A conservative's view on marriage....

[wallyb]

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]

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]

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 . 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]

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]

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 . 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]

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]

I found this summary page of common law marriage in the US.

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

 

[Vijoge]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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]

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]

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]

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.