Question re: same sex marriage...

[jakem]

Ok, perhaps I am missing something (not the first time!), but...

When a couple gets married in a church, etc, they are not married in the eyes of the state if legal paperwork is not filed. They are married only in the eyes of the church, etc. Right?

So, aren't all state processed 'marriages' really just civil unions anyway? The 'marriage' part sees like it falls upon the religious institiutions to sort out.

Why is this not evident in all the BS of the politics of marriage? What am I missing? Who said the state can define anything other than 'civil union' anyway?

[donco6]

1. There are a lot of people who advocate for this point.

I.e., that all marriages have at their core a civil union. The "marriage" is a religious layer laid on top. So if we just reduce marriage to a civil union, people would be free to seek "marriage" if they wish.

[jakem]

2. well, good.

I guess that is settled then. Was that so hard? :)

[donco6]

4. You'll have to poll wiser minds than me to find the problem.

And there is one - but frankly I haven't had my coffee yet and I'm not quite awake.

[Dhalgren]

5. This is what I advocate. Make all "marriages" civil unions. Then

if a couple want to go and have an additional ceremony at some church that handles snakes, it is their affair. We need to separate religion from the nation's marriage laws...

[noonwitch]

9. I agree-a legal relationship for legal purposes

Let each church or religious organization decide who they will marry. Of course, that's exactly what the religious right doesn't want, because then my church will have a marriage between a gay couple and consider it as legitimate as when their church marries a heterosexual couple. And we can't have that, that's equality.

[helderheid]

16. That's how they do it in the Netherlands - I think it's great. Civil Unions for ALL - Marriage is

a ceremony in a church that has nothing to do with your legal status.

[Hosnon]

3. I dunno. Seems like a reasonable solution to me. However, a few here think

that there is too much paperwork involved changing the law, or something like that.

[AllegroRondo]

6. Thats how many countries handle it

When I lived in Germany, many people had two marriage ceremonies. One, at the courthouse or whatever civic venue for the "legal" marriage; and one at whatever church they wanted for the "religious" marriage. The first was required for the marriage to have any legal standing, and most people had the church one only to have a big event for the families to attend.

[jakem]

8. this is essentially what happens here-

a 'legal' marriage in the US is inherently civil in a distinct way- no papers for the state, no legal union...

its all just semantic BS unless someone can show otherwise-

[AllegroRondo]

12. Except in the US, clergy are allowed to do the legal part.

which blurs the line between the civil and religious unions.

in Germany, only a judge or government official could perform the legal part.

[jobycom]

7. States do call it "marriage"

Several types of officials can perform a marriage--judges, JPs, captains of ships, clergy, etc. But for the marriage to be complete, the couple must file paperwork and fulfill a few other requirements.

Some states are using civil unions as a way to avoid calling a gay or lesbian couple "married," thus avoiding the anger of religious groups opposed to same gender marriages. But doing so creates a two tier structure--one type of union for non-gay, one type for gay. That would, IMHO, violate the Constitutional prohibition of establishing classes, violate equal protection, and violate the equality of the genders--not explicit in the Constitution, but certainly the common interpretation of it.

To me, the state has to provide an equal arrangement for both genders. Thus, if a man and woman can marry, then a man and man or a woman and woman can. That means they have to call it all "marriage" or "civil union" but they can't use two different labels. Religious organizations should be left to sort it out how they wish. After all, the Catholic Church didn't (maybe still doesn't?) recognize marriage after divorce, but that doesn't stop the states from doing so.

[mondo joe]

10. We have civil unions. We call them "marriage".

I don't see the point of all the fuss either.

[jakem]

13. Well put...

We have civil unions. We call them "marriage".

that is it exactly.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Took The Words Right Off My Fingertips!

It's just semantics, in the interest of getting around the hate-filled POV of a group of troglodytes.
The Professor

[gatorboy]

11. This is about making gay Amercians second class citizens. Nothing less.

First it was marriage, then it was adoptions (What does THAT have to do with marriage). Next we'll probably see "gay" waterfountains.

[happyslug]

15. Depends on the state, Common Law Marriages are Valid Marriages.

In States that still recognize Common Law marriages, marriages without licenses are valid. People forget that prior to the Council of Trent (Mid-1500s) ALL MARRIAGES in EUROPE were what we would call "Common law". Two people of the opposite sex who were NOT married to anyone else just had to announce to each other they were man and wife. By the Middle ages this was commonly done on the Church's steps and then a mass was held to bless the marriage. The priest job during the actually marriage "ceremony" was to make sure all the local traditional requirements to have valid marriage were performed and to write down that such actions were done in the Church's record (Thus recording the actual marriage, something not done in most states till the late 1800s).

Now starting in the late Middle ages you had problems with this system. The problem basically was people were saying they were married to someone who subsequent married someone else (For example when King Edward IV died and succeeded by his Brother Richard III, the rationale for making Richard King instead of Edward's sons was that the sons were illegitimate, for Edward had been married to someone else at the time he married their mother, both marriages were common law marriages). To avoid such problems, the Catholic Church in the COuncil of Trent said all marriages MUST be done in a Church Ceremony. This was adopted by Catholic Countries rights after the COuncil of Trent, but Protestant Europe took a little longer (With England being one of the last countries do abolish Common Law marriages in the early 1700s, but England never extended that abolishment to the Colonies thus each US States had to abolish the concept themselves, and some have NOT done so to this day).

Now the above situation of "common law" marriages being the norm came about HOW the Western Roman Empire fell. In realty the Roman Army and state fell, but part of the Roman State Survived in the form of the Catholic Church. Under Roman law, marriage was a family matter to be decided by the head of the family (And this included who you married and the head of the family could even demand you devoice your spouse). Under the Catholic Church this strict Patriarchal system was modified to permit people pick their own spouses (And even substitute love for dowry) but with the lost of Roman secular Government there were no place to register one's marriage. To solve the problem of no place to register one's marriage the Church started the system of blessing marriages and recording the marriage in the Church's record so to have a ferment record of the marriage. This system worked until the late Middle Ages when you had the raise of the Middle Class and a need to minimize the disputes as to who received what at the death of the head of the family. Illegitimate Children could NOT receive anything upon the death of a parent, thus the issue of who was legitimate and illegitimate became more and more important as the assets of the middle class expanded during this time period. Thus the "need" to make marriages restricted to "Ceremonial" marriages and to end the previous tradition of common law marriages.

People forget Marriages had more to do with WHO INHERIT FROM WHOM then in any other factor. The State (and the Church) only became involved to minimize disputes between relatives as to whom received what at the death of a member of the family. That is true even today, most people do NOT care if someone is married or not, whether a couple is married or just living together, what concern people is who get what when people die. The old rules of Legitimatency have been killed over the last 50 but this has lead to more litigation not less but determining who gets what when someone dies is still a function of the state and the main issue when it comes ot marriage.