NationStates Jolt Archive

That abortion thread has way too much activity to wade through; let's talk about something else. I am all for the state* governments not recognizing any form of marriage and leaving it as a religious institution.

Yes, marriage may have started as a secular institution, but so did religion. As time has passed, individual concepts of religion have developed beyond the point where they should be controlled by the state. I argue that the same thing has happened with marriage. To various religious groups, marriage means different things. To the state, marriage simply translates to certain rights and benefits.

Anything separate from these state-granted benefits has nothing to do with the state. Historically, the concept of marriage formed when there was no distinction between state and church. State and church have now split; therefore, keeping the aspects of marriage together makes little sense.

And it would not be that difficult to adapt it. Changing "marriage" to "civil union" would be all that needed to be done. Maybe even roommates would want civil unions for tax reasons; who knows?

And different belief systems can do whatever they fancy in terms of marriage. Like other aspects, the state doesn't have to care. Also, other various religions have no obligation to recognize them.

And at this point I'm repeating myself. Thoughts?


*In this particular post, I use state to imply both a national government and the government of a United States province. :)

*sigh*

The lengths some will go to deny marriage to homosexuals. Suddenly, its "marriage shouldn't have anything to do with government."

Anyway, I don't have a problem with your idea in principal.

Your knowledge of history and anthropology needs some work, however.

I don't have a problem with the idea either--in fact, I've argued it many times myself. But here's the thing--even if you somehow managed to get such a notion passed into law, a division between the civil pact called a union and a religious one called marriage, you'd still never get people to stop referring to the whole damn thing as marriage. Are couples going to go to the courthouse to get unionized? Sounds like there'd be Teamsters involved. Shades of Jimmy Hoffa. And would couples who'd foregone the religious ceremony refer to themselves as being unioned instead of married? Some geeky, weird ones would, no doubt, but not the majority--they'd call themselves married, because it's easier, and most importantly, it's familiar, and everyone would know what they meant.

Same-sex marriage is an inevitability--it's more a question of when than anything else. The demographics support it, and more parts of the country are becoming open to it all the time. Let's just let the politics run its course.

Your knowledge of history and anthropology needs some work, however.

I'm not as decided on this issue as I was on the other board. :)

Was it *not* the case that church and state were intertwined in the early days of yore, when marriage was first coming to be? I'm not being sarcastic; let me know.

And the point is that it WOULDN'T be denied to anyone. On the same level, the state couldn't sanction it.

But here's the thing--even if you somehow managed to get such a notion passed into law, a division between the civil pact called a union and a religious one called marriage, you'd still never get people to stop referring to the whole damn thing as marriage.

Fine. And that "marriage" would mean different things to different people, just like "religious" or "moral" or "unemployed" mean different things depending on which person or government entity you ask.

Are couples going to go to the courthouse to get unionized? Sounds like there'd be Teamsters involved. Shades of Jimmy Hoffa. And would couples who'd foregone the religious ceremony refer to themselves as being unioned instead of married? Some geeky, weird ones would, no doubt, but not the majority--they'd call themselves married, because it's easier, and most importantly, it's familiar, and everyone would know what they meant.

"Husband" or "wife" was used for generations on end before "life partner" started showing up, so familiarity isn't all that powerful. Besides, what would the state care if people called it marriage or not?

Same-sex marriage is an inevitability--it's more a question of when than anything else. The demographics support it, and more parts of the country are becoming open to it all the time. Let's just let the politics run its course.

I agree that it's inevitable. I also agree that other things are inevitable, such as polygamy and incest--not in the slippery slope mindframe, mind you, but in the total mindframe of increasing civil rights. This would make the process easier, arguably.

And, in fact, the first two of you even said you don't have a problem with it.

I apologize in advance for being a pedant.

*In this particular post, I use state to imply both a national government and the government of a United States province.

I'm sorry, but the word province is quite improper to use when referring to an American state. To me the word province implies that said entity is a subsidiary of a larger government. An administrative division, or district. An American state is closer in character and operation to a national government than a province. Our states are quite autonomous and have a rather large degree of sovereignty. Of course Canadian provinces are quite independent, but most "provinces" throughout the world are mainly administrative districts, nothing more.

Sorry, that's just one of my pet peeves.


Anyway, back on topic, I agree with your idea that the state should only recognize the existance of a marriage, not the details behind it. It's really none of the states business.

I'm sorry, but the word province is quite improper to use when referring to an American state. To me the word province implies that said entity is a subsidiary of a larger government. An administrative division, or district. An American state is closer in character and operation to a national government than a province. Our states are quite autonomous and have a rather large degree of sovereignty. Of course Canadian provinces are quite independent, but most "provinces" throughout the world are mainly administrative districts, nothing more.

Sorry to step on your peeve. I just didn't want to use the word "state" to describe the word "state", in all honesty.

To the state, marriage simply translates to certain rights and benefits.

And that is all that civil marriage is - a set of contractual rights and benefits applied to two people who are living in such a way that they want them.

State and church have now split; therefore, keeping the aspects of marriage together makes little sense.

No one is suggesting that you keep them together. Most people can make the logical distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.

And it would not be that difficult to adapt it. Changing "marriage" to "civil union" would be all that needed to be done. Maybe even roommates would want civil unions for tax reasons; who knows?

There is no reason whatsoever to change the word used. Many things mean something different in a legal sense than they do in the vernacular - it doesn't mean that the government has to change words.

In fact, changing to "civil unions" would have much more impact than you might think. Every law referring to marriage would have to be amended to say "civil unions". Treaties in wihch we agree to recognize the marriages of another country could suddenly be denied on the basis that they were "marriages" not "civil unions" or vice versa.

In the end, there is no reason whatsoever for either case to stop using the word. Neither religion nor government have a monopoly on the word "marriage". We simply keep the concepts separate - religious marriage vs. civil marriage.

And different belief systems can do whatever they fancy in terms of marriage. Like other aspects, the state doesn't have to care. Also, other various religions have no obligation to recognize them.

You mean like right now?

Don't worry about it, I wasn't really that annoyed. I also know that there are a lot of Americans who don't realize the word "state" can mean the same thing as "nation", so I know where you're coming from.

Was it *not* the case that church and state were intertwined in the early days of yore, when marriage was first coming to be? I'm not being sarcastic; let me know.
First coming to be where?
And what first?
First in one particular society, or first ever?

Marraige is a social institution that is very nearly universal, far more so than any particular religion. If marraige is not beneficial to social groups in some way, it's nearly universal existence across time and space, in greatly varied societies, seems a fairly odd coincidence to put it mildly.

I see no reason to take the risk of meddling with the relationship between society and marraige by handing it over to sub-groups within society as you suggest. Further more I see no just reason why an insitution that belongs equally to all of us ought to be given over to any particular group, most especially not as some form of appeasement.

I'm quite happy keeping the option of being able to marry without having to seek the permission and assistance of some particular section of society, whoever they are. I get to vote with regards to my government, but I dont necessarily get a say in the workings of some particular sub-section within society.

Marraige is a human institution that doesnt belong to any one group any more so than to any one outside that (or any other) group. Why on earth should society as a whole give over (as in forfeit the control of) marraige to anyone? What reason is there to take from all of us what belongs to all of us and give it to some group or other?

And it would not be that difficult to adapt it. Changing "marriage" to "civil union" would be all that needed to be done. Maybe even roommates would want civil unions for tax reasons; who knows?


This is a point that seems to be being missed by the other posters, and it's one of the better ones. I remember reading a piece in the newspaper about how a civil union law would allow these two widowed sisters to enjoy various legal and financial benefits. I agree that it's ridiculous to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but it's also ridiculous to discriminate based on sexuality of relationship.

various excellent points about coexisting meanings of "marriage"

To me, it's just so bothersome that language already has so many homonyms. We can say married in the eyes of the state, or married in the eyes of God, or married in the eyes of our community, or married as understood between us, or whatever else. I just think that different definitions, for the most part, should equal different words. But, yeah, the fact that only the moniker would be change does illustrate your point rather well.

Marraige is a social institution that is very nearly universal, far more so than any particular religion.

One particular religion may not be a universal social institution, but the concept of religion in general is. By the same note, one could say that no particular version of marriage as a social institution is universal.

Hmm... which nicely fits with Dempublicents1's point. Making the analogy, I may not recognize any other spiritual belief system than mine as valid, but I recognize that they are in fact spiritual belief systems, and the ones whose members wish them to be called as such I recognize as religions, even if I don't recognize them as correct religions.

On the same level, even if I don't recognize something as an authentic marriage, I should recognize that it is a variant of marriage. Very well; I yield. :)
Chalk it up on the list of "times when people have changed their minds on the NS General Forum".

Marraige is a human institution that doesnt belong to any one group any more so than to any one outside that (or any other) group. Why on earth should society as a whole give over (as in forfeit the control of) marraige to anyone? What reason is there to take from all of us what belongs to all of us and give it to some group or other?

Why doesn't government control of marriage do just that?

This is a point that seems to be being missed by the other posters, and it's one of the better ones. I remember reading a piece in the newspaper about how a civil union law would allow these two widowed sisters to enjoy various legal and financial benefits. I agree that it's ridiculous to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but it's also ridiculous to discriminate based on sexuality of relationship.

Should that be changed when the situation comes up in society, or should it be changed now to preempt it?

Confoundit, Vegas; don't make a flip-flopper out of me! ;)

And it would not be that difficult to adapt it. Changing "marriage" to "civil union" would be all that needed to be done. Maybe even roommates would want civil unions for tax reasons; who knows?
This is a point that seems to be being missed by the other posters, and it's one of the better ones. I remember reading a piece in the newspaper about how a civil union law would allow these two widowed sisters to enjoy various legal and financial benefits. I agree that it's ridiculous to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but it's also ridiculous to discriminate based on sexuality of relationship.
The 'point' is not missed, because it isnt really a point rather it is a beside-the-point

The whole point about the legal and financial implications of marraige is that such implications are intended for marraige-relationships, not for flatmates, not for sisters, not for just any two people who in fact are not married and simply want to avail themselves of legal and financial provisions that are intended for marraige.


One particular religion may not be a universal social institution, but the concept of religion in general is. By the same note, one could say that no particular version of marriage as a social institution is universal.
One could indeed say that no one marraige type is the only type to exist throughout time and space. However marraige is something that exists in virturally every society of which we have current knowledge.

Eating is at least as wide spread as either religion or marraige (obviously ;)) and is about as likely to be linked with religious practises as marraige is. Ought this signify that 'eating' ought to become a religious property? The idea is somewhat absurd I think you will agree. So why pick on marraige?

On the same level, even if I don't recognize something as an authentic marriage, I should recognize that it is a variant of marriage. Very well; I yield.
Chalk it up on the list of "times when people have changed their minds on the NS General Forum".
That is the most surreal thing I have read on nation states. Are you sure you you are in the right place...?

Didnt we specifically ban the practise of being reasonable on these forums some time ago?:confused:

Why doesn't government control of marriage do just that?
The governent doesnt control marriage. Anyone can get married without the government being involved in any way. The government's involvement in marriage is limited to marriages that are conducted with the intention of gaining the government's recognition of the marraige for the purpose of facilitating government intervention.

Should that be changed when the situation comes up in society, or should it be changed now to preempt it?
Confoundit, Vegas; don't make a flip-flopper out of me!
Why ought any provision be made for such a situation at all? The whole point about the provisions that exist in regards to marriages where people have intentionally invoked the State's involvement, is that they exist with regards to marriages. The relationship between 2 sisters (widowed or not) is not the relationship that is premised as existing between married couples.

I'd love it if "the state" stopped sanctioning marriage. My attitude is, anyone can set up a household without being married. There are plenty of legal documents/contracts/agreements that are used to establish joint ownership of property, wills & estates, adoption/guardianship of children, mutual proxies of all types. You don't have to be married to get the practical benefits of marriage that governments have to offer. So I say, get a religious ceremony to bless your relationship if you like, but the legal stuff that makes up a household should be separate, and that should be the only part the government deals with, and it should be available to any pair of competent adults who wish to enter into such an arrangement. If the government approached it that way, then maybe we wouldn't have stupid crap like insurance companies deciding who can or can't be on a joint policy or hospitals deciding who you get to have visit you when you're sick.

I'd love it if "the state" stopped sanctioning marriage. My attitude is, anyone can set up a household without being married. There are plenty of legal documents/contracts/agreements that are used to establish joint ownership of property, wills & estates, adoption/guardianship of children, mutual proxies of all types. You don't have to be married to get the practical benefits of marriage that governments have to offer.
I dont see your point. If you dont want the government involved in your marriage (or dont wish to be married) you have the option of never entering into a government recognised marriage. It's existence doesnt appear to interefere with you in way.

If you dont want to opt-into such an arrangement, you have that choice; retaining such marriages doesnt interfere with you or your choices. But getting rid of government recognised marriage does remove a choice from those who wish to opt-in to such an arrangement.

Putting aside the mystery surrounding why you would even care whether or not other people choose to have their marriage recognised by the state, is there some reason why people who want such marriages ought to be prevented from having them just to suit someone who is apparently not effected either way?

Why should people have to go to the effort, hassle and expence of entering into multiple civil contracts, when this represents at least an inconvinience and in the case of some couples financial hardship, or even an insurmountable barrier, in order to benefit absolutely no one?

So I say, get a religious ceremony to bless your relationship if you like, but the legal stuff that makes up a household should be separate,
Why should that be up to you? It is either seperate or not, according to the preferences of individual couples. Why should it be otherwise?

and that should be the only part the government deals with,
It is the only part the government deals with. The only difference between your suggestion and the current provisions is that a whole lot of people are going to have a pay a whole lot more to achieve the same result.

and it should be available to any pair of competent adults who wish to enter into such an arrangement.
The arrangments you refer to are available to any pair of competent adults so far as I can tell. The only difference is that a large number of competent adults who currently dont face a heck of a lot of hassles and expence will be worse off, whilst absolutely no one will be any better off.

If the government approached it that way, then maybe we wouldn't have stupid crap like insurance companies deciding who can or can't be on a joint policy or hospitals deciding who you get to have visit you when you're sick.
Er, what you are suggesting would not lesson the problems you refer to.

In the case of insurance it might even be worse - as in more people would be excluded. The fact that two people sign a bunch of civil contracts will not force insurance companies or any other third party to agree to enter into contracts with them as a couple.

So far as I can tell you are simply advocating making things much more difficult for a large number of people for no apparent reason or benefit. No one would be better off, but many would be worse off.

That abortion thread has way too much activity to wade through; let's talk about something else. I am all for the state* governments not recognizing any form of marriage and leaving it as a religious institution.

Then what's to protect a Muslim woman whose husband decides to divorce her and all he has to do is say "I divorce this woman" in the Mosque in front of witnesses and any child over three years old gets automatically placed into his custody, without a hearing, because that's what Hadith says to do?

Hrmmmm?

No, thanks .... keep your Jesus off my penis and your religion out of my marriage, thanks.

Right... I read through the OP and just want to add that religion is par definition non-secular, and can't have started off as a secular institution.

Marriage: Secular or Clerical?

Let's take a look in the past:
But it wasn't until the 16th century Council of Trent that decreed a priest was required to perform the betrothal ceremony.Source (http://www.medieval-weddings.net/marriage_laws.htm)
One significant development which occurred in the Middle Ages, was the rise of ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies and legislation. Prior to this period, it was left to civil authorities to legislate marriages.Source (http://www.stcatherine.org/marriage.html)
And here's some pictures to keep everyone entertained:
http://weddings.heliotopos.net/uploads/tx_gsislideshow/ivette-_-perry-photo-8_02.jpg
http://www.piefel.de/hochzeit/Images/Standesamt.jpg

I agree that it's inevitable. I also agree that other things are inevitable, such as polygamy and incest--not in the slippery slope mindframe, mind you, but in the total mindframe of increasing civil rights. This would make the process easier, arguably.

Hey I'm up for all this, assuming it only involves consenting adults.

And if you really want to push the issue on the word marriage, it can factually be said that there lots of gay marriages right now even in places where it's not legal. They found someone to marry them religiously and don't give a damn that the state doesn't reconize it.

I think that the biggest block to getting such things legalized is the relatively small part of the gay and gay-supportive community's militarant stance that any legal status MUST be called a "Marriage". Like was said before, people are going to call it a marriage anyway, who give a care what it's called on the books?

That abortion thread has way too much activity to wade through; let's talk about something else. I am all for the state* governments not recognizing any form of marriage and leaving it as a religious institution.

Then what's to protect a Muslim woman whose husband decides to divorce her and all he has to do is say "I divorce this woman" in the Mosque in front of witnesses and any child over three years old gets automatically placed into his custody, without a hearing, because that's what Hadith says to do?

Basically the protection would come in the form of the law. While, by Passivocalia's suggestion, the marriage wouldn't be reconized by the state, the paternaty still would and the man wouldn't just be able to take custody of the children. This of course is ideal, and not necessarily what would occur.

This is also the reason I do believe that such a civil institution should exsist. A single declaration, causes a whole lot of effects that would otherwise take an oppresive amount of time and money, both by the couple (or more) and the government. If a homosexual couple are together and adopt or if one has a child and they are raising it together, then both "parents" should be protected.

I also believe that such civil unions should have experation periods to them. The first time is say 2 years. If you get pass that then you can apply for 4 years, followed by 8, 16, etc. You can always apply for less and there would be provisions for if the contract is not renewed, similar to a divorce but maybe closer to a standard pre-nup. It's a vague concept that I've not bothered working out details for yet, so please don't ask.

I also believe that such civil unions should have experation periods to them. The first time is say 2 years. If you get pass that then you can apply for 4 years, followed by 8, 16, etc. You can always apply for less and there would be provisions for if the contract is not renewed, similar to a divorce but maybe closer to a standard pre-nup. It's a vague concept that I've not bothered working out details for yet, so please don't ask.You're going to have a fun time running that by someone that's against cohabitation and divorce...

I think that the biggest block to getting such things legalized is the relatively small part of the gay and gay-supportive community's militarant stance that any legal status MUST be called a "Marriage". Like was said before, people are going to call it a marriage anyway, who give a care what it's called on the books?
I dont think I'm militant, and I know I'm not gay. I care what it is called. Marriage is marriage and I see no reason why the state ought not to continue to treat the institution as it always has, nor why their continuing to do so requires any particular group to be discriminated against. If two consenting competent adults have a relationship of the nature of marriage they ought to be able to opt-into government recognised marriage.

I dont care if civil unions are added in as another option, but I see no reason why marriage ought to be treated differently to how it is currently is, how it was in my parents day, and their parents before. It remains a legitimate choice that many people wish to make, so why change it in dramatic fashion.

Right... I read through the OP and just want to add that religion is par definition non-secular, and can't have started off as a secular institution.

Oh, it very well CAN start as a secular institution. "Theocracy" anyone? Even, "Divine Right Monarchy/Autocracy"?

Marriage: Secular or Clerical?

Let's take a look in the past:

Who was the official head of state religion in both Roman Empires? Was Pharoah a god or not? In fact, how active a role did any form of theism play in every single ancient civilisation's government?

Also, I think I'm going to recant on my conversion... mark off that "rational display of mind-changing"; sorry guys. It's all your fault, KShaya.

The whole point about the legal and financial implications of marraige is that such implications are intended for marraige-relationships, not for flatmates, not for sisters, not for just any two people who in fact are not married and simply want to avail themselves of legal and financial provisions that are intended for marraige.
Marriage is marriage and I see no reason why the state ought not to continue to treat the institution as it always has, nor why their continuing to do so requires any particular group to be discriminated against.

In the first quote I bolded, you are attempting to define marriage based on how it has traditionally been understood. I could disagree, saying that "such implications are intended for heterosexual relationships, not for homosexuals". Back in the day, secular or religious, marriage was between heterosexual couples.

"But so much has changed since then. Marriages are no longer arranged, divorce is legal, it is no longer necessary to distinguish an heir, etc. etc."

Okay, then. So much has changed. So who's to say that marriage is to be confined to intimate couples, just because it always has been so in the past? In fact, many marriages in the past were between people who downright despised each other, but "marriage" was the only way to reach their legally ideal situation. Now, in a free society, we can remedy that.

By dismissing claims of discrimination just because one doesn't want to change traditions, a person makes the same mistake of the religious right that want governments to recognize only a conservative version of marriage.

In the first quote I bolded, you are attempting to define marriage based on how it has traditionally been understood. I could disagree, saying that "such implications are intended for heterosexual relationships, not for homosexuals". Back in the day, secular or religious, marriage was between heterosexual couples.
Actually I was interpreting marriage as it has been understood and as it has functioned. The reasoning applied (in conjuction with the interpretation) involves consideration of the ubiquitous aspect of marriage (it seems likely that the institution is somehow beneficial if we consider it's widespread nature and it's longevity).
As for 'back in thd day' what you are saying is just not true. It is true for some societies only. In many societies marriages that included combinations other than man and female were practised.

I dont see that removing a discrimination that would bar 2 people of different 'race' from getting married is changing the treatment of the instition, but rather chaning the scope of applicability. This to me seems analogous to removing discriminatory applications of the institution in regards to non-heterosexuals.
In both cases the actual relationship that is being recognised is of a particular type, by assuming that recongition of marriage is related to it's probable benefical aspects there is no reason, it is only logical to conclude that the change is the scope of applicability, not a change in the treatment of the institution itself.
I dont see that flatmate relationships are of a type that is in the nature of marriange. The kind of benefits that such relationships confer, have qualities and outcomes very different to the kinds of benefits/outcomes conferred by marriage.
Why if marriage is treated as it is because it (as an institution) confers certain benefits at a society level (and I see no reason to believe that this is not the case), would we treat other relationships in a like manner, when those relationships do not confer the same particular benefits?

"But so much has changed since then. Marriages are no longer arranged, divorce is legal, it is no longer necessary to distinguish an heir, etc. etc."
:confused:
:confused: What? Where did you get that from?:confused:

Okay, then. So much has changed. So who's to say that marriage is to be confined to intimate couples, just because it always has been so in the past? In fact, many marriages in the past were between people who downright despised each other, but "marriage" was the only way to reach their legally ideal situation. Now, in a free society, we can remedy that.
The relationship of marriage confers benefits that are not applicable to flatmates.

By dismissing claims of discrimination just because one doesn't want to change traditions, a person makes the same mistake of the religious right that want governments to recognize only a conservative version of marriage.
I agree, it's a good argument and I dont doubt you've thourougly knocked the straw out of that particular scarecrow....the only question now is what has this rampage against strawmen got to do with me or my arguments?