Since a man and a woman can get married via civil service without any religious ceremony involved, and since a same sex couple can have a civil union, have a church ceremony, then get that church to proclaim them married in the eyes of their God; what's the practical difference between marriage and civil unions in the eyes of the law?



Ken

Hi Ken,

Isn't a marriage ceremony performed by a church leader simply church and cultural tradition? How did people get married before Christianity? How do people today get married in places where Christianity isn't a major influence?



Just because a man and a woman go through a ceremony in front of a preacher or priest, is that proof enough that God has joined them together? What if it was hormones and not Divine intervention that brought the couple together?



What about a couple who decide to perform their own ceremony in the back yard in the presence of a few friends, a barbeque, and a tub of ice-cold beverages? Does a preacher have to preside in order for God to recognize their union?



What is the difference between a church-based marriage and a civil union?



Rob

Prodigal2



"Hi Ken,

Isn't a marriage ceremony performed by a church leader simply church and cultural tradition?"



I agree!



"How did people get married before Christianity? How do people today get married in places where Christianity isn't a major influence?"



I guess the same way Christians get married; they go to a religious leader who proclaims their relationship santioned by what-ever God they worship, then they go to the state to make it legal.



"Just because a man and a woman go through a ceremony in front of a preacher or priest, is that proof enough that God has joined them together?"



Remember who you are talking to. If there is no proof that God even exist, of course there isn't gonna be any proof that said God santioned a marriage



"What about a couple who decide to perform their own ceremony in the back yard in the presence of a few friends, a barbeque, and a tub of ice-cold beverages? Does a preacher have to preside in order for God to recognize their union?"



Again; remember who you are talking to.



"What is the difference between a church-based marriage and a civil union?"



That is the question I am asking! Do you see a difference?



Ken

Sorry Ken,

I don't know you that well, but I gather you're an atheist? (Darn, I should have been a detective!)



So, when did religion get into the marriage business anyway? A learned friend of mine taught me that before Christ, the Jews had a ceremony surrounding a man and woman becoming husband and wife, but it didn't involve any leaders from their religious institutions. What caused the transition? I'm going to my nephew's wedding tomorrow. As far as I know he's not particularly religious and neither is his bride. I can't speak for their spiritual perspectives but I'm pretty sure in the decade that I've known him he's never seen the inside of a church. Yet, they're getting married in a church. Do people do that out of habit, cultural influence, or are they hoping that by saying "I do" in front of a preacher that maybe their marriage will go the distance when 50% of marriages don't? I've been married twice before, both times in front of a preacher, and they both failed; (the marriages, not the preachers!) Yet, when I got married yet again, it was in front of yet another preacher. Why? (By the way, this marriage will be until death do us part, which is a relief because I've run out of best men!)



I think religion has become so entwined in our marriage traditions that marriage doesn't seem real unless we follow the recipe.



What about the couple who declare to be exclusive sexually and commit to sticking with the other through all of life's circumstances? Aren't they just as "married", or more so, than the ones who got hitched by a priest? And what about atheists? What kind of ceremony to they go through, if any? Do they, or others consider them less married?

"what's the practical difference between marriage and civil unions in the eyes of the law? "

Health insurance, life insurance, death benefits, 401(k)distributions, Power of Attorney, Social Security, Disability, taxes, Medical decisions,... the list goes on... all of these are affected by legal marriage, in most states unless the couple has a real good attorney is hard for same sex couples to get the same treatment as married couples are accustomed to.

Ravensong:



"Health insurance, life insurance, death benefits, 401(k)distributions, Power of Attorney, Social Security, Disability, taxes, Medical decisions,... the list goes on... all of these are affected by legal marriage, in most states unless the couple has a real good attorney is hard for same sex couples to get the same treatment as married couples are accustomed to."



I guess that depends upon which state you live in. Some states, such as where I live; these benifits apply to civil unions / domestic partnerships as well.

Maybe if they were to attempt to expand the rights of domestic partners and civil unions of all states to include these things, there would be less opposition than attempting to change the definition of marriage; ya think?



K

Mary!!! I haven't "seen" you in ages! How you been?



Hi Ken and Rob.



Where are we?...oh Gen Aps.



Yes, in some states Civil Unions have all the benefits of Marriage under the law.



Here is the answer to why do people who are not particularly religious get married in churches; the buildings are just made for weddings. Really. My first son got married in my old church, beautiful dark wood, stained glass windows, great sound, dark burgundy carpet, candles and vaulted ceilings and a large meeting/dinner area next door with full kitchen and large restrooms. The bride's family was Christian and so that made them more comfortable, even though the pastor was rather odd.



When my second son got married they both refused to get married in a church and had a awful time trying to find a suitable place...finally did find a great place, but we had to severely cut the guest list.



There it is.



Most atheists are willing to appease in-laws and their blood relatives who are believers in a deity, because we care about family. Appease isn't quite the word I mean...compromise? What ever keeps nearly everybody happy.



My daughter says she is having a family barbeque on our farm with a moon bounce. However, she is willing to have the ceremony in the little country church just before our lane, just so her daddy can walk her down the aisle. No electricity, no nothing and not much room.



Some things are more important than keeping to our evil atheist agenda.

I think that religious leaders should retain control of marriages, that more folks should get united civilly...homosexual couples included. If gays are believers and belong to a church that accepts their sexual preferences, and that church allows gay marriage, then more power to them. If the church doesn't, then they can leave the church or just get a civil union partnership.



All civil unions should be the same as church sanctioned marriages under the law. A church sanctioned marriage is not legal unless and until the couple is issued a government license to marry.



There should be no difference under the law.



Let's face it; no religion has the market cornered on making marriage last and work well and provide a good home for offspring. Neither does any particular group of humans have that market cornered.

I am wondering now if there are some religious sects in the US that refuse to accept a governmental legal stamp on their marriages, that is, do they only allow their members to be married according to the faith, under their deity's law, and not to get a marriage license from the government.



Are there governments that do not require a legal marriage license?



Have we Americans complicated the issue?



Aside from age limitations and close relation limitations is there any reason why any two people shouldn't form a mutually beneficial partnership? These partnerships don't require offspring, and many couples never procreate.



I guess the sticker is always that "marriage" is a form of religious partnership, and is held sacred for that reason. Why anyone would want to marry within a church that teaches that their partnership is sinful is beyond me. I really don't understand the notion of demanding to be married by such entities, unless civil unions are really second-class unions without all the benefits of legal marriage.



I guess I should do some researching on that point....maybe Mary is correct. Frankly, if that is the case, then it needs changing. There should be no legal difference between civil unions and marriage.



I think, however, that you are correct, Allen, and that same sex marriages are moving toward a federal law making them legal.



I don't think the world will end, nor will the sanctity of marriage, nor will the stability of the family unit. I don't think anything will change except that homosexuals will be able to form legal partnerships as easily as heterosexuals can now. Each group will still rear children and either stay together or divorce as the years pass. Only the legal standing will alter. Why shouldn't all partnerships sought for mutually beneficial reasons be granted that protection under the law?



Of all the various types of families with various parenting units that I have experience with, none is perfect. Each tries to do the best they can for each other and for children. Many fail miserably, but most make out okay. And it makes not one bit of difference if the couples/parents are homosexual or heterosexual, theistic or atheistic, Republicans or Democrats, college grads or high school drop-outs, wealthy or poor, farmers or lawyers.



I know many here will contend that it does make a difference to God, but it seems to me that each believer finds his own way in a relationship with God, with what appears to be only a handful choosing to insist that there is only one way to walk that path. Apparently, some have found that God accepts homosexual commitment.

It is the supposedly intimate yet dogmatic relationship with God that has always confused me. Does God have an intimate relationship with each believer or does each believer have to toe a line set out by others? If that relationship is intimate, then what purpose is the bible, aside from the obvious purpose of history and parable.



Rhetorical questions all of the above, which could be continued in another thread, but not used to take this one off topic or even sidewise to the topic.



Jeanne

Well Rob, in the U.S.A. a church-based marriage IS a civil union. Take a look at the marriage license and you will see it bears the name of the state in which the marriage takes place. The minister is acting as an agent of the state.
The Bible indicates that it is sexual intercourse that makes a person husband and wife ("He went in to her and they became husband and wife"). There are no marriage licenses mentioned in the Bible. The weddings we read about (such as the one in Cana) are celebrations of the coming marriage not a marriage ceremony.