Reminder MY GD Friends: No church as EVER performed a marriage. NOT EVER.

[Fearless]

----------------------------

I posted this a while back, and it needs to be recirculated. I'm so sick of hearing about the "well then no one should get married" libertarian argument that some "gay friendly" people think is a solution to the marriage equality problem.

So sick of it.

Marriage is NOT a conservative institution.

It's a bullshit statement and everyone knows it.

[theHandpuppet]

1. Thank you, Fearless

This should be made into a flyer and distributed at Sunday services everywhere.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. Marriage is a civil contract between two parties. You are right.

Religion is not needed for a marriage.

[kcr]

3. Yep, I hate hearing that, too. It's bullshit

Religion has nothing to do with marriage and never has.

[WillyT]

4. K & R !!!

[JDPriestly]

5. K&R.

[joeglow3]

6. While the idea is great, I can't agree with this

The idea that marriage is a merely a permit ignores thousands of years of history.

[Fearless]

7. Seems pretty in line with thousands of years of pre-christian civil marriages as well.

The entire world doesn't revolve around the Judeo-Christian social system. And thank goodness too. But if you'd like to uphold their belief system do so into and for yourself. You'll want to start by:

Never cutting your hair or shaving
Not eating shellfish
Not masturbating
Not coming into contact with women during their "impure time"
Not allowing women, literally, a voice in the church
No sex before marriage
No tattoos
No pork
No work of any kind on Sundays
No cursing


And so on.

But don't worry, you'll be allowed to own several slaves, kill heathens and collect their foreskin for your king, and so on.

And if you do that, then you can, in your own life, determine how you want to define marriage in your mind. But mind you, it doesn't give you the right to tell others how to live their lives. Or, for that matter, tell others a cock and bull story about how Christianity owns marriage.

It doesn't.

Ask a Native American. Ask anyone of an Eastern culture. Ask atheists if they are able to get married. Look to ancient Egypt.

And even putting all of that aside, look to your liberal Christian friends. Are they not able to marry? Do they not consider their marriages to be part of a proud liberal marriage tradition?

Marriage is not a conservative idea. It's just one they've used for a long time as a tool to subjugate women. But they didn't invent marriage. Neither did Christians in general. Or any religious group. And it will outlast them all.

[joeglow3]

15. You really jumped the shark with that post

I simply pointed out the inaccuracies with your post. You claimed the idea of marriage has NO roots in ANY church and that ALL they do is perform weddings. That is flat out wrong.

You need to take a deep breath and calm down.

[Glorfindel]

29. The Anglican and Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer calls it "Solemnization of Matrimony"

and refer to "marriage" within the text of the ceremony as well as using the terms "wedded wife" and "wedded husband."

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Marriage.htm

Whatever it's called, I, for one, am delighted that it isn't REQUIRED of anyone.

[Fearless]

38. It HAS no roots in religion

It PREDATES religion. Religious matrimony has roots in civil marriage.

[joeglow3]

39. Again, that was not what I stated

However, most agree that marriage predates recorded history and we don't know when/where it started. However, the issue was not who did it first.

[Fearless]

40. That is exactly what you JUST state

"You claimed the idea of marriage has NO roots in ANY church and that ALL they do is perform weddings. That is flat out wrong."

[joeglow3]

41. The original post said churchs do not recognize "marriages"

It made the claim that ALL they do is perform "weddings." You know that and I know that. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that.

[Fearless]

42. It says churches do not PERFORM marriages.

[joeglow3]

46. We have a marriage certificate on file at our church

We must be the lone exception.

[uppityperson]

49. You can have a marriage cert on file anywhere. I've one in my bedroom but my bedroom did not perform

the marriage.

A marriage can be done anywhere, but legally is state sanctioned. Not by the location it was done in or where a certificate may be located.

Churches perform weddings, the legal marriage is done by the state.

A minister/pastor/whatever can sign the legal marriage documents, but they must be filed with the state to make it legal. In a church wedding, often the officiating person takes those documents to the state to be filed. This can cause confusion among some.

[joeglow3]

52. You are creating a false premise

You claim the logical outcome is that only a state can legally sanction a marriage. Given that only a government can say something is legal (as other organizations cannot write governmental laws), you think a marriage is only a governmental issue. However, many religions recognize a marriage. It is entirely possible someone gets married in a church and it is not recognized by a state. Or, are you saying gay couples that get married in a state that doesn't recognize marriage are not married? Not very progressive of you.

[uppityperson]

53. A church wedding does not give legal protections a marriage does. And as far as "not very ...

"not very progressive of you",

Working toward marriage equality in all states.

[Fearless]

54. +1

[joeglow3]

56. Wow. I think those goal posts moving broke the sound barrier

The topic was NOT about who created legal protections. Second, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and using it as an attempt to make a claim about churches. In short, you know the original post is incorrect, so you are trying to change the topic rather than being intellectually honest and admitting it.

[uppityperson]

59. I do not think that word means what you think it means. And yes, that was what the topic was about

OP: Marriage is a permit you pay for at your county or city clerk's office that says your marriage is legal.
Me : A church wedding does not give legal protections a marriage does.

Or do you mean my bit about marriage equality that is in my sig line in every post and I just wrote an extra time.

[joeglow3]

60. No, I think it means what the dictionary said it means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Like I said, goal posts flying all over the place.

[uppityperson]

61. I am using the goal posts from the OP. Take up the argument with them.

OP: Marriage is a permit you pay for at your county or city clerk's office that says your marriage is legal.
Me : A church wedding does not give legal protections a marriage does.

See? Same goal posts. Denver loses, Seahawks rout them.

Maybe you are trying to play soccer/football while we are playing American football

[markpkessinger]

30. Actually, for the first approximately 1,000 years of its existence . . .

. . . The Christian Church had no marriage rite at all. People got married according to whatever the local, civil custom was, and presented themselves after the fact to the local bishop for a blessing.

[Festivito]

8. Marriages and weddings predate the clerk's office. eom.

[theHandpuppet]

12. They also predate the Christian church.

No religion should be able to decide who can marry and who cannot.

[markpkessinger]

32. Quite correct . . .

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even the Christian Church was rather late to the marriage game. For the first approximately 1,000 years of its existence, the Christian Church had no rite or ceremony for weddings. At most, couples who had married according to whatever the local custom was would present themselves after the fact to the local bishop for a blessing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. You might want to add an "in America" qualification, because as it stands I think it's not true.

Here in the UK, I'm believe most churches are allowed to perform legally binding marriages.

[theHandpuppet]

13. I don't think Fearless was addressing global guidelines for marriage

The issue here in the U.S. is being used to discriminate against LGBTs.

[theHandpuppet]

16. By the way... totally unrelated to the OP

Every time I see your posts I am reminded of the Rev. John Rankin, an abolitionist who was an important figure in the underground railroad. I have visited his former home many times and had the opportunity to see the tunnels where he hid escaped slaves. I don't know if the public is still allowed access to the tunnels (or underground passageways), as I haven't been to Rankin's house for many years. When I was commuting during my college years, I always passed by the Rankin house and would sometimes take a short detour to visit the Red Oak Presbyterian Church, another landmark for the underground railroad.
Anyway, this isn't apropos to the OP, just been meaning to mention this to you for a while.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I'm afraid I hadn't heard of him.

Donald Ian Rankin isn't actually my name, it's the name of my favourite jig (sometimes spelled with an "e" on the end of Rankine). The author, who's son it's named for, is Scottish, so I think there's unlikely to be a close connection, I'm afraid.

[MadrasT]

10. But in most cases, you aren't actually married until an authorized person does the wedding part.

It doesn't have to be a religious person though.

The certificate doesn't "marry" you. It says you are eligible to be married and that the state will recognize the marriage once they get the marriage certificate back (that has been signed by a person authorized to marry you).

In Pennsylvania you can do a self-uniting marriage that doesn't require an official, but I think Wisconsin is the only other place that is allowed.

Churches don't perform marriages, but ministers, pastors, and so forth sure do. So do judges.

I don't really understand the point of this meme. People can get married in church or not, so what?

[theHandpuppet]

11. No, not all people can get married in a church

(Not that all people want to, anyway.) But the whole argument about the "sanctity of marriage" is one used to discriminate against LGBTs and pass legislation banning same-sex marriage. Not just weddings, mind you, but ANY and ALL marriage among LGBTs. Religious opponents of same sex marriage use the scare tactic that passing equality laws for LGBTs will force pastors, priests, et al to perform gay marriage in their churches. Well, that's B.S. No church can be forced to perform a WEDDING, which is the religious ceremony. That's why it's important to make that distinction between marriages and weddings.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Various officials and celebrants perform weddings, marriage is a civil construct

sealed by the State. Churches in the US make up their own damn rules for all aspects of their practice, meaning no matter what the law allows others to do, it never forces any faith group to do or to refuse any ceremony, ritual, act or courtesy. Divorce and remarriage for heterosexuals us ultra legal in the US and is done constantly, but the RCC refuses to acknowledge the divorce and will not wed a divorced person a second time. The law says they could, their dogma says they can't, so the law says they don't have to. This does not mean any person will be denied a divorce by the State, nor that they'd be denied another wedding by State or other faith group. It does mean RCC does not have to do what it does not wish to do.
This means that civil law allowing same sex marriage is not the business of RCC, Baptists, Mormons or any other group, they are and always will be free to do as they wish but no other American is compelled to do as they wish.
If it was simply true that 'people can get married' at all, you might have a point, but unfounded religious bigotry prevents that from being the fact.

[theHandpuppet]

21. Here's a couple of short pieces on Rankin

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/underground/oh3.htm
http://reverendjohnrankin.org/biography

[theHandpuppet]

22. Sorry.... posted out of order

This was intended as a reply to post #19.

[Uben]

26. States vary

I got a certificate of informal marriage in Texas. All it requires is you signing a statement saying you have lived together for six months and a $25 fee. The book of these informal marriages went back to the 1800s, we were only the 25th couple to ever do it. All it really does is make the government recognize you as a married couple.
No ceremony, no JP, nada. Sign and go.
I never knew this existed, but I married a marriage counselor. We were out on the lake fishing one day and were talking about going to the courthouse to get tags for the cars. She said, "You wanna get married today? All we have to do is sign a paper saying we have lived together as a couple." So, we did! That was twenty years ago.

[markpkessinger]

31. Clergy do NOT "perform" marriages . . .

. . . that is a common misunderstanding of Christian sacramental theology. The celebrants -- i.e., the ones who "perform" the sacrament -- of a marriage rite are the couple themselves (in the sacrament of Communion, it is the clergyperson who is the celebrant). The clergy person is an officiant who stands as an official witness on behalf of the church community (and who, as a matter of convenience, is permitted to be the state's official witness as well). The pronouncement that a couple is "husband and wife" at the end of a Christian wedding ceremony is simply a declaration, on behalf of the church, that the marriage sacrament has been has been duly performed by the couple, and on behalf of the state that the contract has been executed.

[uppityperson]

50. "Authorized" is the part that many get hung up on. We had a friend authorized to sign the papers

with us. There was no "wedding part", just paper signing and handing it over to the state to be filed.

If you go to a church, have a wedding, you are not legally married. Not until you both sign the papers along with whatever state sanctioned legal representative does, and they get turned in to the state, though as you point out you may not need that other person.

The point of this meme is to counter those who protest marriage as being between "one man one woman because that is how their church says it should be and omg can you imagine 2 gays wanting to get married in our church what would jesus say omg omg omg".

You do not need to do ANYTHING in a church to be legally married and just because you my do something in a church, this does not mean you are legally married.

[WinkyDink]

17. I was married in a court-house, so I know this very well!

[Madam Mossfern]

25. And I used to officiate

at marriages at Town Hall when I was Mayor. It was one of my favorite parts of my position. I also developed a gender neutral Civil Union ceremony that was equally moving. The mayors before me had no such ceremony - they just read the legal language off the license! I also got rid of any reference to God in the ceremony. It seems that no one before me considered that they may be marrying two atheists to each other.

Many of the couples I married chose to have a separate religious ceremony.

[hunter]

18. My marriage within the Catholic Church is one thing, my civil marriage is another.

Separation of church and state.

The church has a different definition for marriage than the state, AND THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING!

The Catholic definition of marriage if enforced by the state would violate the civil rights of many people.

Gay or straight, religious or non religious, marriage is very clearly a civil right.

[Glassunion]

20. Marriage is not a permit.

In fact I have never heard of it being a permit at all. I have heard of "marriage certificates" and "marriage licenses", but never a permit. I could be wrong and there may be a state or two out there that call it that. But a permit is where one would have to request permission from their government to do something. You cannot "permit" a right. It's a given. You can have the government certify or license it. But not permit it. Now I have heard of wedding permits, but these usually fall to the people getting married requesting a permit to use public space for the event that is the wedding.

Marriage is not a permit.

[former9thward]

23. A marriage licence is the state giving you permission to get married.

So yeah it is a permit.

[Glassunion]

24. Which is stupid.

It's a right. Period.

[Uben]

28. Maybe some states, but none I know of.....

You need a marriage license to be recognized by government as a legit couple. You don't have to have any ceremonies, so no permission is needed.

[former9thward]

34. Permission is required to obtain the legal status of being married.

You can't just declare you are married and have that status. Marriage licenses came about in the middle ages. Before that public declaration was all that occurred.

[Uben]

36. "You can't just declare you are married and have that status"

That's exactly what I did!
I was married by paying a $25 fee and signing a statement that I had lived with my spouse for at least six months. A license was issued and I enjoyed full marital status in the eyes of the federal government.

This is a common-law marriage. Legal in Texas, don't know about other states

[former9thward]

37. Your own post

"a licence was issued". Again, permission by the state. Common law marriages are currently recognized by 8 states but that number is constantly shrinking.

[Ms. Toad]

57. A common law does not exist because a license was issued.

A common law marriage exists because a couple satisfies the state requirements for a common law marriage - which typically include living together, holding themselves out as married, and having others believe they are married.

It is possible that some states issue a document to couples who have common law marriages in order to provide evidence of the marriage, but the marriage exists without the document. That is the whole point of a common law marriage.

In Texas, specifically, to prove - in a court of law - that you have a common law marriage:

You have to show the court proof that: you agreed to be married; you lived together as husband and wife; and you held yourself out as being married. One way of proving those things is to have a recorded declaration of marriage. A declaration of marriage is a form that is filed with the County Clerk’s Office in your county that says you are married. Another way is to use tax returns, a lease, an insurance policy, or other agreements that you signed as a married couple.

Or, you can bring people to court who will say that you were married.

[mstinamotorcity2]

33. Kicking for

truth!!!!!!

[William769]

35. Kick & recommended.

[Jenoch]

43. Churches have not performed weddings either,

people (members of the clergy) perform weddings.

[WillowTree]

44. Your statement is a non sequitur. Marriages are not "performed".

Weddings are ceremonies, religious or otherwise. Marriages are the resulting unions (or contracts) between the two people.

And by the way, a couple is not married just because they have purchased the license (permit). Someone who is licensed to do so, a religious cleric or JP or judge or ship's captain etc. (but rarely, if ever, a worker behind the counter at the County Clerk's office), still has to perform some sort of ceremony to solemnize the union and sign the marriage certificate.

Just sayin'.

[Fearless]

45. "Marriages are not 'performed'" is a non-sequitur.

No one said they were. In fact, the post says they're not.

And a person signing the marriage certificate has nothing to do with religious belief. Also a non-sequitur.

And no one said anything about the certificate or its place in the argument. Again, non-sequitur.

Just sayin'.

[WillowTree]

48. I know that no one said anything about the certificate. What it did say, though......

......is that "marriage is a permit.......that says your marriage is legal", which is just wrong. The "permit" purchased at a county clerk's office isn't a marriage, it's just a license that allows a couple to enter into a marriage. A wedding ceremony of one nature or another is necessary.

The marriage certificate is the document that certifies that a wedding ceremony has taken place and a contract of marriage between the two parties has taken place.

Oh, and since you seem to be into snark, you might want to look up the definition of non sequitur. Both of your references to that term above are, in themselves, non sequiturs. Not that I really think you care.

[Fearless]

55. "Ceremony"

is a loaded word.

A "ceremony" is the county clerk watching you sign the papers and then certifying them, if that's what you can afford. Very often this is exactly what a couple would do... and then for the last hundred years or so, many also have had a religious service.

Some ministers (et.al.) are legally sanctioned to be witness to a legal marriage. Some are not. Frequently couples will again, simply go to the county clerk's office and they will sign saying that you have agreed to get married, no "ceremony" in the traditional sense.

[arely staircase]

47. the idea this OP is trying to express is a noble and correct one

however, it trips over the very language with which it is trying to be clever.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Actually, it isn't correct.

There are religious marriages - Quakers, over the years, have traditionally taken marriages under their care which were not recognized at law - same gender marriages most recently (including mine), and in the past interracial marriage, and in the past no Friends marriages were recognized at law for any couple because we don't use an officiant.

The state also recognizes marriages - which brings the state (and all of the rights and privileges associated with legal recognition of marriages) into the picture.

And often the start of a marriage occurs simultaneously in both religious and civil settings because all state statutes include a way for religious officiants to act on behalf of the state in creating legal recognition of the marriage. (And most state statutes also recognize Quaker marriages via special language which eliminates the need for an officiant).

But no - it isn't correct that no church ever "performed" (created) a marriage. As I've noted above, my own marriage was created in my faith community long before it gained legal recognition. While it is true that I do not (still) have all of the legal rights associated with recognition of my marriage, the lack of state recognition does not mean my marriage does not exist.

[RKP5637]

51. Agree!!!!!! n/t