Discussed in various forms in various places throughout this site are discussions about whether or not DOMA is constitutional, the differences between domestic partnerships and marriages, homosexuality and genetics, homophobia, and so on. One of them generated a question that might be better suited to its own topic:
Premise: Same-sex marriages are legalized in the United States, with all the same benefits and drawbacks of an opposite-sex marriage. DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional. Religious denominations are not required to perform these marriages, but they must be recognized under civil law.
Question: Under these circumstances, how would various religious demoninations react?
We were discussion Mormons/LDS, and I know I can speak from a Unitarian Universalist perspective, but I’m curious to see what other POV’s might garner…
(And if you want to espouse on any related topics that do not directly relate to the hypothetical situation posted above, please locate the proper thread elsewhere on the Straight Dope.)
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Well, since participating in such a marriage would pretty much be a declaration of the intention to live openly as a sexually active gay or lesbian person, I suppose the churches would react however they do now toward such folks. For example, in the Catholic church, you can’t participate in communion if you are divorced (unless the marriage has been annulled) or if you were married in a non-Catholic ceremony.(My husband and I were married in a Presbyterian ceremony, but he couldn’t take communion until we were blessed (read remarried) by a Catholic priest.) So married homosexuals could attend Catholic services but would not be allowed to take communion.
I suspect the “God hates fags” folks would not find their hearts and minds opened by any changes in the law of the land.
Denominations that hold “spiritual marriages” or “celebrations of commitment” will conduct legal marriages.
Denominations that don’t, won’t.
Some denominations will take no official stand, leaving it to the disretion of the local minister. No church DEMANDS that one of their ministers must marry a couple.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
But some have demanded their ministers not marry couples, some at the cost of their careers (recent cases have involved Methodist and Baptist congregations and ministers, IIRC).
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Esprix, do you have any reason to suspect that any religions would change their opinions simply because some lawyers made same-sex marriages legal? I’m wondering what the point of this thread is.
Well, churches are like any other business. They either grab the biggest demographic, or they get edged out by others who do. If the general public becomes pro-gay-marriage, the more mainstream among the churches will eventually follow suit.
Of course, public acceptance of gay marriage will also produce a minority backlash population of reactionaries, and some churches are doubtlessly poised to take advantage of such circumstances. These churches will probably become more anti-gay, or at least louder about their anti-gay stance (e.g. the “God Hates Fags” people mentioned above).
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
IMHO (repeat: In My Humble Opinion)
Marriage is a religious institution. Allowing the government to regulate it is an unconstitutional suport of religion.
If two people, for other purposes, attempted to form a contract with the same terms as the marriage contract, I doubt that a court would enforce its terms, finding them irrational and unconscionable.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
I’d prefer to believe that – like other businesses – there are some religions who will modify their product to get a bigger market share, but there are others who stand by their product and refuse to change it, either because they really believe in it, or because they are satisfied with catering to their niche market.
Heavens no, I don’t expect anyone to change their doctrines; I’m just wondering what the impact would be. I was asking someone in another thread what the Mormons would say if it were turned into law, considering their past history with polygamy.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Uh, legal documents made between two people are just that - a court would be hard-pressed not to honor them just because they don’t like who signed them.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
It may have started out that way, but it has evolved. For example, I was married by the mayor of my hometown in my grandmother’s house. No priest. No church. No nothing. How is that unconstitutional support of religion? In the same vein, would you say that closing down government offices in recognition of Christmas is unconstitutional?
No, because Christmas, like marriage, has adopted a secular meaning for non-Christians.
Many legal marriages today are not recognized as religiously correct marriages by certain faiths/denominations.
Some outfits consider only marriages “in the church” to be a valid marriage as far as the church goes. Officiants of other outfits (Orthodox Judaism for one) will not preside over a mixed faith marriage although such marriage is legal under the marriage laws in the United States. Officiants of other outfits (Roman Catholics for one) will only hold a marriage “in the church” in the case of a mixed faith couple if one party is Roman Catholic and the other party agrees to raise the children as Roman Catholics. In the case of the Latter Day Saints, a marriage in the temple (“marriage for time and eternity” which means there’s no recitation of “until death do us part”) can only be held between two LDS members “in good standing.” There was a recent mailbag article concerning Mormon weddings and part of the answer is that in the case of mixed faith marriages and also in the case of two Mormons not eligible for temple marriage, there is a marriage ceremony which the church recognizes. In this ceremony the words “death do us part,” IIRC, do appear. For Mormons, “death do us part” is not the ideal consideration of marriage. They believe in marriage for eternity and thus that statement, to them, takes away some of the romance of the event.
Since many of these churches preach against homesexual activity and hold the position that such activity is wrong, I really can’t see them all of a sudden saying, “Damn, we need to change our rules right now” and allow all those folks we didn’t use to marry each other marry right freaking now!"
I know someone’s bound to bring up, “But, yeah, didn’t the Mormons change their rules about marriage?” Yeah, in that case they withdrew permission for certain marriages and it wasn’t all of a sudden–court appeals take time. Remember the bit about polygamy? The topic of polygamy, btw, has recently made an appearance in some of the threads on the homosexual marriage and domestic partnership issues on this very board, and by non-LDS to boot!
Obviously, nor would they be expected to. I suppose since the argument one hears so often is “same-sex marriages will ruin the sanctity of every other marriage,” it just seems silly to me to think that suddenly ever marriage performed after SSM’s are made legal would somehow be lessened or cheapened (I seriously doubt the bride and groom would think so on their wedding day).
I know - that was me. Flinx was kind enough to answer to the best of his ability, and it was his idea to make this into another thread.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Every jurisdiction in the world has a civil definition of “marriage.” The religious institution of marriage is separate from the civil definition.
Courts routinely uphold marital agreements which go beyond the basic marital relationship defined by law (e.g. pre-nuptual agreements). If two unmarried people entered into a contract which provided for those rights and responsibilities of marriage which are not specifically regulated by law, the courts as a matter of public policy sould uphoild the contract if it’s correctly drafted.
Well, yes, we know that; I was just asking what their reactions might be based on different theologies - would they sigh heavily and accept it (again, without being required to actually perform ceremonies themselves), will gay marriages be the topic of discussion for the next year’s worth of sermons, will there be a rouse to have the legislation overturned? What will the immediate reaction be? In a year? In 50 years?
I know the Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Reformation Judaism and some liberal mainstream Protestant churches already perform same-sex ceremonies of union, so they’ll probably be happy.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Divorce, in and of itself, is no bar to reception of the sacraments. A person may obtain a civil divorce and continue to take communion. The problem arises if the person then gets remarried in a civil or non-Catholic religious ceremony, or is initially married in like manner.
The Roman Catholic Church holds that marriage creates a sacramental bond between the partners that may only be dissolved by death. ("'Til death do us part," in other words, is a vow that observant Catholics actually believe and follow.)
If the marriage sours and a civil divorce is obtained, the Church considers the parties are still married, and simply living apart. As such, each as able to participate in communion. If, however, either party purports to remarry, that second “marriage” is, from the Church’s point of view, only an adultrous relationship.
An annullment is a judgement that despite the appearances at the time, there was no valid sacramental marriage between the parties. As an extreme example, if one party were coerced or forced into the marriage, it doesn’t really count as a marriage. If one party misrepresented a desire to have children, for example, and then after the marriage ceremony announced that his desire for children was a sham, that, too, would not be a valid marriage. Since a marriage, once completed, has a strong presumption of validity, the anullment process is an effort to rigorously ensure that, despite appearances, there was no valid marriage. Once a person has received a judgement of anullment, they are free to marry in the Church.
From Monty:
It is true that, in order to marry in the Church, at least one party to the marriage must be Catholic. It is not true that the non-Catholic partner must agree to raise the children as Roman Catholics.
The Catholic partner must agree to use a good-faith (no pun intended) effort to raise the children as Roman Catholics, and the non-Catholic partner must be made aware of that promise.
Well, new twist - Vermont has all but signed “civil unions” into law, which provides exactly the same rights and responsibilities as marriage without actually calling it that (see the “Domestic Partnerships” thread for details).
In another thread, the following scenario was posed:
Civil unions are legalized in Vermont. A same-sex couples marries in Vermont. Eventually, either in a direct lawsuit or by moving to another state and wanting their union recognized by that state, a suit goes to the Supreme Court, and “seperate but equal” is ruled inherently discriminatory and unlawful. Vermont then changes “civil union” into “marriage.” The inevitable lawsuit then goes to the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act and all its state-sponsored siblings are struck down as unconstitutional. Final result: same-sex marriages are legalized.
From this, I got an interesting notion. If marriages are legalized, does the US have the right to require religious institutions recognize that marriage as legitimate, even if they don’t demand that they perform them? Perhaps my wording isn’t precise enough, but I’m just throwing it out.