustyShadow wrote:

I agree completely with the article. I've been saying for a while that straight couples who commit in front of a justice of the peace should be said to be in a civil union, not a marriage. Marriage is a commitment made before God. However, if we had the same ceremony set up as France, it wouldn't truly solve the problem of gays not being "married" because so many religious institutions have been corrupted. Gays would find someone who would "marry" them, and the term would end up with its meaning changed after all. This would be a backdoor way to achieve it at least for some gays.
Besides, I don't think this is going to satisfy those gay folks, many of whom seem to want "marriage" to validate gayness. They want to be able to say they are totally equal in every way to straight people. They have chosen the term "marriage" to achieve that. If they can't find a church to "marry" them despite their strong disbelief in God and and absolute disdain about all things spiritual, then they will still feel they have been discriminated against. In other words, I don't think they will accept this. They want the word "marriage" for every gay person's use, and they will rebel against the system and religion until they either get what they want or they are forcefully shut up.

Who do you think you are to tell other people what is a valid religious marriage for them? I have no distain for G-d or spirituality, but I think that you suck turtle eggs.

DustyShadow wrote:

Besides, I don't think this is going to satisfy those gay folks, many of whom seem to want "marriage" to validate gayness. They want to be able to say they are totally equal in every way to straight people.

Wow! After all this time on the board, you finally figured out that we expect total equality. You're dumber than I thought.