Am I Alone On This Matter? (Marriage in General~)

Marriage is not only a religious ceremony.

 

im not sure if this is just my view or others see it the same but i see a civil union as a step down marriage just as a couple becoming one. i do not view a marriage in a religious view at all but as a joining of 2 individuals lives. If civil union was viewed equally as marriage i would agree with you but i just dont see it like that.

and also the couples who do have a religious view on life i believe would greatly appriciate being able to be able be joined with there life partner under a religious aspect behind me.

that was probably really disjointed so sorry if it was

 

Marriage has been around far before the majority of religions. Over time, it became a religious ceremony. Historically, it isn't.

 

While I agree with you (marriage shouldn't be bothered with, far too troublesome) I don't like that your basis of reasoning for it is that you believe it's a religious institution. It's not.

I've always favored settling for civil unions over marriage equality since I kept wondering why bother when, if written well, a civil union law is marriage in everything but name. But then there's all this hell about separate but [not] equal crap that everyone else is crying about.

But then all in all, everything would be much simpler if marriage were gender neutral. It makes language so much easier.

 

I agree with you about the separation.

 

I like the way marriage is set up in Belgium:

The only marriage that counts here is the ceremony overseen by the mayor (or deputy) at city hall. Any two adults can get married that way. This marriage is legally valid and binding. If you want, you can make it as short as signing a document, or as long as having an entire ceremony with speeches, music etc. (though in bigger cities, people are obviously urged to keep it short, so as not to create huge waiting lists).

Then you have religious marriage, which can be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wicca, [insert religion here]
This has no validity whatsoever, though. If you get married in a church only, you can't derive any rights from that (and, in fact, will be prosecuted if you do list yourself as married on any official document).

So, pretty much total separation. And no one really minds that they're all called marriage. Christian churches don't recognise Muslim marriage, but they're not throwing a tantrum because Muslims call it "marriage" too either! Churches don't have a copyright or patent on the word. They coopted a system that has been documented since 3000 years before Christ was born, and was probably in use far before that.

And seperate but equal might seem like a good idea, but as experience shows, there has never been a time when people haven't tried to use it to introduce differences and deprive people of their rights. If you don't get full marriage equality, then it's just too easy for a new majority to start changing one system and not the other.

I do think that marriages should convey some rights. Such as the right to visit in hospitals, easier succession rights, automatic acknowledgement of children etc. It's just easier to have a partner registered so you don't have to go through a lot of paperwork everytime. I don't think there should necessarily be tax benefits just for being married, though.

 

I agree. All government-recognized unions should be civil unions that have to be performed by a justice-of-the-peace/mayor/magistrate/government official. Anyone who wants to be "married" could go to the religious institution of their choice and get "married" before "god", but their church marriage wouldn't count for anything legally. Legally, everything is a civil union, and if you wanted to pull "god" into it, you could go do that on your own time.

That's what I would like to see. Hell, it's what my parents did, actually. They got married by a justice-of-the-peace in March of 1981, and in May of 1981 they had a full church wedding. They were legally married in March and could have left it alone, but they wanted to do the whole thing before god and family, so they did the church thing.

 

had you asked this question 30 years ago, the answer would be different, but the times they are a-changin.

Marriage is more then just a relgious thing-a-ma-bob, or a piece of paper that recognises you as a couple. It is a promise, a comittment.

And, people today just don't seem able to honor either.

So, yeah I think marriage is kinda pointless. Everyone I know who is married are either miserable or divorced.

When things get tough we quit, we don't have an attention span long enough to work things out, and instead we let things fester.

So, yeah really whats the point?

 

I think that people just like the idea of a big ceremony, the suit, the dress, the friends and family celebrating, and other such things that go along with a wedding.
For most, that's what it would be about, not the fact that a wedding is "before god".
Some people just like to be traditional.

 

Essentially, at it's roots marriage is a religious ceremony to you, but not everyone. Many different cultures started marriage for all sorts of different reasons and America is supposedly the melting pot for all cultures.

I also would consider it a tremendous waste of time to change all laws concerning marriage to rephrase it to "civil union" and that they must all be overseen by a justice-of-the-peace/some other government official. There are so many other things that need to be attended to that wording seems pointless.

To go back to that, it's like saying Marriages aren't civil unions, cause they're named marriages. It's all the same thing at the end of the day. If you are just having an issue with the religious connotations with the label "Marriage" then you can chose to enter a civil union with your chosen partner and be joined in union by a JOP, thus keeping all religion out of your union.

 

Is that unique to Belgium or do other countries set up marriage like that? Cuz that's so much simpler.

 

The big problem of civil union versus marriage is rights. Marriage in USA grants several more rights than what civil unions grant. Plus there is the big problem that in USA many states don't even have civil unions let alone same-sex marriage. So basically no rights in either case...

 

As far as I know it's like that in France, and a few other countries in Europe. Unfortunately not in Ireland

 

I have never considered marriage to be a religious thing. Most people in my family aren't in to big, "traditional" weddings. It usually just involves the couple bringing a few family members with them down to the County Courthouse. I understand that some people chose bring the religious aspect into marriage/weddings, but marriages in the US can be a purely civil/secular thing if you want them to be.

 

Yeah, I don't mind if nots actually 'marriage' as long as it has the same legal status.

 

Honestly, I don't think marriage is as important as everyone makes it out to be. I don't see much of a difference(besides legally) between a couple who is married and a couple who isn't married. I believe that if you love someone and trust them, you shouldn't need a ceremony and a ring to prove that nor to prove your commitment. I think that a cheater will be unfaithfull whether he/she has a ring on his/her finger or not.

 

i hate the idea of civil unions the name sounds like your setting up a business with someone not committing your love forever..

marriage be it state or religious is that union.

but marriage was round long before the church hijacked it, be it a king blessing a couple or the bonding of people when a farther sold his daughter...

i think we do need to remind religion of that ...marriage isnt theirs they just RELIGIOUSLY marry people the state can marry people too.

its a shame the worlds forgot its history.

 

Basically, it was originally developed during the French Revolution (when the idea was originally to abolish the church alltogether). Then Napoleon codified it, and had it instituted in whatever territories he conquered.
some countries went back to their original legal systems after Napoleon's fall, but others (like Belgium) kept it.

The church probably wasn't too happy, but they found that it's not entirely wise to argue with a guy who's emperor of most of Europe and has control of a couple million soldiers that will do anything he says. Right before Napoleon, they already had a lot of clergy guillotined, and church posessions nationalised.
Napoleon did reconcile with the church, but his motto was: "I have no problem kissing the feet of the pope, provided I tied his hands first" :lol:

So far for the history lesson, though