If you’re going to talk about the history of marriage in the West, you’re going to talk about Christianity, of course, but you’re going to have to recognize that marriage preceded the existence of the church. They didn’t invent it, didn’t entirely approve of it, and – despite their belief that God was involved – didn’t have anything to do with it.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Matrimony, for most of Church history, was a sacrament celebrated (as in the Judaic tradition) without clergy and was done according to local customs. The first available written detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and appears to be identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.
[/QUOTE]
(This information is supposedly from Karen Armstrong’s “The Gospel According to Woman,” and I really don’t think she’s a very good historian, but no one actually argues with what she said).
Marriage has had many purposes in history, but most of those don’t apply to anybody anymore: nobody unites feuding houses or brings lands under one rule by marrying their children; women are no longer property; children do not need to be born in wedlock to inherit; and, frustrated grandparents aside, no one gives a damn whether you have children. The purposes of marriage right now are to secure the rights and privileges of married status, to publicly announce the union, and to secure the approval of whomever’s approval is needed – whether it be God, a wealthy great-aunt, a father with a shotgun, or a village of bigots.
If your particular situation calls for the approval of religious folk, then you’ll have a religious ceremony. If it doesn’t, then a few signatures will do. I’m an atheist, but I like weddings, so when I married, we wrote vows, commissioned my father as an officiant, and assembled friends and family on a green field at a local country club. There was a sonnet by Shakespeare in there, too (“Let me not to marriage of true minds admit impediments”). No mention of God, except that we did play “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring,” because it’s beautiful.
I know US civil unions don’t have the same rights as marriage - that’s why I asked Cliffy to clarify what he meant.
The reason to not call it marriage - legally, at least; everyone who wants to will call it a marriage informally - is so that you can get separate-but-equal laws passed far earlier than if you insist on the word marriage. Then, later, attempts can be made to legally change the title “civil partnership” to “marriage.”
Wow. Let me see here. WASP means White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I am not entirely sure about the Anglo-Saxon Protestant part, but the “White” part is somewhat accurate. I am not entirely sure why you accuse me of phrasing the OP in a Judeo-Christian framework or get pissed off by it, but I suspect that you don’t like the latent assumptions made in the OP? Well, what do you expect? If I had written so narrow-mindedly from a Muslim perspective, then would you have reacted the same way and then accuse me of phrasing the OP in a Muslim framework? In addition, I don’t think I used the word “religion” in the OP; rather, I think you inserted that or thought that I meant that. Your response smacks of a very narrow and one dimensional view of the world that demonstrates that one person should know every single little detail about every single culture out there and their customs. Essentially, you treat the original post as completely meaningless or worthless, because it questions, I presume, how do atheists get married.
The question in the OP is “how do atheists get married?” Latently, it makes an assumption that theists would get married by some sort of religious ceremony. Of course, by saying this, it is implied that atheists would not get married with a religious ceremony. I think that part is bothersome for some people, seeing that some people here marry in a church regardless of their actual faith for practicality (maybe it’s cheaper or whatever).
I would highly suggest that you describe some elements from your culture’s marriage customs. You sound like a person living in a society without ANY Judeo-Christian references whatsoever.*
*It is possible. I know that China and Japan are influenced by Confucius, a wise master. I am not sure how much the guy influences marriage customs but I do know Confucious has a lot to say about table etiquette!
If you’re saying, why don’t people in these unions just call it marriage, that’s not an acceptable solution. Marriage is a legal construction; civil unions are a different, necessarily inferior construction. (Because they exist entirely to prevent social minorities from participating in the mainstream institutions of public life.)
This is why the center-right “compromise” on the issue – have civil unions, and who cares what it’s called? – is bullshit. The fact that we fight about it proves that people care – people who are denied marriage care, and the people who are doing the denying care (or they wouldn’t think there’s any need to reserve the word marriage for a particularly narrow kind of union).
We went to the Health and Records Department, $60 for the license, found a Judge who did the paperwork signature thingy on his lunch break $60, plus $8 for the parking (yes, it was Hawaii and he didn’t validate). Then we were off to the really nice Zippys, with the bar and sit down service, near downtown Honolulu. (Zippy’s is a local fast food chain in Hawaii.) Shared our wedding meal with our real estate gal and our mortgage broker (Hi Felly and Una) while we worked on our house offer.