Their message to the legislature was clear: stop discriminating against our right to solemnize marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

What a simple brilliant legal tactic I am sure the Right will denounce. They will claim they are doing what the bible says but the bible also says slaves should obey their masters and women should be subordinate to men two things America nolonger supports nor do more Lefty Churches.
Its great to hear the more Lefty Churches take a stand and in such a brilliant fashion. The same arguments about the Right makes about respecting religion have now been called into disrepute by other religious authorities.
This puts lefty Churches sq with the majority of the voters who are left of Obama on the issue:)
OMG are we the New Moral Majority? Bwahahaha!
Pass the popcorn please I gotta go thanks Laurel best laugh I had all week)

I’ve never understood why the U.S. allows ministers of religion to legalize marriage contracts in the first place. In most of the western world, the legal marriage and the religious service are two different things. What any particular denomination does is irrelevant to the state, as it should be.

Hey Pups of Fire:

OT, but does anyone happen to know when the surreal, comedy debate festivities kick off this evening? Also, which esteemed media outlet will be broadcasting this travesty incredibly important hysterical historical event?

Because it took its traditions from Great Britain, which to this day has a weird hybrid system where ministers of major religions can perform legally valid weddings. Today, completely civil weddings are possible too though.

Mandatory civil weddings (as should be the case everywhere) is something Napoleon introduced in the Code Civil. He then spread those ideas over most of continental Europe, which in turn exported it to Middle and South America.

But I agree. The fact that churches can notarize weddings led them to have an inflated sense of their own importance. There are actually people who don’t know that you don’t have to be married in a church

Religious weddings and state recognition of marriages are separate in the US, too, though they tend to happen at more-or-less the same time in most cases and have been blurred together in many people’s minds. And of course they’re not the only ones who can do the legal thing. I’ve done it a couple of times for friends of mine, and I’m neither a religious leader nor a government official.

It’s that blurring together that’s the problem with the whole same-sex marriage debate.

In continental Europe and most countries influenced by its legal codes you have to get married at city hall (or maybe a chosen location by a government officiant). It’s not optional. Afterwards, you can have a church wedding if you want, but it has no legal significance. The whole marriage license thing in the US really warped people’s perception and makes them think that marriage is a religious thing.

In our synagogues in the Reform Movement, we want to be able to perform gay and lesbian weddings and not have the state prevent us from doing that which we think is religiously correct.

The problem with statements like that is that it simply isn’t true. Nothing at all prevents them from performing gay and lesbian weddings – nobody is going to be arrested for that – so waving the flag of religious freedom is just deceptive and needlessly so. What they are complaining about is not being able to be the middlemen in government-related contracts, which it would be better if there truly was separation of church and state and such government-related legal contracts were the sole domain of Justices of the Peace and other government entities so that way government is out of religion and religion is out of government…religion should be taken out of the legal contract of a wedding unless of course someone wants a non-legally binding religious wedding as well.

Above all common sense, moral decency and equality, let’s NOT forget that marriages generate revenue for the one DOING the ceremony, hall rentals, reception expenses, not to mention the local taxes on all that, and of course, money for the city coffers (schools, police, fire, water, sewage etc.) from the marriage license . . .

It’s good business!!!

*G*

Community based business!!!

*G*

Thanks for the read, rcc’d.

As far as I know, all marriages in the US require a city license and blood tests.

THAT’S the contract, the rest is words.

Religious figures do NOT issue marriage licenses, as far as I know, nor do they administer or designate blood testing.

I don’t think you got your facts straight.

Is a religious marriage really equal if the government does not accept it? Do insurance polices give benefits to unmarried same sex couples? Would a Catholic hospital have to let a gay spouse in to see their dying partner only relatives can visit when they are really hurt.
So yes the Lefty churches are just looking after that flock bout time good on them.

Larue,
While I cannot speak for every community in the U.S., I can assure you that when my partner, David, and I got married this past July 24th in New York City, we had to apply for a city license, but no blood tests were required. Our civil ceremony was conducted by a volunteer NY State Supreme Court Justice, who was himself gay and married in Vermont. It was a super event for us, after having committed to living together in love and mutual respect for the past 28 years.

My only regret is that this summer we are moving to our retirement home in Florida, a state with no respect for people like us who wish to live as a married couple, paying our taxes, and contributing to our community like most people do. We can only hope that someday Prop 8 will wend its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and they will overturn these anachronistic and stupid laws that make separate and unequal citizens out of people like us. We will have our NY Marriage Certificate, framed and hanging on our living room wall for all to see who come to visit. We will still be married in our own eyes, and in the eyes of the State of New York.

We look forward to the states of Washington and Maryland joining soon the family of ever growing states that allow their citizens full, equal citizenship until such time as the whole country joins us in permitting millions of others around the country to celebrate as we now can the commitment and love we have known for these past 28 years.

richmx2 may have a point. I’ve done two marriages in WA since moving here, both in Snohomish County. On the license, there were two categories: (1) religious ceremony; (2) civil ceremony. The notations indicated that a judge or qualified officer of the court (?) could perform a civil ceremony, all others were considered religious. I should have followed up and didn’t (both were “religious” ceremonies since I’m ordained), as that’s probably another quirk in WA law (or at least Snohomish County’s application of it) that needs to be updated. FWIW, no blood test was required. About blood tests, since I started officiating marriage ceremonies in 1998, the 4 states I’ve done them in (NM, CO, AZ & WA) have not required blood tests.

I have always held the position;

government should NOT be involved in marriage AT ALL, that should be left to a person’s individual practice

in fact, government first became involved to PREVENT mixed marriages between black and white, now it’s doing the same thing preventing mixed marriages among same sex and same sex.

government should simply give civil licenses to whoever passes the protocol and leave “marriage” to whatever the persons’s belief system allows

I GUARANTEE there will be MORE religious sects accepting gay marriage since they will lose too much congregation opposing it

I know I stand lonely in this position but here I am, government out of marriage ENTIRELY I SAY

btw

I believe george washington himself was married without a license from the government

You don’t know any history. The Romans already had completely secular marriages. For much of history people had common law marriages. If two people and their families considered themselves married, society and the government generally honored that.

The Catholic Church didn’t get involved in the marriage business until the 12th or 13th century. Before that they largely kept Roman law. It didn’t become a sacrament until the 16th century and that was in direct response to Martin Luther who saw marriage as a worldly thing and wanted the church to stay out of it. At least on that, he was right. Marriage is a civil contract. And it has been such a lot longer than you think. In the US, the theocratic Puritans of all people already set it up that way. It’s religion that needs to get out.

Back then, common law marriages were still legal in most of the country I think. Today, they are extremely rare in the US and have few rights. Canada and Australia still have common-law/de facto relationships. If people live together in a permanent, co-dependent relationships they automatically get certain benefits from it (which is how marriage worked for most of human history). In fact, in Canada that was the first step towards the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Historically, it’s really organized religion that’s relatively new to the marriage business

You don’t know any history. The Romans already had completely secular marriages. For much of history people had common law marriages. If two people and their families considered themselves married, society and the government generally honored that.

I am pretty sure we are saying the same thing steve, but we come up with different conclusions, government needs to get out of the actual “marriage” contract and simply call it a union, it’s semantics, then whoever wants to get their religion approving their union through “marriage” can find the religious organization that will make them happy

There’s obviously a lot of confusion about marriage.

Marriage has always been a community/state function, the state as an extension of the community. (After all, a “community” of 20 million people is a little hard to keep track of.) Marriage is also a contract, since there are money and inheritance rights involved. Churches cannot enforce contracts, nor can “individual practice” — that is the realm of the law as administered by the government.

Consequently, when clergy officiate at a marriage, they do so as agents of the state; their religious body has no independent authority in that area. Yes, they can hold a ceremony. It’s not legally binding. In fact, marriage wasn’t even a sacrament in the Christian Church until the beginning of the thirteenth century, and common-law marriages were prevalent among the lower (i.e., those who had so little that inheritance wasn’t an issue) until well into the eighteenth.

So given that history, why should we get government out of marriage?

Because of the social and cultural weight that adheres to the term “marriage,” I would strongly object to handing over the institution and the name to churches, no matter how much they want to appropriate it. They have no particular right to it.

pretty sure by your definition there was marriage long before there was any government, for instance my dogs seem like they think they are married.

in america, history demonstrates the reason government became involved in marriage was to prevent inter-racial marriages

THAT’S why government should get out of marriage, they can be in the business of honoring contracts between two parties who might want to call their contract marriage, others who might want to call it a union

been searching the internet and most research demonstrates not my lack of history but your misinterpretation;

Early Marriage Contracts
For centuries, marriages were private contracts between two families that may or may not have had the bridegroom or bride’s consent. Marriage was not only for procreation, but for also building financial, social and, in some cases, political alliances. When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.

government NOT involved in marriages, simply involved in the contract, more;

Racist Reasoning
According to the North Carolina History project, in 1741, the state increased control over marriages, primarily to prohibit interracial marriages by issuing marriage licenses. By the 1920s, some 38 other states had issued similar laws in an effort to keep the white race “pure.” Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act (RIA) of 1924 made it illegal for mixed-race couples to marry. The RIA remained law until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Read more: The History of Marriage Licenses | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz1kmouPG77

Read more: The History of Marriage Licenses | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz1kmoOlm4E

you may or may not agree with these historical references but claiming I don’t know history seems a little backwards by most accounts of marriage in this country

You’re doing some selective quoting from your own source there

In the United States prior to the 1700s, marriages were primarily a responsibility of local churches with marriages registered only with the state

and continues as a source of revenue for local and state governments.

The latter part is very important if you step out of the idiosyncratic US bubble for a moment and look at how marriage developed in Europe during and after the 18th century. Interracial marriage was irrelevant there. But the state was interested in marriage to keep statistics about the people. Marriage and family registers told them how many people lived where, which helped with tax collecting for example. The state also increasingly used marriage as a tool to bestow certain rights and benefits on people. And eventually society underwent a sometimes forceful secularization after the French Revolution and the churches were systematically stripped of many rights and much of their property in some countries. Along with that marriage became entirely civil by the late 18th and early 19th century.

Saying that the government needs to get out of marriage is ridiculous and naive. What should happen is that marriage is used less a basis for doling out monetary benefits. It also makes no sense whatsoever to tie things like hospital visitation and medical decisions to marital status. There are too many things tied to it, but in general it’s still useful tool to regulate relationships and property. It just needs to be reformed and adjusted. Just as it has changed for centuries. Religion has no right to the term “marriage”. Like with so many other things, they stole it

we’re both guilty of selective quoting, you’re finding your’s very nicely however the fact remains regardless, government involvement of marriage is to restrict the practice, that’s not an opinion, you are not married until they give you a license, they are restricting you…can not be denied

now, they could not possibly make that claim publicly so they use the very convenient reason that you quoted, which happens to be correct albeit obviously incomplete, that IS the “primary” reason for government involvement but hardly the only reason, and that primary reason is NOT hampered by allowing them control of civil partnership instead of marriage

select the quotes you like, the reason they began involvement was to restrict certain individuals from marrying and they are using it now for the very same reason, as we see today, so I don’t even need to prove the point, it stands all by itself by the very argument you and I are having right now

marriage was happening before government involvement and there is NO reason government is involved today, NOT withstanding the “claim” that they use it for statistics, easily served by civil union certififates

thank you

I’ll retire from this thread and let you have the last word

That’s the point — if you take government as an extension of the community — the agricultural village, the hunter/forager band, whatever example you want to pull from early human history and/or prehistory (what we know of it), which community developed government as inevitably as chieftains became kings — government of one sort or another has always been involved in marriage, whether it is something as simple as the village acknowledging a couple as married (i.e., the creation of a new household) or something as often complicated as enforcing pre-nuptial agreements or the terms of a divorce.

There is also the fact that the word itself, “marriage,” carries a social weight that no other term does, which is another reason I’m not willing to hand it over to the churches: churches are, quite deliberately, not the authority in this country; the government, acting on behalf of the populace, is. If a long-term, monogamous relationship is going to be recognized by any entity, I’d much rather have it be the government, because that recognition, inevitably, will prevail.