PDA

View Full Version : A conservative's view on marriage....


Jobie
04-19-2006, 01:59 AM
-----Disclaimer------ LOL
Please understand that by no means am I trying to offend anyone on these boards, if I do offend you I am sorry and by no means was it my purpose. What I am posting is just an opinion and an idea that I have. Unfortuntely (sp?), telling this to many people with similar beleifs as I have, usually does not get anywhere, becuase as soon as they hear gay or same sex relationships they freak out; so I figured the safest place to tell my opinion/idea on a Disney Message boards were not too many politics are involved. Well anyways here it goes....
---------------

First let me tell you who I am (I belive you need to know this to understand where I am coming from). I personaly belive that the act of homosexuality is wrong (I know most reading this, if not all, disagrees with me. That is okay. This is America!), but I also believe that two people, no matter what sex, gender, or race, can have a strong bond, love relationship with each other. I do not belive that if you are a gay man or woman that you are a terrible person and you deserve death and punishment, but I do belive that some activities are wrong (same as any other straight person can also do wrong or sinful activites). In other words, I love people, just not some of the things they do. Some would classify me as your typical Christian conservative male, raised in your typical Christian home blah.. blah.. blah.... But I beg to differ; my mind works a little differnt. :-)

Anyways.....

Marriage to me has always been between three people: Me, my wife, and God. A marriage is a convenant that is made between to people who loves each other and promises God that they will take care of each other until they die. Sounds pretty religious to me. If you look at most cultures, marriage has always been this. Two people coming together to form a union with God. Think of any group of people, present or in the past, most marriages takes place with some eleberate ceremony in some place of worship and/or a man/woman representing God or the gods leads the ceremony. All of this makes a wedding or marriage a releigous experince.

So my question is, why in the world did I have to get a Marriage Lisence (sp?) to marry my wife?!?!?! Would God not have honored my vows I made to her that day without the proper documentation? I think we all know the anserw to that one (well unless you do not beleive in a god, then no matter he was not there to honor the vows, and that is an entire different situation).

With a marriage being so releigious, why are they [mariages] even recongized by our government? Dosen't by our government recongizeing a marriage go against the constitution? The "tradtional" American wedding is a Chrstian one and is what most of the laws were made to recongize, to me that is our government over stepping the bounds of relegion and state.

The only reason why I got a mariage lisence is this, becuase legally I had too for my union to be recongized by the government. So this way I am recongize as a part of her and if we would ever split (not planning on it) she gets all my money LOL. Honestly though, we all know the benifets of being recongized as married; hospital visits, shared medical care, ect.

My idea is this: Let's get rid of marriage lisences all together, and only have civil unions. The civil unions will be open to all types of unions as in opposite sex unions and same-sex unions. These unions will basically be for stating that these two people support each other and are a life unit. They share all things together. With a union you get all the same benifeits that you used too with the marriage lisence. This would allow, even thoughs that are not romanticaly involved with each other, to have legal rights to thoes they are supporting, being supported by, or supporting each other. Of course the breaking of a union qould have the same consequences as one of today's divorces, so unions would not be ramapantly broken and made (but then again the divorce system today dosen't even fully does this)

What this allows is for everyone to have equal rights to the benifets of a legally recongized union. Also, this allows everyone to get married, if they want to. If your place of worship reongizes same-sex marriages, all the power to ya! Becuase now marriages will be back to where they belong, and that is with religion.

Marriage is a personal, spiritual, and religious experiece. Anyone, right now can get married (even if my church recongizes it or not), becuase it is up to you to decide what it right or wrong and what your beleifs are. Sure I could share mine, but I could never force you to belive them nor could you force me to believe yours. You are what you belive, if you feel a stong commitment to your partner that you belive is ever lasting, you are able to make a covenant with them. Unfortunately, our government will not recongize it.

I support the constitutional amendment to ban the legal regongition of same-sex marriages. I also support the constitutional amendment to ban the legal regongition of opposite-sex marriages. I support legal regongition of unions between two people, that puts marriages back to where they belong; in our places of worship and our hearts!

What do ya'll think?


note: please excuse the terrible spelling it is really late, and I know that I have done many mistakes. also, if any thoughts seem incomplete, I apologize again for I am tired. This thread was not made to begin a flame war of any kind, just for people of different minds to share opionions.

Cheshire Figment
04-19-2006, 05:43 AM
My idea is this: Let's get rid of marriage lisences all together, and only have civil unions. The civil unions will be open to all types of unions as in opposite sex unions and same-sex unions. These unions will basically be for stating that these two people support each other and are a life unit. They share all things together. With a union you get all the same benifeits that you used too with the marriage lisence. This would allow, even thoughs that are not romanticaly involved with each other, to have legal rights to thoes they are supporting, being supported by, or supporting each other. Of course the breaking of a union qould have the same consequences as one of today's divorces, so unions would not be ramapantly broken and made (but then again the divorce system today dosen't even fully does this)

What this allows is for everyone to have equal rights to the benifets of a legally recongized union. Also, this allows everyone to get married, if they want to. If your place of worship reongizes same-sex marriages, all the power to ya! Becuase now marriages will be back to where they belong, and that is with religion.
I agree with this basic concept 100%. Basically have all laws in the country (both Federal and State) change the term "marriage" to "civil union". Also delete the terms "husband" and "wife" and replace both with "spouse". There would be no gender limitations for civil union. All rights and responsibilities which currently inure to marraiges would carry over to civil unions. It would require death or a legal divorce to dissolve a civil union.

The concept of marriage would be a strictly religious ceremony/situation for a religious bonding and would not have the same legal protections of a civil union.

A possible addition to this would be to at the same time get rid of all anti-polygamy/polyandry laws and also to recognize any marriage/civil union from outside the country as a civil union here. (Again, no need to recognize the term "marriage" since it would be strictly religious.

lillielil
04-19-2006, 06:16 AM
As long as the option available to me is the same option available to everyone else, I don't know why it matters what it is called. To offer marriage only to straight couples and civil unions to those less worthy doesn't make any sense to me, but I agree that a distinction should be made between religious, church sanctified marriage and the body of rights offered by state and country to two people who have their union recognized by the government. The word you choose to label each of those things is nothing more than a matter of semantics, and I'm not sure why it matters so much to you. In the English language there is no difference between "church-marriage" and "state-marriage", even though those two things are very different and both important.

My future wife and I will be married in the eyes of our church, but it would still be nice to be able to file taxes together... and get car insurance together... etc.

mickeyfan1
04-19-2006, 06:26 AM
My marraige ceremony was not religious. I do not believe in God, Christianity, or any organized religion. I suppose that means that I may be more "married" in the eyes of the government than the OP?

Chuck S
04-19-2006, 08:19 AM
Your points are well taken. Marriage should be a religious institution and the gov't should grant "civil unions" to all couples, whether they are same or opposite sex. In order to be "legal" they should also be registered somewhere, eliminating unregistered or "common law" marriages. You should not need a "license" but rather a simple certificate of union, the difference being that a certificate is simply a "statement" stating to the gov't that there is a union made by your own free will, a "license" implies that you must seek the permission and approval of the gov't for your spouse.

The only legal limits on a "union" should be:
1)Are the two people involved of the legal age.
2)Do they meet the "not closely related kin" rules most states have in effect.
3)And people should be limited to one legal spouse at anytime, of course.

RickinNYC
04-19-2006, 08:21 AM
I agree with you to an extent, but at the same token, I don't feel that the term "marriage" is owned by anyone, let alone the heterosexual community. But rather than get embroiled in semantics as some members of the straight community are wont to do, I would support your idea in theory because it would bring members of all communities into an equal arena.

Viki
04-19-2006, 10:12 AM
3)And people should be limited to one legal spouse at anytime, of course.

Hey, Chuck, on point #3, have you caught the HBO show, "Big Love." ;)

Jobie
04-19-2006, 10:21 AM
I agree with you to an extent, but at the same token, I don't feel that the term "marriage" is owned by anyone, let alone the heterosexual community. But rather than get embroiled in semantics as some members of the straight community are wont to do, I would support your idea in theory because it would bring members of all communities into an equal arena.

By no means am I trying to say that the term marriage is only owned by the hetrosexual. I just fill that there is a difference between a legaly recongized union and a mariage.

With Chrisitanity affecting and in many ways being used as a guide line to create our country and its laws, many of its terms and ideas has been passed into law. That is why it is called a marriage in our legal books today and not anything else.

Soceity has changed in many ways since the beginning of our country, religion does not play as such as a large role in many peoples lives or does it play such a large role in politics. Rather you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it has happened and I think that us as a nation should re look some of our laws. I belive the majority of the laws and terms would stand, but some should be changed. I mean unfortuantely, in most cities, some of the sexual activites I have done with my wife would be considered illegal, and I am a straight, Christian man! (to see what I am talking about, vistit www.dumblaws.com (http://www.dumblaws.com) some will make you laugh, others will make you mad) Fortunatley for me, no one out there is willing to enforce thoes laws against me, but unfortunatly for thoes that live a different life style, some one would want to prove a point and would enforce thoes laws against you and your partner. The problem is that morality and relgion a lot of times gets mixed up with each other.

I belive that the term marriage holds different meanings to different people. To me, as mentioned before, I belive it is a covenant between 3 persons (me, God, and my wife), but ask someone who has gone to a different church and their idea will be different, ask a jew and theirs will be different, ask a hindu and thier's would be different, ask a muslim, ask a buddhist, ask an atheist, ask an agonsitc(sp?).... I think you can see where I am going. Civil union on the other hand, becuase it holds no tradtional ideals, only gives one defination. A legaly recongized union.

To me this is the only way to give the hardline, right-wing conservatives what they want, and that is the "sanctity of marriage", which in my opionion does not even really exist today with most people. Was it gays that ruined the sanctity of marriage, NO!, it was the years of dishonest people marrying each other and not keeping with the vows that they made. I mean, when I hear on TV that this is so-and-sos "trial" marriage, I give up on thinking that this country still holds a sacred place in society.

By giving marriages to the people, and unions to the the government, marriage will only be defined by what is in the hearts of thoes people. If a certain religion has certain rules for their people to follow to be married, they are freely allowed to do so and are able to keep their idea of marriage sacred. For others, they are able to keep their ideas sacred. I hope I am making sense. :)

Ya'll have a great and wonderful day,
Jobie

Chuck S
04-19-2006, 10:34 AM
Hey, Chuck, on point #3, have you caught the HBO show, "Big Love." ;)

I don't get HBO, but this isn't that the show about what would commonly be referred as polygamist relationships?

At any rate, I think from the legal aspect of unions or marriage, you need to define it as two people in the relationship. If there were more folks involved, it would complicate, rather than simplify, the defined rights. More surviving spouse benefits would wind up in court for insurance, social security, and inheritance rights. People, as far as I am concerned, can personally have as many or as few folks in their relationship as they wish, as long as it works for all involved..but for the legal spousal rights, I think it needs to be limited to one spouse. Imagine if two "equal" spouses had to make a life/death decision for someone terminally ill, and they could not agree on how the situation would be handled.

Valentine
04-19-2006, 02:02 PM
My future wife and I will be married in the eyes of our church, but it would still be nice to be able to file taxes together... and get car insurance together... etc.

FYI... Here in New York you CAN get Insurance together. Allstate is one of the ONLY companies that recognizes Domestic Partners.... if you own the property together, or car, or have any insurable interest together in anything.. you can get insurance together...Just thought I would give you all a heads up... if you live in New York.. call your local Allstate agent.. or you can PM me and I will give you more info! Take that you Gekko! :)

Kathy

richs52
04-19-2006, 02:32 PM
Hey Kathy:

I live in NY too and my partner and I have our insurance together through Geico, and at a FANTASTIC rate I might add. So there are more options out there than just Allstate. Just thought you might like to know.

Rich :wave2:


FYI... Here in New York you CAN get Insurance together. Allstate is one of the ONLY companies that recognizes Domestic Partners.... if you own the property together, or car, or have any insurable interest together in anything.. you can get insurance together...Just thought I would give you all a heads up... if you live in New York.. call your local Allstate agent.. or you can PM me and I will give you more info! Take that you Gekko! :)

Kathy

True North
04-19-2006, 02:37 PM
I will be the disagreeing voice on this one. I think you will find your idea much more accepted in the gay community then in the conservative Christian community in general. When Canada was in the process of equalizing marriage there was talk of doing exactly what you suggested. To many opposite-sex couples, this was seen as removing what they had (government sanctioned marriage) just because of the needs of a few in a same-sex relationship. Accepting those in a same-sex relationship is a much smaller issue then the possible Pandoraís Box that could occur through your idea.

I think the ďhardline, right-wing conservativesĒ would be greatly offended by such an act because you would be essentially legalize same-sex marriage. While it may not be allowed in the majority of churches, over time more and more churches will perform this ceremony. Here in Canada in a two year period both the United Church of Canada, and Unitarian Universalist Congregations accepted and performed same-sex marriage. Such a change would only exclude atheists from getting married.

This change would also then include many forms of marriage that are not recognized today. For Sunni Muslims a marriage can be set through Nikah Mut'ah, which only requires the statement of marriage, and the man giving the women a gift. This marriage can end through a triple talaq, which is essentially repeating the word divorce three times. While I fully respect those who follow this believe, it is easy to see how such an act can be abused, (and clearly this is just one of many examples.) There is nothing stopping anyone from saying they are married. If any two people could just declare themselves married the word marriage would loose almost all meaning. I think this would work against the sanctity of marriage that you are trying to protect.

There would also be nothing protecting those that only get married and do not also get the governmentís civil union. If the government did not get involved in marriages, they could not protect people in the case of a religious divorce or separation. While the clear answer is that everyone who is going to have a marriage should get the civil union as well, but really that is not going to happen. Many will think that if they are married in the eyes of God nothing else should matter. Almost all people who get married think their marriage will last forever, but clearly that is only true half the time. Divorce laws exist in the current situation because people get divorced, not because people think they are going to get divorced. The law is there to protect us, but canít under such a situation.

It all really comes down to the definition of the word marriage. While I 100% respect your view towards your marriage, I donít think that is the universally accepted definition in either a religious or historical nature. Marriage was not connected to a solely religious ceremony at its conception, yet it then went through a religious transformation, and is now returning once again to a secular act through the involvement of the state. Marriage has always been connected to the union of two people (as you stated), whether in a religious setting or not. Your marriage, according to you, is in the eyes of God and the Christian interpretation of marriage, and you are willing to share the word marriage with those that follow the Muslim interpretations of marriage through the Qur'an, or the Hindu sacrament, but not through a union through the government. I donít see why the governmentís civil marriage cannot be in the same category as your Christian marriage, or a Jewish marriage.


Being from Canada I have the joy of being in a legal civil marriage, which was performed by a religious figure. If I was in the United States of course I would prefer to have the equalization that you propose to the discrimination in the current situation. I do however believe I would rather have equality through granting rights to others, instead of taking rights away from the majority.




(Oh my! That has to be my longest post ever! Donít get a law student talking about a legal issue during exam time! :teeth: )

AllisonG
04-19-2006, 07:10 PM
My marraige ceremony was not religious. I do not believe in God, Christianity, or any organized religion.

:thanks: Me too!

GEM
04-19-2006, 07:35 PM
I belive that the term marriage holds different meanings to different people. To me, as mentioned before, I belive it is a covenant between 3 persons (me, God, and my wife), but ask someone who has gone to a different church and their idea will be different, ask a jew and theirs will be different, ask a hindu and thier's would be different, ask a muslim, ask a buddhist, ask an atheist, ask an agonsitc(sp?).... I think you can see where I am going.



So, if by your own admission the word "marriage" means so many things to so many different people, why should heterosexual Christians be the only ones allowed to lay claim to the word?


Sorry, but I don't agree either. I'm a heterosexual and my husband and I are married. We have a marriage. We didn't get married in a church and there was absolutely NOTHING religious about our ceremony, but, we are still very much "married". Your marriage may be between you and your wife and your God - and that's great for you. However, the fact that God has no part in my marriage certainly doesn't make me any less "married" than you are.

How about this . . . maybe marriage should be legally between any two people who want to be married and if you want to bring God into it, you can have a "religous union".

lillielil
04-19-2006, 09:45 PM
Hey, that's good to know! Things must have changed since the last time I checked. On Geico I used to get a snarky little pop-up saying "Sorry, but Geico does not recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriage", which I guess worked for them because they don't recognize that ANYONE in Massachusetts can drive (pretty much true, unfortunately), and don't insure gay or straight MA drivers.


Hey Kathy:

I live in NY too and my partner and I have our insurance together through Geico, and at a FANTASTIC rate I might add. So there are more options out there than just Allstate. Just thought you might like to know.

Rich :wave2:

Jobie
04-19-2006, 11:22 PM
So, if by your own admission the word "marriage" means so many things to so many different people, why should heterosexual Christians be the only ones allowed to lay claim to the word?


Sorry, but I don't agree either. I'm a heterosexual and my husband and I are married. We have a marriage. We didn't get married in a church and there was absolutely NOTHING religious about our ceremony, but, we are still very much "married". Your marriage may be between you and your wife and your God - and that's great for you. However, the fact that God has no part in my marriage certainly doesn't make me any less "married" than you are.

How about this . . . maybe marriage should be legally between any two people who want to be married and if you want to bring God into it, you can have a "religous union".

I think I might have been a little misunderstood. In no way am I trying to say that marriage should be reservered only for thoes in a certain releigion, all what I am saying that the term marriage came about from religion and most of the time it deals with a religious ceremony. Now if you do not belive in a certain religion, you to can be in a mariage, one that is recongized in your heart. I guess what I am trying to say is that the word marriage can carry different meanings and reach different levels with every person, where as a civil union is completely defined. What the law considers as marriage does not necessary mean that everyone holds that same defination, mostly due to religious beliefs and personal beliefs. I am proably not making any sense, but I am trying :-)

I just believe that I do not need a piece of paper stating rather I am married or not. I made this strong commitment to my spouse and she made it to me, the government has nothing to do with it. But, for the government to recongize it I must get a piece of paper. I just think that the piece of paper should recongize only the civil union between us.

my4kids
04-20-2006, 08:51 AM
My marraige ceremony was not religious. I do not believe in God, Christianity, or any organized religion. I suppose that means that I may be more "married" in the eyes of the government than the OP?

i agree with the OP. I have been saying this to my husband for a long while. I am very religious and I think the whole issue of single sex marriage has gotten very confused in the media and between party lines because nonreligious people (no offense to anyone - this is America, I am glad you have the right to believe what ever you want) don't understand that "marriage" is a religious word since it has been used and over-used. I too believe that gay people should be afforded the same rights by the government as heterosexuals. It is just that some religious people (many different religions mind you) get a little insulted when you use the word "marriage". Call it a civil union and I will be the bridesmaid. Call it a marriage and my religious beliefs are going to be offended.

Mickey fan1- I think you are as civily united as I am - but you would say yourself that you are not married in the eyes of God - because you don't even believe a God exsists. all that religious people are saying is just don't use our religious word "marriage".

It reminds me of when the Passion of the Christ was in movie theaters and I would read bad reviews in the paper of the movie written by people who had NO religion and they would say that the director focused too much on the morbid death of Christ and did not even touch on the life of Christ. HELLO! the word "Passion" is a religious word refering to the death of Christ. They had no idea about this and were opening up their uninformed mouths about it. I wander off topic...but my point was we all want to be equal in the eyes of the USA - but some of us are sticklers on the wording.

Disclaimer ! I know that feathers might get ruffled by my post - I am truly not trying to stir a pot, but just posting it the way I see it, and I enjoy reading posts of people who see it differently than me - so please don't be offended or flame me, but feel free to tell me if you see it differently or if you have any information on this that I don't have. I like to learn just as much as like to say what I think.

my4kids
04-20-2006, 09:00 AM
I think I might have been a little misunderstood. In no way am I trying to say that marriage should be reservered only for thoes in a certain releigion, all what I am saying that the term marriage came about from religion and most of the time it deals with a religious ceremony. Now if you do not belive in a certain religion, you to can be in a mariage, one that is recongized in your heart. I guess what I am trying to say is that the word marriage can carry different meanings and reach different levels with every person, where as a civil union is completely defined. What the law considers as marriage does not necessary mean that everyone holds that same defination, mostly due to religious beliefs and personal beliefs. I am proably not making any sense, but I am trying :-)

I just believe that I do not need a piece of paper stating rather I am married or not. I made this strong commitment to my spouse and she made it to me, the government has nothing to do with it. But, for the government to recongize it I must get a piece of paper. I just think that the piece of paper should recongize only the civil union between us.

You did not hear what the OP was saying. Guess what- marriage is a religious word having to do with being married in the eyes of God. The OP is saying religious people don't like that the word marriage is being used by homosexuals so lets all refer to ourselves as civily united and than everyone would be happy. If yu happen to be religious than you can also be married in the eyes of God. I don't 100% agree with the Op because there are some really gray areas of friends I have that are gay and active practicing Christians (even if their religion does not approve of homosexuallity) and things get blurry here...but I'm just saying that I understand where the OP is coming from. He is trying to find a way to make everyone happy. But of course this is Earth and if everyone was happy we would be calling it Heaven. So I don't know if you can make everyone happy.

edited to add: sorry I quoted Jobie who is the OP _ I meant to quote the person the Jobie was anwering....Ok- now even I am confused. ..

mickeyfan1
04-20-2006, 09:02 AM
Hey, which came first, organized religion or marraige? When the ancient Romans believed in many gods and goddesses, were there no marraiges?

It seems rather holier than thou to say that "if you don't believe in god you are not married", and that my heathen union at the courthouse offends you if I say I am married. Yet you don't wish any offense to me for saying that?

BTW, my cheap (14 dollar) marriage ceremony and license have lasted 30 years. I am not saying that those who marry in church don't have long lasting marriages, but there are 6 siblings in my family. 3 had church weddings, 2 of those ended in divorce. now 5 of us have had non church weddings and all of them are going strong. So those non marraiges seem to be a better idea. The only church wedding that has lasted in my family, my brother, who is a priest.

Chuck S
04-20-2006, 09:03 AM
The word "marriage" may have religious roots, but it is not an exclusively religious word. The term is also used properly to define secular legal relationships. In fact, according to Webster the first definition is a legal, secular definition.

Main Entry: mar∑riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

wallyb
04-20-2006, 10:58 AM
I still say the most important place to be married is -
In your head.

Legal papers or religious buildings are fine ...
but they're trappings.

I like mickyfan1 have the same family history of marriage -
we even kid my mom and her sister about being the Gabors with 7 marriages between them...so far.
And my sister ... the Serial Bride!

Paul and I have been together for 24 years now-
2 of them legally married because we live in MA.
But we only went that root because of the legal benefits.
Before that - we were happly married - "In our heads"

GEM
04-20-2006, 09:23 PM
Sorry, but the word "marriage" today has no official religous connotation whatsoever. When you look up the legal requirements to get "married" you won't find anything anywhere about religion at all. You can say all you want that the word "marriage" refers to a regligious union, or a union in the "eyes of God" or whatever, but legally, that simply isn't the case and hasn't been for a long time.

"Marriage" is an officially recognized legal union. That's it. Now, whatever else you feel YOUR marriage is (emotionally or religiously) is up to you. You can certainly have a religious wedding ceremony, if you want, but marriage itself isn't religious. You can't try to say that those of us who were married outside the church with no religious intervention aren't "married". As you said, it's a word that means a lot to people, religious or not.

PaulaSB12
04-21-2006, 06:30 AM
The laws of America I do not know, but there is a foolish and stupid myth in England of the common law marriage. idiots believe that if you live with a partner for more than 6 months then you have the same rights as a married couple :rotfl2: :lmao: . There has been no such legal state since the late 1700's and women are finding that if they end the relationship they do not have the same rights as a wife. Recently saame sex unions have been given a cival ceremony, there are some who are calling for the same right for cohabiting couples forgetting that this is what is known as a register office marriage. My own beliefs on same sex union, that is for each person's own desire and needs. My views on other peoples relationship hetrosexual or homosexual (and I don't believe it is wrong for homosexuals to want the legal protection that a "marriage" gives) is irrelevant you should live you life as you need, we only have the one life make the most of it. This is no rehearsal this is the main act

molly2004
04-21-2006, 06:35 AM
So my question is, why in the world did I have to get a Marriage Lisence (sp?) to marry my wife?!?!?! Would God not have honored my vows I made to her that day without the proper documentation? I think we all know the anserw to that one (well unless you do not beleive in a god, then no matter he was not there to honor the vows, and that is an entire different situation).

I didn't read through all the posts so forgive me if this was alraedy answered. also, I also apologize if you meant it as a rhetorical question. I that union it for tax purposes and others that require that union to be legally documented (e.g., getting your spouse on your health insurance, etc.) 2) so they can enforce laws around marriage, e.g., not allowing you to marry your first cousin, etc. This is also where states can disallow a union because of sexual orientation (which I think is bogus, by the way, but that's just my opinion). 3) I'm sure there are other reasons too, but my coffee hasn't quite kicked in yet.

Chuck S
04-21-2006, 08:09 AM
The laws of America I do not know, but there is a foolish and stupid myth in England of the common law marriage. idiots believe that if you live with a partner for more than 6 months then you have the same rights as a married couple :rotfl2: :lmao: . There has been no such legal state since the late 1700's and women are finding that if they end the relationship they do not have the same rights as a wife. Recently saame sex unions have been given a cival ceremony, there are some who are calling for the same right for cohabiting couples forgetting that this is what is known as a register office marriage. My own beliefs on same sex union, that is for each person's own desire and needs. My views on other peoples relationship hetrosexual or homosexual (and I don't believe it is wrong for homosexuals to want the legal protection that a "marriage" gives) is irrelevant you should live you life as you need, we only have the one life make the most of it. This is no rehearsal this is the main act

"Common Law" marriage laws vary from US state to US state, as do all our marriage laws. Some states allow folks to live together for a specific period of time and they must represent themselves to other people as being "married" (ie, introduce each other as husband or wife).

my4kids
04-21-2006, 08:14 AM
I'm not possitive, since I don't feel like searching law books at the moment, but I think in Maryland you have legal rights as a common law marriage if you have been living together for 20 years. (For some reason that is in my memory bank, but I don't know where I heard it, so don't quote me. )

Chuck S
04-21-2006, 09:09 AM
I found this summary page of common law marriage in the US.

http://ct-divorce.com/Commlaw.htm

Vijoge
04-21-2006, 04:45 PM
This is how I see it.

Marriage, no matter the religious significance or lack there of, is a legally binding contract. That is why a license is required and why, if the marriage contract is ended (divorce) it must be done legally through the court system.

While marriage does indeed have immense religious significance for many people, it is not soley religious (and in many cases not religious at all).

Religious events do not require a license or any other type of legal interference-ie. Baptism, Confirmation, Bar/Bat Mitzva, etc.

In many places around the world it is customary, and perhaps required, to have two "marriages" for lack of the better term (since I can't remember it)-a civil ceremony held at the court house where the legal documents are signed and then a religious ceremony held at a place of worship.

Jobie
04-21-2006, 09:54 PM
This is how I see it.

Marriage, no matter the religious significance or lack there of, is a legally binding contract. That is why a license is required and why, if the marriage contract is ended (divorce) it must be done legally through the court system.

While marriage does indeed have immense religious significance for many people, it is not soley religious (and in many cases not religious at all).

Religious events do not require a license or any other type of legal interference-ie. Baptism, Confirmation, Bar/Bat Mitzva, etc.

In many places around the world it is customary, and perhaps required, to have two "marriages" for lack of the better term (since I can't remember it)-a civil ceremony held at the court house where the legal documents are signed and then a religious ceremony held at a place of worship.

Once again this just proves my entire point. Marriage can hold a different meaning to everyone. The reason why I brought up the religious aspects of it is becuase, marriage has always gone hand and hand with religion, even back with the Romans and before them with the Egyptians, and that I am a Religious man so my point of view comes from there. The reason why some of you do not see the word "marriage" as a religous word is becuase you have never been exposed to it that way or do not belive in a certain religion. But that even proves how Religion has affected our soceity has a whole and our language. Many words can carry different meanings with different people and over time thoes words can change. Shoot, less than half a centuary ago gay was a common word used to describe happiness, now if one would declare that they were gay we now think that they are talking about their sexuality not their state of joy.

Sorry if I had started a debate about religion, becuase I was not trying to. To me this is a political debate, regonizing that people sho support each other in life, rather straight or gay, in a platonic relationship or romantic relationship, should have equal rights when it comes to insurance, hospital visits, work benifiets, ect.

majortom
04-22-2006, 12:55 AM
What do ya'll think?

It is very funny, because one of my friends (another straight boy like you :) ) who is far left has exactly the same view as you.

As someone else on here has said, as long as there is no difference between those for gay and straight couples, I do not really care what it is called.

For the record, I feel that every religious organization out to be able to discriminate for whatever reason they wish however absurd it seems. In fact, I think that any company other than Public Accommodations (restaurants and hotels), transportation and housing should be able to discriminate as well. I should be able to hire only cute white blond boys, or tall Latino women if that is what I want. I think they should have to publish any discriminatory policies they have so that I can know not to patronize them, but they should be able to do it. Being gay and Jewish, I cannot understand why anyone would want to work for a company (or individual) that would not want them there. Why would a person what to help someone financially that hates them?

All I ask for is government neutrality - meaning the government should not treat me differently from anyone else based on religion, race, sexual orientation or gender.

/carmi

Rella Bella
04-22-2006, 01:13 AM
All I ask for is government neutrality - meaning the government should not treat me differently from anyone else based on religion, race, sexual orientation or gender. /carmi
This is really where we need to end up isn't it. :thumbsup2
I think the poster has a basically good idea...
let's call it "what ever" but let it mean everyone can/must have a "legal ceremony" and after that anyone who wants to can also have a "religious ceremony" according to what ever religion they choose.
How could this offend... it wouldn't force any religion to do anything they didn't believe in now or in the future.

majortom
04-22-2006, 01:21 AM
Sorry, but the word "marriage" today has no official religous connotation whatsoever.

Marriage has no religious connotations to you. It does to many others (mostly religious people).

We currently use marriage to mean both a civil and religious union. What Jobie is suggesting is that if we split the terms, it might be easier for those who oppose same sex unions to allow them civilly.

His suggestion is that we separate the civil union from the religious ceremony and call them different things. Anyone can have a civil union - same sex or opposite sex and receive all the thousands of benefits now reserved for people that get "married".

Just as now, people could choose to have a religious marriage ceremony if they wanted one. The legal benefits come from the civil ceremony.

As long as there is only one form of government recognized union, who gare

/carmi

harumph
04-27-2006, 01:34 AM
Thanks to the OP, who admittedly thinks homosexuality is immoral, for giving some serious thought to an issue that it sounds like he is more than a bit uncomfortable with. I'm impressed that he came to the conclusion that he did. The conclusion is logical, and draws from two basic tenets that our country was founded on: the separation of Church and State, and that all Americans are created equal.

The problem with the conclusion is that most Americans who oppose gay marriage have a serious problem with both of those tenets. Most Evangelical Chrisitians would like to see prayer in public school, for example, or a giant stone Ten Commandments outside the local courthouse.

Evangelical Christians believe that homosexuals are sinners (conveniently neglecting that we are all sinners in the eyes of God), and want to treat them as second-class citizens.

My question is this: why do they care so much? So much is made out of homosexual's immoral behaviour, so why do these same people want to deny them sanctioned monogamy? What is it about gay relationships that is so threatening?

Viki
04-27-2006, 07:27 AM
What is it about gay relationships that is so threatening?

Good question and, from a systems perspective, I'd like to suggest that many family, congregational, economic, political, and perhaps just plain human systems find enemies very convenient. Focussing on the shortcomings of another is a terribly profitable way to focus less on our own. :smooth: