Yesterday, I posed questions I have had for a number of years about marriage. I have not seen any of them addressed in any of the discussions about marriage I have read.
Two other points I would raise about marriage. One looks at the intersection of the civil and the religious authorities in determining who is allowed to marry. The other looks at that same intersection in the dissolution of marriage.
Historically, the state has defined who may or may not marry. For years, the civil government, at least in the south, denied people of different races the right to marry. Close relatives - how close being defined by law - are not allowed to marry even now. And, the civil authorities forbid a person engaging in multiple marriages. To the best of my knowledge, no main stream religious groups have challenged the states' rights to make such prohibitions.
And, when a married couple decides to divorce, it is the civil authority that is involved, not the religious. Couples may marry in a church with a minister performing a religious ritual and signing the license, but the couple divorces with a judge presiding in a legal ritual.
So, which realm - civil or religious - is the dominant one in defining marriage for our society? Which should be? What would it mean if the subordinate one were to try to trump the dominant one?
What is your opinion?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Further Reflections on Marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dear Michael,
I have have just found your church and your web site and it has drawn my interest. My significant other and I will be attending this Sunday's service. Over the years I have always considered myself a progressive democrat, but over the past 5 years I have finally realized that I have almost nothing in common with the democrats anymore. On the issue of gay marriage, I believe that it should be left up to the states, but to the voters of the states as it was done in California. The people should decide this matter not the courts or the elected officials. I do not believe in gay marriage myself, but I do believe in the people and what they want for their states. I do not always stand with my catholic up bringing on every issue but I believe in god and the rights that he gave us to form the USA. I would vote against gay marriage for many reasons but the main one is that we were sent forth to procreate and gays can not do this. If the entire planet decided to go gay they we would become extinct. I have been married and divorced, I have lived with men without being married and I have found that there is not much difference in them. I will live my life with or without a piece of paper saying that I am married and I think it is the same for everyone. So on this thought, if you can have the same rights, why screw up a good thing?
More of a question than a comment. Didn't the pilgrims use only civil services?
I believe that if you get married in a church then you should have it anulled or disolved by the church. If you we married by the state then it should be disolved by the state. The only question I have on this is: In churches like the FLDS that allow multiple marriages then this is a problem. We need a concoius way to recognize both church and state. Mabey we should do both? The religious one to solidify out beliefs and another to make a contractual binding? I believe that the church makes the spiritual binding and the marriage licence makes the contractual binding so if divorce is necessary the licence is the contractual binding and the persons that were wed need to ask for the blessings of the church to disolve the marriage but it is up to them. I think that this issue needs to be taken up with each form or type of religion. As a Catholic I know that I have to get my marriage annulled but that can be paid for or gotten around so this is a touchy issue. I am sure most churches do not want to touch this issue as Catholics have done.
Post a Comment