Marriage -- Not Just a "Gay Rights" Issue

For years I have puzzled over the curious mix of civil and religious traditions in the United States that currently require a clergyperson to serve as both an agent of the state and a representative of her/his religious tradition when presiding at a couple's marriage.

As current "religious" marriage ceremonies are conceived, it is almost impossible to untangle the church and state. However, a careful, historical reading of most "religious" ceremonies reveals which elements are required in order to guarantee that both members of a couple are coming of their own free will to enter into the legal contract of marriage, and which elements are determined by the particular faith community.

Separating the elements of civil and religious marriage, as the French have done since 1792, might provide a way to solve the heated debate over marriage that currently exists in many states. It would also ensure the separation of church and state in this matter.

In this scenario, couples would first be married in a civil marriage ceremony. This step would guarantee a couple's legal rights, whether the couple was an opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple. Following the civil ceremony, should the couple choose and their tradition permit, a religious marriage ceremony could be held.

This is not just a "gay rights" issue. The separation of civil and religious ceremonies would also provide another alternative: those persons who might lose benefits if they join in civil marriage could choose to have only a religious ceremony to honor their union. Over the years, I have heard time and time again from older couples that this option would honor their marriages before God so that they would no longer be living "in sin," yet at the same time it would protect precious benefits that they would lose if they were legally married.

Separating civil and religious marriage is an idea whose time has come in the United States -- by doing so, civil rights and benefits would be preserved, and the traditions of religious communities would be respected.

Comments

[Joe4liberty]

"There are a thousand striking at the branches of evil for every one striking at the root" - Henry David Throeau...
Why is this debate about whether the government should recognize "gay Marriage"? Strike at the root people!. Prior to reconstruction in the south, there was no such thing as a marriage license, and that was done to discriminate against blacks. Think about it!... a license to get married? Why on this green earth would anyone think that such is the role of government?
Time to strike at the root. Don't ask for the government to recognize gay marriage, demand that the government get OUT of marriage completely! Believe it or not, there are politicians who "get it" read this press release:


http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-praise-maine-dc-marriage-bills-but-urge-better-policy

[johnbdonovan]

Why doesn't anyone address the core issue about gay marriage. Marriage is mainly about giving all human beings, if possible, the benefit of being raised by a father and by a mother because of the special contributions of each. All other considerations are secondary. This isn't about a right, such as whether or not people can speak or assemble freely. It's about the obligation of people to assure, as much as possible, this foundation of stability for each new person coming into the world. As mother's day approaches, let's remember that a mother counts; she can't be replaced by dad plus another man and expect the same result for a little child.

[BeninOakland]

You bring this up, and it remains irrelevant. you do not require Procreation for marriage unless gay people are involved. Then it's an issue. Likewise, Marriage is not required for procreation. Heteros have babies all the time-- currently 40% of children are born out of wedlock in this country. that doesn't seem to concern you. Nor does it have anything to do with gay marriage. There are manysingle parents, either by choice or divorce. That doesn't bother you. Preventing gay people from getting married-- and we're talking about 3% of marriages-- doesn't give any of those children a mother or father.

Gay people also have children, whether their own, or adopted from hordes of the cast-off products of irresponsible heterosexual reproduction. Don't those children deserve the rights and protections that having married parents would provide? There are 70,000 of those children in california homes. Or do only the children of heteros matter?

As for your parenting arguments-- utter nonsense. There isn't a single bit of evidence indicating that children of gay people are somehow not parented just as well, and just about every professional association in the country says so.

What's good for the children of heterosexuals is good for the children of homosexuals. Opposing marriage equality is tantamount to punishing those children. What have they ever done to deserve that? What about their equality before the law, their freedom of religion, their rights?

Whether YOU approve of those parents having childrne, the fact remains, they do.

[johnbdonovan]

Marriage is a system of benefits aimed at the vast majority of society, which is in urgent need of that support for mothers and fathers and not this easy morality that has seen an increase of social support for homosexuality, cohabitation, and every other variety of sex outside of normal marriage. The biggest nonsense of it all is this proposition that you can just plug in extra people and get the same result. Anyone who's had a good mother knows you can just substitute the "three men and a baby" scenario and get anything but a comedy. The difference between men and women isn't just anatomy! It's approaches to parenting too, and we are playing with these reality at our peril.

[BeninOakland]

I have a friend who adopted a child with her partner-- an unwanted child who would have been raised in poverty and disease, another piece of third world refuse heading towards an early death because his heterosexual parents neither wanted him nor were prepared to care for him. M. has been given a chance at a different life with her, and is now healthy, bright, charming, well behaved, and a joy to be around. He has seven gay uncles who adore him abd give him every masculinre influence he needs. Marriage provides a certain set of rights and responsibilities upon people who are married, and a certain set of protections for their children. Preventing my friend from marrying another woman, which would give M a set of married parents and all of the benefits that the law and society allow, is advocating is to keep him, and the children of all gay couples, in as legally, financially and socially precarious a position as possible.

What have they done to deserve that?

[johnbdonovan]

You talk about an exceptional case like this. Do you realize what's going on in the inner cities these day? Boys don't have fathers and are having run-ins with the law at much higher levels as a result. There has to be a resurgence of support for mothers and father and a full-scale retreat from all of this looseness about relationships outside of normal marriage. The inner city is already the model of where society is going when society gets relaxed about sexual morals and mores. Sure some people grow up even without parents at all, but give a kid his own mother and father and you're giving him his best shot at security and stability. People are nuts to even think about giving benefits to arrangements outside of normal marriage.

[BlackYowe]

I am quite happy the way things are. With so many couples living outside of marriage and even having children outside marriage it seem like a foolish thing to be tinkering with tradition. Shouldn't society just encourage more people to be loyal to their spouces? Upgrading property sharing laws and social securiety might be a better idea.

[M1]

Well, since you are happy and see no reason for extending equal status in society for an entire class of Americans who would like their loyalty to their partner recognized and encouraged, gays should just drop the entire push for gay marriage.

Seems to me that tradition has been tinkered with throughout our American History.

[PhilipB]

Dear Anne Dilenschneider,
I do appreciate your thoughts, but...
Everyone knows what it means to be married.
Speaking for myself, which is always a wise thing to do as you do not get into abstractio­ns...
I can say that I simply want to be married like anyone else. We do not want to change the whole thing, or deny straight people what is denied to us: we just want to join into the fabric of existing institutions so we can say, yes we are married, and yes we are equal, as good as you. We pay taxes, have raised a family, and we should be treated equally.
I am not for withholding taxes even though I am treated like a second class citizen, nor do I want to destroy marriage: we want to be married; I just want us to be a part of society, treated equally by the state.

[kwinter]

Beautifully said!

[LordMoon]

I had to stop and think for a second, when you said, " those persons who might lose benefits if they join in civil marriage could choose to have only a religious ceremony to honor their union".

Might lose benefits?

Marriage, isn't really the issue after all is it? It's what happens after the marriage ends, that matters. Thats where the heavy hand of the state gets involved, in enforcing divorce.

It's in the best interest of those that enforce divorce, to make marriage as easy as possible for everyone, because those are the ideal conditions in which divorce is the most rampant.

That is the bottom line for liberalizing marriage, not because they want everyone to have the opportunity to get married, but because they want everyone to have the opportunity to divorce.

The average American male has looked around, and has seen the wreckage of the lives of their friends and families who have gone through divorce and want no part of it. This is a catastrophe for those that make a living enforcing divorce. One for which they have a plan.

Its like the picture of a vase, that looked at from another angle becomes a picture of something else, only their hoping that people don't see that until it's too late.

[LeftRight]

That's not what she's saying. My mother in law was married in all but legal fact for more than a decade to the man we considered her husband. However, based on his health issues, had they been married legally it would have been a financial DISASTER for both of them! That's the point Anne was making. In some rare circumstances there are people who shouldn't legally get married because it would cause them more hardships than it would solve.

[Twopennygal]

And it's not all that rare. My parents are part of a large senior community and there are very many couples living together without the benefit of marriage because they can't afford to get married. The most common reason is social security.

[SouthJerseySteve]

Your explanation makes a lot of sense -- of course the right wing fringe groups don't believe in logic and you would never convince them to accept anything "same sex", even if the big J came down from the mountain, walked on water, and said so himself.

[bannorhill]

It is not just the right wing fringe. It is almost 2/3 of American voters who define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is the left wing minority who wish to redefine marriage.

[LeftRight]

And that's why there is a majority of Americans who SUPPORT gay marriage when polled???

[drjay79]

Da........­......I guess that is all too easy.

[MarcoLuxe]

States should remove authority they give to clergy to solemnize marriages. Just delete codes such as CA Family Code 400(a). [below] This would go a long way toward disentangling church and state, letting churches keep any definition a marriage sacrament or ceremony they want, and moving us toward marriage equality.

It's interesting that the laws of CA make it unnecessary for persons performing marriages to file credentials with anyone. The state is removed from any responsibility for verification of credentials, as it does not maintain a registry of members of the clergy [too much mixing of church and state]. Any concern for verification is totally at the discretion of the parties to the marriage. This is just a whack policy, as there's no way to verify with the state the legality of clergy-conducted marriages .

It's time to remove the improper mixing of church & state in marriage licensing probably left over from frontier necessity.

CA FC 400. Marriage may be SOLEMNIZED by any of the following of age 18 years or older:
(a) PRIEST, MINISTER, RABBI or AUTHORIZED PERSON or ANY RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION [DELETE]
(b) judge or retired, commissioner of civil marriages or retired, commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state or retired.
(c) judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:...­.
(e) state legislator or a Member of Congress from this state, while that person holds office.

[LeftRight]

Actually, you can get a religious "marriage" without the law getting involved TODAY!! ANY priest or pastor or rabbi or whatever can choose to "marry" you and the person that you love without ever getting that piece of paper called a marriage license.

[gotborked]

There really isn't such a thing as a "religious marriage" in the eyes of the law. Yes, in the eyes of the law, some people get married by priests, pastors, etc., but only because the state has vested the power to marry in those individuals. The state already doesn't recognize any of the religious aspects of it--only the legal marriage.

No, the ultimate question is what the definition of a marriage is under our laws, not who does it.

[rjmiller]

The civil part doesn't even need to be a ceremony, it's simply filing a partnership agreement with the state.

[BlackYowe]

When you get that marriage license is when you are really getting married.

[dali partin]

The most sane thing I've heard in weeks. Thanks!

I'm curious, what do people think about common-law marriages that have legal repercussions?

[TryToBeFlexible]

The right wing evangelists will never go for this. It would take away a powerful money making issue for them.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I think they would go for it. They would simply work as hard as they can to exclude gay people.