Justice of the Peace in a lovely non-denominational outdoor ceremony.
Marriage, or, more specifically, a wedding, isn’t what I would call a “personal” question, exactly. It’s something that happens in public and is meant for the public.
And a college student isn’t exactly what I would consider a “kid.”
Don’t you have friends and relatives who have been married? Don’t your friends and relatives have friends and relatives who have been married? No one talks about this stuff in your social circles?
Edmund from King Lear? This is your example? Are you sure you’re in college? I suspect you are a visitor from another place or time.
Catholic church, the full rigmarole. My ex wanted a church wedding, and my exceptionally Catholic family wouldn’t have had it any other way. If I had my druthers, we’d have been married while blasting across the salt flats in a monkey-powered rocket car, but we can save that for next time.
As an aside, I recently found out a friend of mine is perhaps the most dangerous drinking buddy I’ve ever had: He’s an ordained minister with a bunch of marriage certificates in his car. Definitely gonna have to keep my wits about me when I’m out with him and my girlfriend…
Realize, everyone in America gets married the exact same way regardless of beliefs. You apply for a license, get signed by an Officient and 2 witnesses and you are married. Any pomp and circumstance or religious mumbo-jumbo and voodoo you add in around it are all for show. It may having meaning for your religion, but it means nothing towards whether or not you are legally married.
I like that – legally, and socially. You have made two binding commitments – legal and social.
I’m not being combative but, in the context of a thread specifically addressing atheists: “it has never really occurred to me that atheists would get married with some sort of traditional ritual” readily lends itself to the interpretation that you’re suggesting atheists can not be bothered with “traditional ritual.” Nonbelievers do ceremony and the formal acknowlegment thing all the time. Why should something as big as a long-term financial arrangement with an implied procreative element be less recognizable than a highschool graduation?
It’s maddening because of the popular notion (NOT advanced by you in this thread, by the way) that morality can not exist without religion because where’s the incentive to behave if God isn’t watching over you with a big bag of Smite® at the ready.
Married in the courthouse.
What a strange question.
In my hometown Maastricht, couples can either choose the free no bells and whistles courthouse wedding, or they can ask the county wedding official to come to any of the nine pre-selected venues in the county, all which lend itself to lovely pump and circumstance and lavish weddings.
One is a room in the old city hall; a theatre in the city centre, the other is a castle-turned restaurant, the third is a manor-turned-convention-center.
For these more elaborate weddings, the county official will (for an additional fee) have a long talk with the couple ahead so she can deliver a personalized speech in addition to performing the core ceremony.
Only the explicity religious schedule a separate church wedding in addition to the courthouse wedding.
Youre correct in that the root of marriage is based in Religion. However, over time, many Governments have accepted Religious Laws as social law. Over time, the “religious” component has been forgotten, and it is just now the law.
Even in the US where we separate Church and State, we still have Marriage as Law. A law based in Religion, they just forgot it started there.
This is why you get Religions panty’s in a was when you talk about Gay Marriage. Marriage is their domain where definition it concerned. Thus, for the US to avoid this, they should change “Marriage” into “Civil Union”. Leave marriage up to the Church. Everyone from that point on would have to have a Civil Union License. Any Marriage Licenses distributed prior to this change would be grandfathered. Now, if you marry in the Church, it wont be considered “legal” for things like Next of kin, income taxes etc, without a Civil Union License.
Additionally, same sex couples could have every legal recognition that a husband and wife has today. If for some reason a Church marries same sex, so be it, it is up to that church.
There, I solved this issue
No they shouldn’t. That’s asinine. It means that atheists can’t get married. (For that reason, it’s also a violation of the First Amendment.)
In answer to the OP – in the U.S., as has been mentioned, legal marriage is a special status with rights and responsibilities conferred on two willing people by the state. In most cases, it does this by requiring them to get a license and then have a ceremony in which the bond is solemnized in front of witnesses by an officiant (although some states don’t require this anymore). Acceptable officiants, traditionally, include clergy and judges (or certain other court officers).
If you meet these requirements, you can have a ceremony as lavish or as minimal as you wish. If you’re getting married in a religious institution with a religious officiant, it/she may have religiously-based requirements for their participation. Civil officers do not, so long as the proper forms are filed (and the check clears).
When I got married we had something akin to a traditional (read: Christian) wedding. It was in a hotel ballroom, but that particular ballroom has religious weddings several times a year. A judge officiated, and god was not mentioned. But the trappings of the ceremony were in most respects the same as a common Western religious wedding – same music, white dress, all that stuff. I also broke a glass as is tradition in Jewish weddings.
Why did we do all this when we could have just signed some papers at teh courthouse? Because my wife and I live and grew up in a cultural context in which these things are important. They grew out of religious tradition, but just like devotional music, matzoh ball soup, and weekends, they can exist and be enjoyed outside of the religion in which they developed.
–Cliffy
Um, if “Marriage” is a definition based in Religious, The First Amendment doesnt apply because of separation of Church and State.
And again, if Marriage is a definition based in Religion, it shouldnt be a statute. Separation of Church and State. Just like “In God We Trust” should be removed from money. 10 Commandments removed from Government Buildings.
What you did versus what Marriage is are two different things. If a religious official marries you to an computer avatar (see Japan), that is up to the religion.
My post not only stands, but is far from “asinine”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Marriage is not a matter of religion in the United States. It is a state matter. And, thus, because of the First Amendment, the state cannot discriminate between religious people and atheists regarding marriage laws.
LOL, you totally missed the point. Based on this response, it is you, who has no idea, what you are saying.
We were married in a church (Georgetown’s Dahlgren chapel, as I was a graduate student there at the time). We found a UU minister who had some non-traditional beliefs (thought God was the collective unconscious or something), modified the traditional vows to remove reference to God, and were married in a more-or-less traditional way. A couple of people commented that there was no mention of God in the ceremony. My grandmother was frankly more concerned that we were married by a woman; she said (only half-jokingly, I’m afraid) that she wasn’t sure it counted.
Only inasmuch as religion and human culture have gone together; marriage isn’t something which was invented by religion, but rather, religion and marriage are two separate institutions, both of which got eventually invented in every human society. You do know the rib story in Genesis and its equivalents from other traditions are retconnings, right?
I want to watch the original version: Eve and Steve – with Steve being born from Eve’s rib.
In Chile religion has nothing to do with marriage. Not legally at least, so you need to go to the social registry office to get married. People usually get legally married about a week before the religious ceremony. So an atheist would just have to do some symbolic ceremony, or just skip it, a lot of people simply don’t have a ceremony.
We got married in Maryland, where it must be performed inside a courtroom or by a clergy person. Since we wanted to be wed outdoors, we had to have clergy do it.
Our daughter got married in Pennsylvania. There, a judge can marry people anyplace, but the particular judge must be assigned by the court, and the judge assigned to her was Evangelical and insisted on an extremely religious ceremony, so we changed course and found a clergy person who would perform a nonreligious ceremony.
In both cases I found it offensive that it was so much more difficult to get wed without Christian interference. Note that as a lifelong devout atheist I have no misconception that I am entitled to escape being offended.
I don’t blame the OP that much for the confusion - indeed the usual representation of “marriage” in literature, media, etc. is so couched in the forms and trappings of the rites associated with the religious ceremonies of matrimony, that it’s easy to get the impression that indeed it proceeds from those. Still, it’s not as if civil ceremonies are never represented!
Except that in much of the West, civil marriage may have even *preceded *sacramental marriage. Marriages were first compacts between the heads of the families, that would THEN go have it blessed by whatever gods. As organized religions grew in power in civilizations then they began demanding that it was not officially completed until that last step was done and eventually it came to “church” marriage being seen as “THE” one-stop procedure for marriage – though of course the churches preach that was established by God all along. So we may actually be reverting to the original norm.
Several years ago I attended the wedding of a die-hard atheist and a non-practicing Buddhist. They got married in a Unitarian Universalist church, and they specifically requested that the ceremony not include any religious overtones.
When Mr. Ipsum and I got engaged, he suggested getting married in that same UU church, as he is agnostic. But since I’m Lutheran and am a member of a church, I really wanted to get married in my own church. If he had been more of a die-hard atheist, he probably wouldn’t have agreed, but he is fairly indifferent about religion (and does not mind being around it), so he agreed to do it for me. We had the option of including communion in the ceremony or not, so we chose not to include it.
We had to attend 3 counseling sessions with the pastor prior to the ceremony, and he was well aware that the future Mr. Ipsum was not religious and had no intention of joining the church. But as long as I was a member, that’s all we needed to be allowed to get married there. At the first session, the pastor briefly mentioned that he would be welcome any time he wanted to attend services, and that was it. Afterwards, Mr. Ipsum mentioned to me that he was very impressed with how that was handled, as he had been expecting a lot of pressure to join.