PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jul 3, 2015 23:38:45 GMT
I believe if two people want to marry, so be it. It is there choice. I just heard a preacher is now only going to church weddings but with no legalities involved, only for religious beliefs or wants it to be that way. Separation of church and state was his reasoning.
I did not get the feeling that he was against same sex marriage, but it would just be a solution to the problem of any churches refusal to marry some. To become legally married you would have to go to the state or government to have legal document. Church ceremonies would therefore just be a religious ceremony if you wanted one, but not legally married. You therefore could do one or the other or both.
What say peas? I haven't really thought it through, but a first thought it seems reasonable. Of course upon further thought, or if you guys point out obvious flaw I'm overlooking, I reserve the right to change my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 3, 2015 23:41:54 GMT
I don't understand the point. No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to perform ... gay, straight, mixed race, 2nd marriages, whatever. So why the need to separate legal marriage from church ceremony? I mean, if they want to, fine, but why would they?
I think some churches are looking for trouble where none exists. No one cares if they don't want to perform same-sex weddings!
|
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Jul 3, 2015 23:42:18 GMT
I believe you have always needed a marriage license from your state for the marriage to be legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dori~Mama~Bear on Jul 3, 2015 23:42:59 GMT
I think any human should have the right to marry any human that he/she loves. I don't think that any body should have the right to tell any body who they can love or not love.
Daughters grandma married her husband in the church only. They are not legally married but in the church they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Jul 3, 2015 23:46:39 GMT
If they want to do that, it's their prerogative. Religion institutions generally don't perform weddings for everyone who enters. If they don't want the religious wedding service that they do perform to be legally binding, that is something they can decide to do. I imagine it will probably have the effect of driving off people who aren't incredibly religious who might otherwise have a church wedding but want their wedding to be their actual legal marriage service, so have a secular ceremony instead.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580 
Location: In the leaves and rain.
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jul 3, 2015 23:52:44 GMT
This is basically how we do it now. A couple goes to the state for the legal documentation, then is married by a person authorized to perform marriages, whether they be religious or secular. Churches and clergy in this country are still allowed to choose who they will and will not marry. I think all this fear mongering that the choice will be taken from them is just that - fear mongering. I do know that in many countries though, all legal weddings are done civilly first, then they can go to their respective churches or temples and have a religious ceremony performed if they choose. I'm supposing that is what you're talking about. I'm personally okay with at happening, if our country wanted to make that kind of switch. What I'm not okay with are those Christians that believe that only religious unions have the right to be called "marriage", and all others called "civil unions". My husband and I were joined in marriage in a secular ceremony by a judge, and we are married  . ETA: oops, looks like most everybody had basically the same answer. |
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Jul 3, 2015 23:55:47 GMT
No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to perform ... gay, straight, mixed race, 2nd marriages, whatever. As of now, but do you think this will last? I see it imploding like the cake baking did. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jul 3, 2015 23:56:46 GMT
I don't understand the point. No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to perform ... gay, straight, mixed race, 2nd marriages, whatever. So why the need to separate legal marriage from church ceremony? I mean, if they want to, fine, but why would they? I think some churches are looking for trouble where none exists. No one cares if they don't want to perform same-sex weddings!I knew I wasn't making it clear... Church ceremonies would no longer be legal. Period. Need to go to court house or whatever for legal. Two different things. One legal one one for just religous beliefs. to be LEGAL everyone would have to get government okie dokie. Church ceremony would just be extra for your beliefs. So I guess what he was saying, religious ceremony no longer "legal" in any church, just an extra for your beliefs. Leave the legalities to government. But I have to agree it would be almost a non-problem, who wants to be married where you aren't wanted. |
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jul 3, 2015 23:57:14 GMT
I've always thought it should be that way.
|
|
IAmUnoriginal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,894
Jun 25, 2014 23:27:45 GMT
|
Post by IAmUnoriginal on Jul 3, 2015 23:59:17 GMT
When DH's friend was married while stationed in Sicily, we discovered that weddings there are done like you are describing. The bride was Sicilian and the groom one of DH's military buddies. They were married in her village. There was a legal civil ceremony at the town hall, which only a few people attended. They were dressed up, but in Sunday best rather than bridal apparel. At that point, they were legally married and didn't need to do anything further. The church wedding was either later in the day or the following day (it's been 10 years and details are foggy) and was optional in the eyes of the law. However, to the Catholic bride and her family, it was not at all optional.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jul 4, 2015 0:00:36 GMT
This is basically how we do it now. A couple goes to the state for the legal documentation, then is married by a person authorized to perform marriages, whether they be religious or secular. Churches and clergy in this country are still allowed to choose who they will and will not marry. I think all this fear mongering that the choice will be taken from them is just that - fear mongering. I do know that in many countries though, all legal weddings are done civilly first, then they can go to their respective churches or temples and have a religious ceremony performed if they choose. I'm supposing that is what you're talking about.  That is what I got out of what I heard but have had a horrible time expressing it as I (try to) type. And, yep, just as a rose is a rose,,,,married is married to me. |
|
|
|
Post by donna on Jul 4, 2015 0:01:59 GMT
I think it is a great idea! lucyg@ I will be very surprised if there is not some kind of legal suit about a church refusing to marry a gay couple. It will not matter to people that many churches or pastors have in the past refused to marry a person who is divorced or one who is not a member of their church. (I know many pastors who will not perform a wedding for someone who has been married before.) |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Jul 4, 2015 0:04:22 GMT
Many countries require you to have a civil marriage service separate from any religious service. The civil service is the legally binding marriage recognized by the government. Any religious ceremony you choose to do (usually after the civil service) is only for your church recognition of the marriage.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jul 4, 2015 0:07:29 GMT
No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to perform ... gay, straight, mixed race, 2nd marriages, whatever. As of now, but do you think this will last? I see it imploding like the cake baking did. Religious organizations and businesses are two completely different kinds of entities, and are treated as such in this country. In cases like a church renting out buildings to the general public, but then denying the same service to a gay couple that requests it, discrimination laws may apply. But I'll be the first in line fighting against churches and clergy being legally forced to marry those couples that they choose not to because of their beliefs. I never see it happening, not in this country where we don't even require religious organizations to be transparent to their membership about their finances. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jul 4, 2015 0:14:31 GMT
Many countries require you to have a civil marriage service separate from any religious service. The civil service is the legally binding marriage recognized by the government. Any religious ceremony you choose to do (usually after the civil service) is only for your church recognition of the marriage. Yes, I believe that is exactly what he was suggesting. I guess I didn't realize (or recall- I think I needed reminding) that a lot of other countries do the same. It makes sense to me. We may just need to catch up. |
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Jul 4, 2015 0:18:35 GMT
As of now, but do you think this will last? I see it imploding like the cake baking did. Religious organizations and businesses are two completely different kinds of entities, and are treated as such in this country. In cases like a church renting out buildings to the general public, but then denying the same service to a gay couple that requests it, discrimination laws may apply. But I'll be the first in line fighting against churches and clergy being legally forced to marry those couples that they choose not to because of their beliefs. I never see it happening, not in this country where we don't even require religious organizations to be transparent to their membership about their finances. There has been talk of ending the tax-exempt status of churches and I can see this becoming a slippery slope. |
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jul 4, 2015 0:28:56 GMT
Religious organizations and businesses are two completely different kinds of entities, and are treated as such in this country. In cases like a church renting out buildings to the general public, but then denying the same service to a gay couple that requests it, discrimination laws may apply. But I'll be the first in line fighting against churches and clergy being legally forced to marry those couples that they choose not to because of their beliefs. I never see it happening, not in this country where we don't even require religious organizations to be transparent to their membership about their finances. There has been talk of ending the tax-exempt status of churches and I can see this becoming a slippery slope. It didn't happen when interracial marriage became legal, even though I'm sure there was a bunch of "slippery slope" talk then as well. A church or clergy member can still refuse to marry any couple without discrimination charges, or at least without losing to a discrimination charge. The Bob Jones tax-exemption loss due to their interracial dating ban was leveled at the college itself, but not at the church that owned it. I, for one, am not against church taxation, but again I believe the paranoia that churches and clergy will one day be forced to marry couples they choose not to based on their beliefs is fear-mongering, and largely politically fueled. |
|
|
|
Post by kat on Jul 4, 2015 0:40:29 GMT
I think it is a great idea! lucyg@ I will be very surprised if there is not some kind of legal suit about a church refusing to marry a gay couple. It will not matter to people that many churches or pastors have in the past refused to marry a person who is divorced or one who is not a member of their church. (I know many pastors who will not perform a wedding for someone who has been married before.) I live in CT, the 3rd state to legalize same sex marriage back in 2007 or 2008. I have not heard about anyone taking legal action because a church won't marry them, or a bakery that won't bake a cake for a reception. I am guessing that no one asks churches that don't agree with same sex marriage to marry them and am not aware of any bakeries that won't bake wedding cakes. |
|
|
|
Post by padresfan619 on Jul 4, 2015 0:54:05 GMT
Why would a couple (gay or straight) want to be married in a church that flat out denies them? That would be like me being upset as a non-Catholic for being denied a Catholic wedding service.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jul 4, 2015 1:03:29 GMT
Why would a couple (gay or straight) want to be married in a church that flat out denies them? That would be like me being upset as a non-Catholic for being denied a Catholic wedding service. Now that same-sex marriage has been made legal nationwide, I could see a few rabble rousers trying to bring a discrimination lawsuit against a church or clergy member who refused to marry them. I'll be the first to stand and say I was wrong if they actually win their cases though. Businesses are a different story. But you're right. For those same-sex couple who want a religious ceremony, there is a long list of churches and clergy they can utilize now . |
|
georgiapea
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,846
|
Post by georgiapea on Jul 4, 2015 1:06:29 GMT
It means that particular minister will no longer sign any marriage license, which is going to complicate the lives of any couples he performs the religious ceremony for.
|
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 4, 2015 1:09:17 GMT
I don't really see what the point of two ceremonies would be....if you wanted to make it so that pastors could not "certify" the marriage by signing the certificate, I think it would be easier just to do away with the ceremony requirement altogether. When you go to take out your license and sign it, then you're married and have registered that fact with the govt. And if you want to have whatever kind of ceremony you could. Making people have another ceremony seems useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 4, 2015 1:19:09 GMT
I think it is a great idea! lucyg@ I will be very surprised if there is not some kind of legal suit about a church refusing to marry a gay couple. It will not matter to people that many churches or pastors have in the past refused to marry a person who is divorced or one who is not a member of their church. (I know many pastors who will not perform a wedding for someone who has been married before.) As of now, but do you think this will last? I see it imploding like the cake baking did. Well, stittsygirl addressed these questions pretty much exactly how I would have, only she sounds smarter than I do. I do believe the fears over this are overblown. I don't think there's a war on Christianity and I don't see anyone overstepping our first amendment bounds and expecting the government to force churches to marry them. Do you think there's something more extreme about same-sex couples that they would go where inter-racial couples haven't gone? As far as I know and believe, the vast majority of people respect the autonomy of churches, and don't expect them to marry couples who don't meet their standards. And there's no reason to think that such a lawsuit, if it ever did happen, wouldn't lose and lose big. If not get thrown out in the first place for being frivolous. |
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Jul 4, 2015 2:02:48 GMT
I can't think of a single reason for them to be separate. As it stands now, you go and get the license, then you can choose to have a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony. There is no reason to make religious ceremonies illegal. You don't want one? Don't have one.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 1:13:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 2:06:15 GMT
It means that particular minister will no longer sign any marriage license, which is going to complicate the lives of any couples he performs the religious ceremony for. I'm not sure why it would.
When we went to get our marriage license, we had to take an oath that the information we provided was true. It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to have someone officially sign the marriage certificate. It's not like they have to have a Doctorate degree or anything like that. I don't see why - when a marriage certificate is issued - that the clerk can't be certified to sign it. My DD had a very good friend that was an amazing public speaker and she became "ordained" so that she could perform their service and sign their marriage license. There's just no reason that the person that can officially take your oath of truth when you get your license also can't sign it and make it official.
The ceremony is completely a separate issue for those that want it.
My marriage is legal because of the state marriage license, not the type of service that happened to be performed or specifically who signed the document (other than the fact they are allowed to sign it)
Like it or not - marriage is a legal contract, and if you don't believe that, then go through a divorce.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 1:13:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 2:10:02 GMT
In Germany this is how marriages are handled. We went to a wedding there. Our friends spent one day with the government official getting married to make it official with the state. Three days later their pastor married them in the chapel at a castle. They told us it was done that way to keep religion out of the state and the state out of religion. It actually made a lot of sense. It seems strange to us because the religious ceremony has also served as the civil one. I think making them separate gives more separation between church and state.
|
|
Kerri W
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,772
Location: Kentucky
|
Post by Kerri W on Jul 4, 2015 2:41:07 GMT
This is one of the topics the United Methodist Church will be discussing/voting on at General Conference in 2016. As it stands, the pastor performs the marriage ceremony then signs the paperwork to make the marriage legal. There is a movement to have the church only perform the sacrament of marriage, not the legal civil union.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrapqueen01 on Jul 4, 2015 3:45:34 GMT
A lady in my church met and married a man from El Salvador while she was a missionary there. They had to have a civil ceremony. My pastor flew down a few weeks later and performed a religious ceremony. They are just as married in God's eyes. My pastor believes we are to follow the civil laws except when they directly violate God's law.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 4, 2015 4:06:18 GMT
I've never understood why it was okay for a religious representative to legitimize a state act (marriage). I'm sure there's a historical rationale there, but I've never been so overly concerned that I needed to investigate it. For me, a perfect situation would be as this pastor is describing - all marriages are legally authorized by the state, and all weddings are done via the couple's church, or in another way. When DH and I were married, we went to the courthouse to be legally wed several days before our actual wedding ceremony, and then later that week our ceremony was officiated by our two best friends. Neither of us are religious, but we wanted our "wedding" to be amid of our family and loved ones. It really wasn't a big deal to to go the courthouse and get our marriage license signed; I think it took about an hour. I understand that it's easier to just have the church officiant sign the documents, but as I said earlier, I still can't wrap my brain around how in this country we still have religious officials legalizing marriage. I can't think of one of other legal act that is legitimized by religious officials, other than marriage (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong).
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 4, 2015 4:35:47 GMT
I agree that clergy should have the right to decide who they will perform ceremonies for. Some churches make you be a member, some make you do pre-marital counseling, some have other requirements. I believe the church should have the right to not marry someone in their church if they so choose.
As for two separate things, can you imagine how bridezillas would roll with that? Expect everybody to be at the civil ceremony and then again at the church cenermony. It would take weddings to a whole new level. Maybe they would have different outfits for both and their bridesmaids would have to change...
|
|
.
Time to get off the internet!
That is what I got out of what I heard but have had a horrible time expressing it as I (try to) type.
