Marriage, state vs church & morality

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-02 01:28pm

(This is my first poll so forgive me if I do it wrong).

Background:

1. Marriage for the State is a legally binding contract between individuals that give them legal advantages and disadvanteges.
This contract can be broken by a divorce.
2. Marriage for the church is (depending on religion) a holy ritual that designates the individuals before the divine as 'joined'. This usually allows them to do specific things which otherwise is frowned upon. (usually sex is involved)

Question:
How do you think that a modern democratic nation should handle marriages?

Debate points:
For a modern democratic nation it should be of importance to have:
1. Seperation of church and state, religion should not create laws for the nation.
2. Religious freedom, the nation should not tell religous folks how to practice their religion. (Unless it affects others like virgin sacrifice).

So my take is that there should be two different weddings.
-The State marriage which is the legal contract between the individuals, that they are married for all legal advantages and disadvantages. The laws for this contract should not restrict the signees at all as long as they agree. (Same-sex? Yes.)(More than 2? Yes, as long as all agree to sign)
-The Churches should then have a seperate matrimony. This has nothing to do with the legal contract with the state. This matrimony, because it doesn't involve the state legislation, can have any criteria that the religion can think of. (Discriminative? Yes, if their religion says so, go ahead, it's just a ritual with no legal implications).

This would mean that:
-The churches can restrict their matrimonies as much as they like without interfering with the laws of the state. If they like they can say that people over 65 can't be joined in matrimony without fear of legal action.
-Bigamy and samesex marriages follow the same laws as all others without discrimination.

What do you think?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-02 01:33pm

I say give homosexual couples equal rights under the law. Still recognize the legality of church marriages but give equal standing to gay and lesbian marriages.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 01:39pm

I'm not too sure on the marriage laws as they stand, but church mariages are legally accepted, but gay marriage should be allowed within and without of the church.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-02 01:42pm

verilon wrote:I'm not too sure on the marriage laws as they stand, but church mariages are legally accepted, but gay marriage should be allowed within and without of the church.

If you are forcing a church to accept something that is contrary to their belief system you don't have freedom of religion.
Is that acceptible in a modern democratic state?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-02 01:48pm

People should have the right to let their legally churches marry them, if that is their desire. There's no reason to deny little Catholic girls their dream of a white wedding. So giving priests and ministers marriage powers is acceptable, but it is completely unacceptable to allow priests and ministers to practice discrimination with those powers (i.e. refusing to marry homosexuals).

Therefore, if churches want the power to legally marry, they must agree not to discriminate with it. If they wish to practice discrimination, then marriages they perform cannot be considered legally binding, and a judge or other state official must be present at the ceremony to pronounce the marriage legally valid. Any time a private organization is given governmental powers, it becomes a quasi-government in that respect, and it must respect the same freedoms and rights the government does with regard to the powers it has been granted.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-02 01:50pm

If you are forcing a church to accept something that is contrary to their belief system you don't have freedom of religion.
Is that acceptible in a modern democratic state?

You missed the part about the churches wanting to exercise powers normally reserved for the state. If they want that power, then they can't complain about the responsibility and obligation not to discriminate that comes with it.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 01:53pm

Spoonist wrote:
verilon wrote:I'm not too sure on the marriage laws as they stand, but church mariages are legally accepted, but gay marriage should be allowed within and without of the church.
If you are forcing a church to accept something that is contrary to their belief system you don't have freedom of religion.
Is that acceptible in a modern democratic state?

Is the churches' pushing their lust for power on the government acceptable in a modern democratic state?

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-02 01:56pm

verilon wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Is the churches' pushing their lust for power on the government acceptable in a modern democratic state?

How is not performing gay marriages a sign of power hunger in churches? IF it is their doctrine NOT to perform said weddings,a nd one comes along demanding that they do so, then freedom of religion is compromised, because now they cannot practice one of the tenets of their faith, which is the denial of homosexuality.

Rather, it would be better to make church weddings and state-approved marriages equally acceptable, to get around the unfortunate bias of churches against homosexuality.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 01:57pm

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:
verilon wrote:Is the churches' pushing their lust for power on the government acceptable in a modern democratic state?
How is not performing gay marriages a sign of power hunger in churches? IF it is their doctrine NOT to perform said weddings,a nd one comes along demanding that they do so, then freedom of religion is compromised, because now they cannot practice one of the tenets of their faith, which is the denial of homosexuality.

Rather, it would be better to make church weddings and state-approved marriages equally acceptable, to get around the unfortunate bias of churches against homosexuality.

The point was that the Church wants the government to conform to their wishes.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-02 01:58pm

Durandal wrote:
If you are forcing a church to accept something that is contrary to their belief system you don't have freedom of religion.
Is that acceptible in a modern democratic state?
You missed the part about the churches wanting to exercise powers normally reserved for the state. If they want that power, then they can't complain about the responsibility and obligation not to discriminate that comes with it.

So what you are saying is that the church can choose:
Either
A) They may wed people if they comply with the legislation (which may or may not be contradictory to their belief).
B) They may not marry people.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-02 02:00pm

I say allow Church to wed as their morals dictate. And recognize them legally. It would be a violations of freedom of religion to dictate to them. Just give Church marraiges no different standing and there is no problem.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-02 02:02pm

verilon wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
verilon wrote:I'm not too sure on the marriage laws as they stand, but church mariages are legally accepted, but gay marriage should be allowed within and without of the church.
If you are forcing a church to accept something that is contrary to their belief system you don't have freedom of religion.
Is that acceptible in a modern democratic state?
Is the churches' pushing their lust for power on the government acceptable in a modern democratic state?

What has power got to do with my argument?
If you remove all legaslative importance of church marriage their power is removed.

Moot point, next please.
(A state should be aware that ALL interest groups are pushing their lust for power on the government religious or otherwise. Being aware of it the state should then legislate so that said pushing comforms to the democratic principle.)

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-12-02 02:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:I say allow Church to wed as their morals dictate. And recognize them legally. It would be a violations of freedom of religion to dictate to them. Just give Church marraiges no different standing and there is no problem.

So you are OK with legally enforcing churches discrimination of people?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 02:05pm

Spoonist wrote:
verilon wrote:
Spoonist wrote: If you are forcing a church to accept something that is contrary to their belief system you don't have freedom of religion.
Is that acceptible in a modern democratic state?
Is the churches' pushing their lust for power on the government acceptable in a modern democratic state?
What has power got to do with my argument?
If you remove all legaslative importance of church marriage their power is removed.

Moot point, next please.
(A state should be aware that ALL interest groups are pushing their lust for power on the government religious or otherwise. Being aware of it the state should then legislate so that said pushing comforms to the democratic principle.)

I wrote that wrong. I meant beliefs. Stupid thing erased my post. But in the church, belief is power, do there's no real distinction.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 02:15pm

I agree with Spoonist - Being married in the eyes of God is different to in the eyes of the law.

Right now in the UK, as far as I'm aware, Church weddings have a point where the couple go off and sign the registry - i.e. a seperate State wedding that is performed within the Church ceremony. But Civil Ceremonies are available too.

I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to a religion that conflicts with their lifestyle choice anyway -if your minister is so bigoted that he won't marry a gay couple, do you really want him to marry you?

But I believe in marriage, I think it's an important part of the family unit, and the british Government is sacrificing the nation's marriages by removing all married couples rights in order to be seen as tolerant to same sex couples, when all they need to is legalise homosexual weddings.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-12-02 02:47pm

Churches should be able to marry whoever they please, and refuse whoever they don't want to marry. However, if people are rejected by the church, they can turn to the state and get a marrage there.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-02 05:33pm

So what you are saying is that the church can choose:
Either
A) They may wed people if they comply with the legislation (which may or may not be contradictory to their belief).
B) They may not marry people.

Precisely. If they don't like it, too fucking bad.

I agree with Spoonist - Being married in the eyes of God is different to in the eyes of the law.

It's only different with respect to which institution is telling you you're married. The government saying you're married carries much more weight, as you are eligible for tax benefits as a married couple. Churches just tell you that it's okay to fuck after you get married.

I'm not sure why someone would want to subscribe to a religion that conflicts with their lifestyle choice anyway -if your minister is so bigoted that he won't marry a gay couple, do you really want him to marry you?

No, but would you want the Catholic Church punishing a priest who was kind enough to marry a gay, Catholic couple?

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2002-12-02 06:00pm

Churches, synagoges,mosqes, ect. should be allowed to perform legally binding marraige ceremonies as long as they dont discriminate

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-12-03 06:13am

First of all, being one of many agencies that can perform a legal marriage does not seem to be a great power... so It can hardly be seen as Pushing for power!! ('Oh look I can refuse to marry this person and the law says they can go to another agency to get married I am So Fething powerful...' nope don't see it really) So why interfere with the tenents of a belief system?
Second of all I like our system in Britain, the legal part of the ceremony takes place as a part of the wider religious ceremony, or you can go to a civil registry office and get the legal part of the marriage. However I agree that Homosexual marriages should be allowed, but that in a religious ceremony it must be the minister's right to refuse, why because what the minister is truly supplying is the religious side, The legal side is avaible else where, and the state can't legistlate for religion.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-03 11:23am

Except in the case of the CofE, where the Prime Minister (nowadays a Catholic, but has been Jewish in the past) gets to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I love the CofE - gives us a chance to laugh and point.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-03 11:47am

First of all, being one of many agencies that can perform a legal marriage does not seem to be a great power... so It can hardly be seen as Pushing for power!! ('Oh look I can refuse to marry this person and the law says they can go to another agency to get married I am So Fething powerful...' nope don't see it really) So why interfere with the tenents of a belief system?

Because they're getting state powers. That comes with the responsibility not to discriminate.

Post by **Edi** » 2002-12-04 01:51am

In my opinion the church should have no say in the legislation of marriage, which was one of the poll options, meaning that religious organizations should not have any bearing on the laws about marriage and what sorts of marriages are acceptable to the state (not that they won't scream blue murder anyway, but who gives a damn?).

However, the question of who should have the right to perform a marriage ceremony that results in a marriage that legally binds the two people involved and grants them tax benefits and whatever other applicable rights as described by the law, is an entirely different matter.

Obviously the state cannot be allowed to discriminate on who can get married, so it will have to perform the civil ceremony for same sex couples. BUT the state can extend the right to perform a legally binding marriage ceremony to other organizations (we're talking religious ones here, obviously). Generally states do this, at least with regard to the main religions.

Don't know about the US, but here in Finland marriage ceremonies performed by the Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox and half a dozen other Christian denominations, Islamic congregations, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and the Hare Krishna all result in a legally binding marriage. Of course, only as long as the person performing the ceremony has been recognized by the state as having the right to do so, otherwise it's invalid.

In any case, the question regarding religious institutions and marriages is one of the EXTENT they choose to use their right to perform a legally binding marriage ceremony. They have the right to perform it, but they do NOT have an obligation to perform it. So religious organizations do have a right to impose conditions on the marriage that the state does not have, such as only validating marriage between a man and a woman.

Now before everybody blasts me for supporting discrimination and religious bigotry, hear me out. The problem is a complex one, and explaining it will possibly involve some legalese, but I'll try to avoid that.

Fundamentally we're talking about constitutional rights here (such as they are understood to generally be in the West) and more specifically about the head-on collision of equally powerful constitutional rights. I don't know how far this applies in the US, but here our constitution guarantees us the following freedoms: Freedom of speech (and other expression), association, religion, several others and freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, political affiliations or sexual orientation and others that may be applicable.

What this debate about church discrimination regarding marriage is all about is the collision of freedom from discrimination and freedom of association. Two equally powerful principles, both aimed at allowing maximum freedom, and in this case diametrically opposed. So which one is right? Which one has right of way?

A religious organization is by definition an association of people who subscribe to the same (or at least similar) beliefs and act in the furtherance of those beliefs (or at least upholding them if not furthering). It is perfectly acceptable for associations to set conditions for membership and other conditions for other things, such as services the association may perform for a given member. The state cannot legally force such an association to perform actions which would run counter to its very principles (assuming that the association is legal, e.g. its goals are not illegal, such as promoting racism etc.), or the state will have engaged in a violation of the freedom of association against the association. Furthermore, by forcing the association (in this case a religious organization) to go against its principles, the state will also have violated the association's right to freedom of religion (or its members' collective right to same, take your pick) and possibly also its right to have freedom from discrimination by the state.

Therefore, the freedom of association of the religious organization has right of way because it results in less violations of constitutional rights. Sadly, the fact is that religious organizations do have the right to set conditions on marriage above and beyond what the state can for this reason (e.g. Lutheran church in Finland requires one to have been confirmed before you can be married according to their ceremonies).

If anybody wants to ask me how I came by this reasoning, it's because of a certain case that went up to our Supreme Court and IIRC resulted in a change of certain laws and was argued in the Constitution Committee of our Parliament, namely one where a man sued the church for discrimination because he was fired from his job for being an avowed atheist. He won the case in both the lower courts and got struck down in Supreme for exactly the freedom of association angle that I presented, the state had no right to force the church to employ a person whose beliefs ran directly counter to everything the church represented, because that would violate freedom of association far more badly than the man's right to freedom from discrimination was violated by getting fired. The principles involved in this marriage question are exactly the same.

BUT, if the state refuses to marry, in a civil ceremony, people who could not marry in some religious organization or another for some reason (e.g. being an avowed atheist), then it is upon the state to provide objective evidence for why this should be so, e.g. that someone would be harmed by it. This is why e.g. underage people generally cannot be married without certain very restrictive special conditions, because they are considered too immature to make such a weighty decision. However, in this respect the sex of those married and their sexual orientaton is NOT a consideration unless objective evidence that it would result in harm is presented. The offended sensibilities of religious bigots obviously don't qualify for objective evidence. As far as I know, there are no valid reasons for states to refuse the right to marry from same sex couples, and if they start kowtowing to religious pressure then it's time to scream blue murder about violation of the separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, due to latent religious bigotry and opposition from the churches (all of them and not just Christian) even here same sex marriages are not called marriages, but instead "registered relationships", as if there is any bloody difference. They get the same rights as married people, except that adoption is (I think) more difficult. But aside from overly religious assholes it doesn't even raise eyebrows here.

Edi

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-05 01:36am

In my opinion, marriage should no longer be the province of the government. It should be relegated solely to the status of ceremony and personal meaning. I don't think the state should care who lives with and fucks each other (as long as, of course, they're two consenting adults, etc.) much less grant legal advantages/disadvantages to taking a sole wife.

As a result, while you could go get married down at the church or whatever, it would cease to be a legal contract. I suppose one could also enter into, say, a "marriage contract" that entails some of the legal repercussions of a marriage today, but without the taxman taking special notice.

That's IMHO, though, and I don't imagine things will be like that for a very long time.

Post by **Edi** » 2002-12-05 03:53am

Uraniun, that doesn't work. There are far too many issues directly tied to this, from property issues to financial protection and others, and just abolishing the institution of marriage would be like trying to fix a microcircuit with a sledgehammer. Creates more problems than it solves. Besides, the tax benefit thing becomes very important in the event of death and inheritance and so forth. Especially if taxes on inheritance are high, like they are here. Besides, we are not discussing the necessity of marriage, but what the roles of state and church are as regards to who is allowed to marry whom, when, how and where.

Edi

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Marriage, state vs church & morality

How do you think that marriages should be handled?

Marriage, state vs church & morality