>You think religious and legal marriage are the same, and you want to make them distinct, correct?
Yes, that’s about right. More specifically, I think that typically marriages are accomplished through wedding ceremonies that are both legal and religious, and that it is at best unusual and at least a little more difficult to get married at a wedding that is one and not the other, though I am learning a little more on this.
>What specific changes do you think need to happen in order to accomplish this?
Actually, what CurtC just said is a very good statement of it:
"The problem with the current situation is that the law discriminates based on the sex of the people involved. I think the ideal proposal is to have the government not discriminate and offer the advantages conferred with the legal marriage, to everyone. Since the word “marriage” seems to be hopelessly entangled with the religious concept of a man and a woman, make the government’s contractual union not be called that. Make the union be called something else, such as the already existing ‘civil union,’ and give it ALL of the current privileges of legal marriage, including child support obligations, hospital visitation, insurance benefits, and survivorship rights. "
I would also say that I have heard religious arguments against allowing the State to legally marry some people, such as people of different race (though I have not heard this in a long time), and such as people of the same gender. I presume this motivated CurtC to observe “…word “marriage” seems to be hopelessly entangled with the religious concept…”, but will say more emphatically here that the religious arguments I have heard specifically indicate to me that the State should get out of the marriage business if the marriage business involves religious issues, thus the original posting.
IANAL, but the conditions the judge tried to impose on your wedding were almost certainly illegal. Changing the law isn’t going to do much to people who are already ignoring the existing law.
From a legal perspective, changing the name doesn’t change anything about the institution. If tomorrow, you called it a “BloodeBloo” it would still be the same legal institution. A legal institution is at the very least defined by its requirements for formation (including membership requirements), its rights, its responsibilities, and its relationship to the people who join it. None of these things change just because you change the name. Since nothing of any legal significance has changed, then either the civil union must still also be religious or the religious marriage was never legal to begin with. And the latter is the case. The legal marriage isn’t the same as the religious marriage.
Secondly, just because two things have the same name, that doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Just because the legal and religious institutions are both called “marriage,” that doesn’t mean they are the same thing. You have to look at the characteristics of each to determine if they are the same or not. And I’ve already explained that the legal institution and the religious institutions have different characteristics–and the characterists are so different that you can have a valid legal marriage and an invalid religious marriage at the same time, and vice versa.
Gender: Now membership requirements are a key criteria of a legal institution. And it is true that our current legal requirement that a marriage be between a man and a woman has its historical antecedents in religion. But, that is not the legal reason there is a gender requirement. Because the 1st Amendment prohibits religious discrimination, governments are not allowed to discriminate for religious reasons. And if you look at all the rulings upholding these gender restrictions, the reasoning never rests on religious reasoning. The judges don’t say that marriage has to be between a man and a woman because of Christianity, they say that the state can make it that way because the state thinks there are non-religious reasons for it. Do you understand the difference?
Secondly, there are already religions which allows people of the same gender to marry. So, even if you change the gender requirements, you haven’t done anything to distinguish it from religion, have you? Changing the gender requirements doesn’t make it distinct from religion, because it’s already distinct from religion.
Finally, CurtC’s argument isn’t that the two institutions are the same. His argument is the people think that marriage has religious connotations. Which apparently is true, since you think that it does. But just because people think something, that doesn’t mean it’s true.
People make religious arguments about everything, right? People make religious arguments against gambling. Does that mean that a casino is a religious establishment? You keep confusing what other people’s misperceptions are with what the legal reality. Now, it may be true that people are less inclined to make a religious argument if you change the name (I have no idea, we’d have to take a poll), but just because people make a religious argument, that doesn’t mean that we’re dealing with a religious institution. And changing the name doesn’t overcome this, since people will still make religious arguments.
I thought I had posted a response, but it seems to have disappeared. If this is a double posting, my apologies.
If people are going to use misleading terminology like “get government out of the marriage business,” then of course that is going to lead to misunderstanding.
Currently, civil unions are not available to everyone in most jurisdictions. For example, in California, domestic parternships (which are CA’s equivalent of civil unions) are only available to same sex couples or senior citizens.
In California, domestic partnerships provide all rights under state law that marriages do. I think VT is the same, but I’d have to check
I’ve already made a legal complexity argument in this thread. There is a ton of legislation, contractual arrangements, wills, etc., that refer to the term “marriage.” Now, changing the name doesn’t create an insurmountable problem, but it does create an unnecessary one. Legislatures make mistakes, and I can easily imagine situations where, say, a prenuptial agreement is left up in the air because it uses the term “marriage” instead of whatever name you change it to.
Actually, when you’re talking about a word’s connotations, there’s no difference between what people think are the connotations and what the connotations actually are. Connotations exist entirely as arrangements of neurons inside folks’ heads. Words have no reality external to those neurological arrangements.
Civil unions for all would have the added benefit of setting up an easy package of rights available, for example, to an elderly person and their adult child who is their caretaker. Such a pair of people certainly deserve the same set of legal rights currently available as “marriage,” don’t they? Granting these rights would be, from a logistical perspective, easy peasy, wouldn’t they? As long as we call this set of rights “marriage,” however, anti-incest taboos will make it nearly impossible to change the law such that these folks can easiliy attain these rights.
Connotations of words are important. They have a real-world impact, although they exist only inside folks’ heads.
To forestall a possible objection, please don’t try to lecture me on the history of marriage in different societies. I am well informed on this history, know and approve of same-sex marriage arrangements, and am happy to celebrate them in the past and in the present and in the future. I just think that they, like opposite-sex marriages, ought not be the domain of the gubmint. The set of rights that romantic couples generally want ought to be more widely available and ought not be linked to any specific variety of emotional relationship.
Maybe. But legal institutions have specific definitions. Just because people think that a legal marriage has religious connotations, that doesn’t make it true. Saying that people think religious and legal marriages are the same thing isn’t an argument that they are, indeed the same thing. I’ve already explained multiple times and in multiple different ways that legal and religious marriages are distinct institutions, and nobody in here has made a valid argument that they are not. But I’ll ask you this question: if they are the same, how is it that two people can have a valid legal marriage and an invalid religious marriage at the exact same time? How is it that two people can have a valid religious marriage and an invalid legal marriage at the exact same time? If the two are the same, how is that possible?
Look, you can keep saying that you “think” government should be out of marriage, but that is not what you are proposing. And that has nothing to do with the history of marriages in different societies, so I don’t know where you’re getting that. What you are proposing is that the name and the membership requirements for the legal institution of marriage be changed. Under your system, government is still involved.
BrightnShiny, you seem to be confusing denotations and connotations here. Are you sure you’re clear on the difference between the two terms? If you are, please rephrase this quote; as it’s written, it sounds like a complete non sequitur.
No, actually, that is what I’m proposing. I think you’re not clear on what I’m proposing, if that’s how you’re taking it. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can make myself clearer than I’ve made myself; if you still misunderstand my proposal, I’m afraid we’ll need to drop the discussion.
Incidentally, that’s a pretty odd use of quote marks.
All right, maybe connotation is the wrong word, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the religious institution and the legal institution are separate insitutions. Nobody in this thread has presented an argument that they aren’t. I noticed you didn’t answer my question–if they’re the same, how can two people have a valid religious marriage and an invalid legal one at the same time?
I think that’s best. You obviously have never studied law, and you seem intent on holding to your misconceptions.
One of the reasons that I oppose this change is that I want there to be a distinction between this sort of relationship, and what is now termed “marriage.” A lot of people have a strong emotional investment in the concept of marriage, and this is not exclusive to hetero-centric straight people. There are a lot of connotations to that term beyond the religious, and I don’t think those connotations will be 100% portable to a civil union arrangement. I’m an atheist, but someday I want to be married, with everything that implies in our society. I don’t want to give that up as a ridiculous compromise to bigotry, and I don’t want to force anyone else to give it up, either.
Exactly my point, thank you.
Indeed: the institution of marriage ought to be available to everyone, and that’s only possible by maintaing it as a government institution. Any other arrangement will ultimatly be exclusive to one group or another.
Only one poster here has made the point that in her neck of the woods, the two were practically the same. Everyone else who is advocating this change realizes that they are completely separate - the way I see it, I want to more clearly separate them!
Since LHoD never implied that they’re the same, I can see why he didn’t answer your question.
What you’re proposing here is that our current system of separate but equal - we have marriages for opposite-sex couples and domestic partnerships that anyone can use - is fine with you. But it’s inherently unjust, independent of any religion.
Why not have one kind of contractual legal relationship to offer? Why burden that relationship with the traditionally religious term “marriage”? Call it a civil union, make it available to any couple, stipulate that it come with all the rights that we’ve traditionally associated with legal marriage, and put in a grandfather clause that any existing contracts that referred to marriages now will apply to civil unions as well. Problem solved as far as I can see. Sure some people may be upset, but we should do it because it’s clearly the right thing to do.
Uh, no. I haven’t anywhere in this thread said that I support the existing system. What I said is that changing the legal name of an existing legal institution adds unnecessary complexity to the law. I am completely in favor of changing the membership requirements of marriage so that they are gender independent.
I agree. Which is why I’m trying to get people like Napier to understand the distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage. There’s no point in trying to argue people’s religion with them, but if they understand that the legal institution is different, then I don’t have to make that argument.
No, that doesn’t solve the problem at all, and if interpreting and apply legislation was that easy, we wouldn’t have courts systems or litigation at all. I don’t have time to lay out each and every area that this will impact and all the potential problems that can arise. But the general nature of our legal system is that courts and legislatures generally cannot or will not rewrite private instruments. It’s not a matter of just putting in a grandfather clause, and all of this stuff will have to be litigated to get final determinations.
Secondly, we have a lot of areas in the law where we have to carry around archaic terms because they used to mean something and could be construed somehwere to still mean something. This increases drafting complexity and increases your legal fees. If we go with your name change, then everytime somebody drafts a law, or writes a court ruling, or drafts any legal instrument, they’ll have to account for both terms.
Now, we’ll get similar sorts of problems by just expanding the membership requirements of the existing legal institution of marriage, but they won’t be anywhere near the scope of the problems that are going to arise with your proposed changed.
I don’t think it’s the right thing to do to create unnecessary legal complexity and to put a bunch of people (gay or straight or whatever) through avoidable litigation simply because people don’t understand the difference between legal and religious institutions.
Forgot to reply to this one. If you read the thread, you’ll see that LHoD was replying to my response to Napier. And I was trying to show Napier that the religious and legal institutions are separate. You can see how I might think, without a clearer response, that someone who is arguing with my response to Napier might be holding a similar view to Napier.
Do you believe that distinction must be made by the state, or is it a distinction that can be made by people for themselves? I’m obviously in the latter camp.
Yes, a lot of people have a strong emotional investment in the concept of marriage. Right there is a pretty good sign that it shouldn’t be an institution controlled by the state: the state ought to be involved in matters of reason, not emotion. Under my proposal, since there would no longer be such a thing as a state-sanctioned marriage, you would be able to be married as surely as I am married: marriage would be the purview of the private sector, and your marriage would be every bit as real as the marriage of any straight couple out there.
As I’ve said before, I don’t see this proposal as a “ridiculous compromise to bigotry.” Although I think it’s likelier to be put into place earlier than state-sanctioned SSM is, on a national basis, I think that it’s also a firmer, more productive proposal
Why on earth is that the only way it can be available to everyone? This makes no sense to me: if the government opts out of marriage, it becomes available to MORE people, not fewer. Heck, under this system, the polys are as legit in their marriage as anyone else.
Daniel
PS Brightnshiny, I’ll ask you again to reread my posts, as you’ve clearly misunderstood them, and then acted kinda sniffy when others corrected your misunderstanding. I’ve never studied law formally, true, but unless you have, I’ll put my knowledge of the law against yours any day.
>I’ve already explained multiple times and in multiple different ways that legal and religious marriages are distinct institutions, and nobody in here has made a valid argument that they are not.
>Which is why I’m trying to get people like Napier to understand the distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage.
Let me focus on this one point. I don’t think I have a pathological inability to comprehend a distinction between a decree by a church representative and a change in legal status via a formal procedure conducted by a representative of the court. However, all my friends and coworkers and relatives and neighbors appear to be married, or single, or divorced or widowed, with both the legal and the religious elements either on or off. I know that in at least some states you can get married in a courtroom by a Judge, and (at least if the Judge is agreeable) without any mention of religion, and so you could have a legal wedding without any church involvement; but I actually don’t personally know of anybody who has done that. And while I am not sure about a church performing what looks like a wedding without there being any legal change in marital status, I definitely don’t know of anybody who has done that either. So, I propose that legal and religious marriage are typically very entangled, even if they can and occasionally do exist in isolation. Would you agree or disagree with this? And, why?
In Florida, I am a notary public, and we can perform marriages anywhere in the state. It can be as religious or non-religious as a like, but if someone wanted the religion, then they would have had it in a church.
All I have to do is verify that the two people have a valid marriage license, they want to marry each other, and make sure that neither is being coerced, as best I can. All of the rest of the stuff is fluff (Dearly beloved… fluff!)
I would disagree with this, because one should not confuse their own personal experiences, or lack thereof, with what is actually true. Let’s take your points, one by one.
No state requires you to have a religious ceremony for your legal marriage. If any state did, that would be a 1st Amendment violation. So, your idea that you can get married by a judge “at least in some states” is off. You can get legally married in a non-religious ceremony in all states. Note: there may be some difference for tribal/Native American/indigenous people law, but I’m not aware of any.
Just because all of your friends legal marriages and religious marriages are on/off at the same time, that does not mean everyone’s is. I’ve already given you an example of how this can happen. I can give you a lot more. This is what I mean by ignoring what you’ve been told in this thread. If you think they’re intertwined, you have to explain how it is possible that one can have a valid legal marriage and an invalid religious marriage at the same time, or vice-versa.
Secondly, I find it hard to believe that all your friends/coworkers/etc. actually do have their religious and legal marriages turned on and off at the same time. The only way this is possible is if you do not know anybody who has ever been legally divorced and who belongs to a religion which prohibits divorce. Given that the rules for when a Catholic couple can split their Catholic marriage up are far different than the rules under which they can legal divorce, I think it’s quite likely that you know people who have a legally valid marriage but an invalid Catholic marriage, or vice-versa.
You say you’re not sure about a church performing what looks like a wedding without a change in legal marital status–I don’t know how else to get through to you, but it happens all the time. For example, in California, you must register your marriage with the state for it to be legally valid. Period. If you are a California resident, and you go get a nice, big wedding in your favorite church, but you fail to register it with the state, then you do not have a legally valid marriage. You have a valid church marriage, but an invalid legal marriage. That’s it. For you to keep saying, “I don’t know about that” says to me that you are simply unwilling to let go of the false information that you hold on to.
So, no, legal marriage and religious marriage are not entangled. It may be that you and you’re friends all think it is, but that doesn’t prove it is. I don’t mean to be rude here, but it’s clear that you’ve never studied the law and how it works. It used to be, a very long time ago, that they were entangled, but that hasn’t been true for a long time anywhere in the United States.
We can also both claim to be the Emperor of North America, and the proclamation will be every bit as real. Without social recognition of a marriage, in what way is it a marriage at all? How is it different from just having a boyfriend? Marriage is important both because of the bond it represents between the two people in the relationship, and because of what that bond means to society at large. If a marriage has no inherent rights and responsibilities, then it has no social meaning whatsoever. It’s entirely valueless.
No? Would there be any reason at all to put this proposal forward if there were not a debate over same-sex marriage?
Because the only marriages that will have any sort of legitimate meaning are those that will be performed under the aegis of an organization that attaches particular obligations and responsibilities to the term. Absent a state agent, the only organizations remaining that will recognize the importance of any particular marriage are religious organizations. If I don’t belong to a church, and the state doesn’t recognize marriages, me saying, “I’m married,” carries no more weight than saying, “I’m fucking this person at semi-regular intervals.” Semantically, you’ve just made “wife” and “girlfriend” exactly the same thing, to the ultimate detriment of both terms.
>one should not confuse their own personal experiences, or lack thereof, with what is actually true
>This is what I mean by ignoring what you’ve been told in this thread.
>I don’t know how else to get through to you
>For you to keep saying, “I don’t know about that” says to me that you are simply unwilling
>I don’t mean to be rude here, but it’s clear that you’ve never studied the law and how it works.
Well. Maybe you don’t mean to be rude, but you sound downright hostile and even angry, again. I’ve posted my share of stupid mistakes elsewhere, and been dense occasionally, but don’t remember anybody reacting like this. I hope you’ll pardon me if I don’t respond to your posts any further.
I haven’t studied law. Well, I have studied some patent law, but not anything involving marriage. If I had, no doubt my query would have been more directed and less open ended. But I think someone with little legal training could participate legitimately in a general public Web discussion forum.
You did point out something I guess I should have thought of, namely, some churches not accepting the divorce of a marriage they created, and therefore not accepting subsequent marriages either. I have heard of this, yes, so that’s a good example, and I stand corrected and amend my thinking accordingly. I still think, though, that the religious and legal aspects of marriage are frequently enough correlated that religious attitudes about marriage tend to influence laws about marriage, and that, more specifically, negative religious attitudes about same-sex marriage influence the availability of legally married status to the detriment of same-sex couples.