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

[quodscripsi.livejournal.com]

I hate to disapoint but much of your ideaological history of marriage isn't correct. Under Roman law marriage is a contract and therefore under government legal control but not so in Germanic societies where the legal issue is more about legitimate or illegitimate offspring. The Church and medieval society pushed marriage into cannon law courts to bring concubinage under control and most importantly because it was taking an oath so the validity of the marriage is bases upon the validity of the oath and therefore a matter of Church jurisdiction. Even to this day Roman Catholic theology and I believe most branches of the Catholic church deny the need for a priest or clergyman to be present at a marriage. The sacrament is make between the couple and God with the priest as witness. The move to try to enforce the priest upon the marriage was to reduce incidences of clandestine marriage which was largely eliminated in Europe during the Reformation except in England which did not do away with it completely until the 19th century, which is one of the reasons some states still have common law marriage because it is a remainder of clandestine marriages. Interestingly many of the same processes that brought marriage back under civil jurisdiction also reduced the rights of women.

In the end the issue boils down to this. Do you want to force change that is contrary to the legal principles of your society. That is always a dangerous road that almost always leads to a place where one is trying not to go when one starts down that path.