Mawwiage... is what bwings us... togevah... today

[chargirlgenius]

Many people have suggested a particular solution to the same-sex marriage conundrum. They would have the government recognize civil unions of everybody, and leave marriages to the church. This allows marriage to remain a religious institution, but allows everybody the exact same civil rights.

Only, I'm not really so keen on it.

You see, we were married in a civil ceremony, and that's the only ceremony we had, and likely the only one that we ever will have. I'm not any less "married" than the rest of you, and yes, I WANT to use the word "married". I'm also a religious person, and I know that in the eyes of God I am married.

Marriage is a human condition, not a religious one. Marriage is not something that only religious people have done. Marriage has always been considered a contract, and it wasn't even until the 12th century that the Catholic Church made it a sacrament. In the early Christian era, the presence of clergy was not required to make a partnership a marriage, even in the eyes of God.

I understand the idea of leaving government out of marriage, and once liked it. But it's not historically correct (at least from a Euro-centric perspective). Government has MORE business in the process of marriage than the churches. Once you were married, THEN you were subject to whatever expectations put were upon you by your church.

There's no reason to overhaul the whole system. There's no reason to make a complicated new set of laws to create a separate but equal condition. Use the laws we already have, and give people equal access and protections under those laws. Simply put, two people who love each other should have the ability to MARRY. Period, end of story.

Comments

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree with you, but then I'm not already married.

But as an interesting point, my church's service book does not have a ceremony to perform marriages. There's a format for blessing a marriage, but not one for performing them. Yes, the ministers may perform marriages, that's a power granted to them by the state, not by God.

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

And yet, the state won't give you a blanket license to perform marriages unless you're clergy - any ordained minister who can show proof of ordination. Judges (Circuit Court, District Court, or retired) in Virginia may also perform civil weddings.

VA-resident non-clergy can sign up for a one-time permit to celebrate a wedding, but you've got to post a hefty bond. I think it's something like $500, which is why I went the 'clergy' route to be able to perform weddings.

[greta-k.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was married by a lawyer who was also a licensed wedding celebrant. He did not have a one-time permit, but I believe an acutal license to perform weddings in Fairfax County. I would have to ask him if he also went the "clergy" route for licensing, but somehow I doubt it.

I know for damned sure that my union is legal - I have the notorized paperwork to prove it!

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

He might have found some "officer of the court" angle to getting licensed. Everything I've read says you have to be a court official or clergy -- and in many counties in Virginia, they're very particular about what qualifies for clergy.

[greta-k.livejournal.com]

True. He probably did use the "officer of the court" arguement.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

That does seem, to me, to be special preference for religious organizations. I think that might be a good law to fight to change, but separate from the same-sex marriage issue, because it's more of a church and state issue.