Marriage

[Hawkmoon]

Marriage has become nothing more than an anachronistic word in dictionaries, at least in the U.K.

https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/heterosexual-couples-form-1st-civil-partnerships-england-67999035

Heterosexual couples are now entitled to civil partnerships rather than marriage in England and Wales. I'm not sure just what that means. Here in the U.S., and in my late wife's native country, it was and is possible to have marriages performed by civil servants such as justices of the peace that are completely civil unions, not religious ceremonies, but they are still called "marriages." Was that not possible in England and Wales?

[230RN]

<sing-song voice>
🎵🎵🎵🎵 What's good for the goosey-woosey is good for the gander-wander,,,🎵🎵🎵🎵
</sing-song voice>

Actually, I see it all as steps toward a more rational basis of cohabitation or connubial relationships or whatever you want to call it.  While the State has an interest in establishing tax liabilities and in disease control and formalizing "age of consent" and the like, it has no business regulating interpersonal relationships beyond that.

If competent human entity A wants to hook up with competent human entity B ( or C, D, and E) to the harm of none, so be it.  Now let's follow up with the details of who's paying taxes and what we will name the kid.

Terry, 230RN

[lupinus]

Good question, I honestly don't know if they were able to have a church/clergy free ceremony or not. Either way I'm with 230RN, I find myself with a hard time giving a hoot and all for a government having less say in what they feel is an appropriate union or not.

[MillCreek]

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.60

Washington state has had domestic partnerships for a while now.  The law is equally applicable to same or different sex couples.  In fact, it was actually started so that old heterosexual people could form a relationship recognized by the state without it impacting Social Security or alimony benefits; some of which can end upon remarriage.

[Ron]

Eventually marriage will be seen as a religious ceremony between a biological man and biological woman who are commiting to each other and the offspring they bring into the world.

[Hawkmoon]

Eventually marriage will be seen as a religious ceremony between a biological man and biological woman who are commiting to each other and the offspring they bring into the world.

What a novel idea. Whoever thought of such an arrangement?

[WLJ]

What a novel idea. Whoever thought of such an arrangement?

If many on the left are to be believed, Hitler

[grampster]

Since I consider my dog, cat, bird and collection of snails to be human and my children, it feels great to have 27 new dependents on my income tax.

[Hawkmoon]

If many on the left are to be believed, Hitler

Hitler thought up the idea of religious marriages between men and women? Who knew?

[WLJ]

Hitler thought up the idea of religious marriages between men and women? Who knew?

Anyone who thinks that way they call Hitler so it must of have been Hitler.

[Northwoods]

I honestly find it a bit offensive when someone referee to my wife as my "partner".  If you want to refer to your spouse-like-friend as your "partner" that's fine.  I'll even refer to such a couple as partners.  But I'm "married" and that has meaning far beyond being simply partners.  Being a husband is a much larger commitment that being a partner.  As is being a wife.

I have issues the Libertarian side, but on this topic I'm with them. Get government out of the business of marriage, and return it to the religious roots it belongs within. 

[230RN]

I honestly find it a bit offensive when someone referee to my wife as my "partner".  If you want to refer to your spouse-like-friend as your "partner" that's fine.  I'll even refer to such a couple as partners.  But I'm "married" and that has meaning far beyond being simply partners.  Being a husband is a much larger commitment than being a partner.  As is being a wife.

It's hard or an outsider to read your mind as to preferred terminology.  I'd only be offended if it were repeated after your preferences are known or it is being used pejoratively.  And it's sort of become a part of the common parlance anyhow.

I have issues [with] the Libertarian side, but on this topic I'm with them. Get government out of the business of marriage, and return it to the religious roots it belongs within.  

Well, there is a "business" involved, in terms of taxation, inheritance, insurance policies, health decisions, etc., as noted above.  

Certainly two (or more) people can live together with no formal arrangements, but as soon as a child or a murder occurs, that changes the situation.  It would be smoother, even in a loose arrangement such as "I'll pay the rent, you pay the utilities," if such things were worked out at least semi-formally in advance of the child or the murder.

My stance is that nothing should prevent two people from getting married in a religious ceremony, with that religion's internal requirements.

What I object to is that some of those internal requirements have bled over into civil requirements and the inherent natural freedom to choose one's partner has been.... <ahem, koff-koff> .... infringed.

<smirk, eyeroll, quiet giggle>

Terry, 230RN

NOTE:  I bring  up murder only because of the tradition that a spouse can't be compelled to testify against the other party.  I believe this is because of the concept that marriage confers a "unity" between the two, and one can't be compelled to testify against oneself, that is, the other half of the "unity."  Or maybe Blackstone just thought it was a good idea, so everyone followed it.

[Hawkmoon]

I have issues the Libertarian side, but on this topic I'm with them. Get government out of the business of marriage, and return it to the religious roots it belongs within. 

Perhaps we should shift to the system used in most South American countries and many European countries: separate civil and religious ceremonies. In my late wife's native country, it's possible for a couple to be married (or "united") in a civil ceremony and then go on for anywhere from an hour to several years before having a church wedding. (Or not ever having a church wedding.)

In my case, both my wife and I had been previously married in the Roman Catholic church and neither of us had obtained an RC annulment, so we could not be married in the church. We just had the civil ceremony. But the document we were issued was a certificado de matrimonio.

[dogmush]

Perhaps we should shift to the system used in most South American countries and many European countries: separate civil and religious ceremonies. In my late wife's native country, it's possible for a couple to be married (or "united") in a civil ceremony and then go on for anywhere from an hour to several years before having a church wedding. (Or not ever having a church wedding.)

In my case, both my wife and I had been previously married in the Roman Catholic church and neither of us had obtained an RC annulment, so we could not be married in the church. We just had the civil ceremony. But the document we were issued was a certificado de matrimonio.

 
This IS the system we have in the US.  Lots of married people never set foot in a church or talked to a minister to do it.  The only difference is that we allow clergy to do the civil side in the church, at the same time if the couple wishes, and I'm not sure that's a difference.  I suspect clergy in South America can also officiate the civil portion of the union if they choose.

ETA: It should be pointed out that, at least in the Church weddings I've been a part of in FL, there are actual separate portions.  The priest says "I now pronounce you...." and we presume god agrees, but the couple is not married in the eyes of the State of Florida until the bride, groom, official, and witnesses all sign the license.  I've seen that happen just after the wedding in the Church Office, and I saw it happen on the day before because the couple had planned an elaborate exit and the priest wasn't going to the reception.  So "separate" ceremonies, even if they sometimes have the same participants.

[Perd Hapley]

These are all things we could have discussed calmly a long time ago. Instead, the Left decided to cloud the issue with identity politics, sexual perversion, and name-calling.

[Northwoods]

These are all things we could have discussed calmly a long time ago. Instead, the Left decided to cloud the issue with identity politics, sexual perversion, and name-calling.

Can we keep this to marriage, rather than expanding it to every other possible subject?

[K Frame]

Can we keep this to marriage, rather than expanding it to every other possible subject?

I think you've been a member here more than long enough to know that no, that simply isn't possible. 

[Perd Hapley]

Can we keep this to marriage, rather than expanding it to every other possible subject?

Exactly.

[Ron]

Too bad there wasn't centuries of common practice and dozens of dictionaries in every language throughout history that we could have referenced to determine what marriage means.

[Hawkmoon]

 
This IS the system we have in the US.  Lots of married people never set foot in a church or talked to a minister to do it.  The only difference is that we allow clergy to do the civil side in the church, at the same time if the couple wishes, and I'm not sure that's a difference.  I suspect clergy in South America can also officiate the civil portion of the union if they choose.

In our traditional church weddings, the officiant performs a dual role, as the clergyman and as the representative of the state. That's not the way it's done in my late wife's country, and I know it's not the way it's done in some European countries.

I'm a justice of the peace, so I can perform civil weddings (and same-sex civil unions, which poses a moral dilemma for me). And I guess if my state now recognizes same-sex "marriages," technically I'm supposed to perform those, too. The point I'm making is that when I perform a wedding as a justice of the peace, the resulting union is a marriage, and the document I sign is a marriage certificate.

What I'm proposing is to just go all the way. If the government wants to redefine marriage to the point that it becomes another meaningless word, then get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Let ALL unions be "civil unions" under the law, and stop calling them marriages. For those heterosexual couples who still believe that a marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, let them follow up (or even precede) the civil union with a church wedding.