Comments on: Separating Religious and Secular Marriage?

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:42:30 +0000

Government should do with marriage what they do with parenting. “Father” and “mother” aren’t legal titles; there is only “legal guardian.” The individuals decide who is a mother and who’s a father. Similarly, there should only be “union” and let the people decide if they’re married or not. If my community says I’m married, I am. If not, I’m not. Everyone’s happy because no one is forced or denied recognition of marriage.

By: A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Haste — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:30 +0000

“Comment Left Elsewhere” of the Day…

(Why aren’t you reading this at the new website?)

—
Professional bigot Maggie Gallagher continues to weave her web of anti-gay …

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:57:55 +0000

My United Church of Christ, at our last congregation-wide annual meeting UNANYMOUSLY passed a policy that we would no longer perform any aspect of civil marriage at, or through our church. This policy restricts our pastor and other ordained UCC ministers in our congregation from performing any of the civil aspects of marriage on our property or anywhere else. It also requires that any marriage performed on our property by guest ministers/officiants understand and fully abide by this policy before being granted approval to use our facilities.

We passed this policy initially to take a stand against the discrimination that our state (Florida) and the nation imposes on gay and lesbian couples but we decided to continue the policy even after gays and lesbians win the right to civil marriage PRECISELY because it would still be an issue of the Separation of Church and State. Our Congregation, and our denomination, support this priniciple very strongly. We feel that having our pastor act as an agent of the State will NEVER be acceptable no matter how fair and equal marriage laws may become in the future.

By: Steve - Geneva, IL

Steve - Geneva, IL — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:10:36 +0000

I’m all for clearly separating civil marriage from religious marriage. In fact if the Church really considers marriage a sacrament, I’m surprised they are not all over this. How would they feel about the government regulating and issuing permits for things like communion and baptism? If you think about it, its no different. This is a perfect example of what happens when the line between church and state is muddied. By tolerating the government’s regulation of what is a religious institution, the church is losing hold of it. They are fools for pushing more and more to blur the separation between church and state in a democratic society because once they cede control of something to the state, they allow it to be subject to the courts, the majority, etc.

If civil unions were strictly a government program and marriage was strictly religious, then the benefits we now associate with marriage could be granted to gay families (including their children) as well as straight families. And at the same time, churches could define marriage as they see fit.

I don’t see this happening. The church will never go for it. Why? This is more than an issue of them defining marriage for themselves. Its that they can’t deal with the church down the street defining marriage differently than them and moreover, they will fight to prevent anything good happening to gay families. They still stand firmly against protecting gay people from being fired from their jobs simply because of who they are, let alone giving them all the legal benefits of marriage.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:45:05 +0000

Lucrece and Priya Lynn, Way to stand up for atheists, Kincaid =/ You can’t force everyone into a church marriage, marriage doesn’t belong to the religious, atheists must have rights as well. Good point. In essence this is the status in Kern Co. CA. The County Clerk cancelled all civil ceremonies offered by the county and did not deputize others to perform marriages. The marrying couple has to find an officiant elsewhere and, unless they personally know a judge, this pretty much means they have to find some form of religious practitioner to conduct the ceremony. I did bring up the objection that now athiests are forced to have religious ceremonies. However, if this were universally applied throughout the nation I suspect a work-around would arise. A Society of Religious Doubters or something like that would be created to allow for non-faith based marriages. Pragmatically, this would result in both athiest marriages and in same-sex marriages, a movement in the right diretion. But, of course, Gallagher doesn't really believe in this. She just wants her religion to own marriage. And, of course, this isn't really my ideal situation. Gordo, I'm of the opinion that the amount of the fee is not as important as the fact that she did not disclose that she was being paid by the administration to champion a political position. Oakland753, You are absolutely right. I did not mention MCC or any of the other gay and lesbian churches or synagogues. As you point out, they stand ready to offer marriage the minute that their states will allow them. I should also have mentioned Reform Judaism and the Universal Life Church which offers on-line ordination to anyone. Getting someone to offer a religious service (or a non-religious ceremony) is not at all the problem. Getting the state to stop providing preference to some churches' definitions of marriage is the real difficulty. I've thought for a while that it would be interesting to have a pro-gay church sue the state for non-recognition of their sacraments while recognizing those of anti-gay churches.

By: gordo

gordo — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:51:38 +0000

I’m not sure I’d call it a huge fee – she was paid $21,500.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002160792_gallagher26.html

By: Paul Ginandes

Paul Ginandes — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:17:42 +0000

Ms. Gallagher is wrong, as usual. The government isn’t in the business of regulating or recognizing religious marriage. It’s in the business of regulating it’s own granting of benefits and responsibilities. The fact that religious organizations also consecrate marriages is irrelevant to marriage law. It’s perfectly legal to have a marriage that has absolutely no religious affiliation whatsoever. Ms. Gallagher’s argument is the usual red herring offered by religious objectors to gay marriage. They are always trying to muddy the waters, confusing religious and civil marriage, which are two separate things entirely. This woman is the one who neglected to tell the public that at the same time she was advocating for a federal anti-gay marriage amendment, as a so-called expert on marriage, she was all the while taking a huge fee from the Bush administration to advance their agenda of placating their fundamentalist xtian base.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:30:18 +0000

Timothy said “Gallagher argues that the government should recognize only such marriages are are determined by religions…Oddly, I could be persuaded to support this idea.”.

A nonsense idea, as an earlier commenter said, what about the atheists. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. You can’t force everyone into a church marriage, marriage doesn’t belong to the religious, atheists must have rights as well.

By: lurker

lurker — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:10:15 +0000

Gallagher says: “A real alternative would be for government to recognize and enforce religiously distinctive marriage contracts so long as they serve the government’s interest . . . ”

She’s not arguing, I imagine, for governments to recognize MCC same-gendered marriages or fundamentalist mormon polygamy because (as the right wingers have been arguing all along) she would probably not see those as “serving the government’s interest.” Same old arguments apply.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:14:38 +0000

France, as I understand it, has a system similar to Germany’s, and, just like every other Western country, it is the civil ceremony/license that is binding.

I’m unalterably opposed to handing the term “marriage” over to churches. I agree with the first comment here: let the churches come up with their own name for whatever sort of couplings they want to recognize. “Marriage” belongs to all of us.