| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 6:59:17 AM | The question of marriage within various religions is one that perplexes me. Let us define…
mar•riage - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
The bill is based on the proposed legislation referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in the marriage Reference and includes related consequential amendments to eight other federal statutes to provide equal treatment for same-sex couples to marry civilly and to divorce in Canada.
So a marriage of this nature would be sanctioned by the government, but not by most Christian organizations (I only use Christian as it’s the big one that pops to mind when talking about same sex marriages)
Polygamy can be most succinctly defined as a "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."
Secular law in most western countries with large Jewish and Christian populations does not recognize polygamous marriages. However, few such countries have any laws against living a polygamous lifestyle: they simply refuse to give it any official recognition. Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle; these laws originated as anti-Mormon legislation, although they are rarely enforced. Polygamists may find it harder to obtain legal immigrant status.
Some polygamous families use a system of multiple divorce and legal marriage as a loophole in order to avoid committing a criminal act. In such cases the husband marries the first wife, she takes his last name, he divorces her and then marries the next wife, who takes his name. This is repeated until he has married and divorced all his wives, except possibly the last one. This way the wives feel justified in calling themselves Mrs. [husband's last name] and, while legally they're divorced from the husband, they still act as if married to him and expect those around them to acknowledge and respect this.
Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law is being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit can be overt about their relationship.
That being said, these marriages are tricky to get around legally – in various parts of the world. It is not recognized legally. More than one woman cannot be married to one man at the same time legally. However, in various religions it is sanctioned by God(s) and/or Holy Books and the religious community.
At the present time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports enforcing laws against polygamy, although historically this denomination practiced polygamy which they considered to be a principle revealed by God, and fought vocally against those seeking to establish such laws. Today, the church will excommunicate any member found to be practicing polygamy.
But we all know from the wonderful world of TV that there are still people who practice this and have faith in God and consider themselves moved by God to act in such a fashion.
This thread is not specific to any one form of marriage though. Want specifics, search the specifics :P
Going back to the definitions of marriage, number 4 states “a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction,” this suggests that the above marriages SHOULD be considered marriages regardless of legal sanction.
I found the following on a website on how to attain a Canadian Marriage Lisence.
Proxy Marriages: No.
Cousin Marriages: Yes.
Common Law Marriages: No.
Same Sex Marriages: Yes.
So then, should we have legal sanction for all religious ceremony for marriage, whether that be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Pagan or what have you? Likewise, should we have legal sanction for all non religious ceremony for marriage, such as simply having a party to formalize a common law marriage, multiple marriages and the like; and have the same legal results for that which would be otherwise sanctioned by law?
If you think yes – explain why.
If you think no – explain why.
Example – the Wiccan version of a Hand Fasting Ceremony would not be legally sanctioned unless performed by a judge – and how often would one be able to find a priest(ess) who is also a judge? Seems a little tricky to me.
Granted my post is based on Canadian law - so perhaps things are different in other countries and those viewpoints would be welcome as well. :) | |
|
| |
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 7:53:24 AM | Hardly. I'm actually curious what people think.
I mean, I know there are going to be a mixture of views. I'm concerned with why people have those views.
Should all priests/ministers etc have the legal sanction to marry individuals?
Should all religions have their marriage ceremonies legally sanctioned?
Should people who are committed to one another be treated as though they are married, by all parties concerned?
Should multiple partners be able to marry legally/religiously (if so what religion why/not?)
They're all very important questions to society and something society and religion has struggled with for very long periods of time.
Not unlike the subject of divorce...but we're talking marriage, from religious and legal standpoints.
When I say religious, I do mean ALL of them. Not just a few. | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 8:46:20 AM | I say take away the religious aspect to legal marriages, like they do in several European countries. It works well, and there is no argument (especially by the pagans) about being able to do their own weddings.
It's a simple concept and high time, in my opinion, to change marriage so that it is a civil ceremony - going before a registrar. Then, if the couple decides they want a religious blessing as well, they can, but it isn't legally binding.
In a multicultural society such as Canada, I believe it could work. We live in a predominately secular society, so why not. | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 1:39:04 PM | | I'm curious what public interest is served by marriage. Certainly power of attorney and joint custody of property/children could be done without needing that. | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 2:08:57 PM | marriage (legal or common-law) = can share the tax credits during income tax time
I believe that if you take away the religious aspect of the actual "ceremony", much of the discussion around gay marriages would be moot. Then it just becomes a civil issue, not a religious issue. | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 3:34:00 PM |
marriage (legal or common-law) = can share the tax credits during income tax time Well that's not much reason for an entier institution... to equalize tax-brackets. | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/29/2006 3:50:52 PM | | Marriage as an institution has ALWAYS been about finances and power. wy do you think there were dowries and bride price? | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/30/2006 7:07:12 AM | Marriage as an institution serves many purposes, such as regulating divisions of labor, forging political/relational connections, increasing one's wealth or prestige, and of course: making teh behbehs.
HOWEVER
To grant rights to one person and deny them to another based upon gender is bullshit, ESPECIALLY in the US. Most other cultures worldwide still practice some form of polygamy (multiples spouses... polygyny is multiple wives, polyandry is multiple husbands), and in terms of statistics, the majority of the impoverished uneducated masses worldwide are female. But here, in the United States, these quirks do not apply. It is illegal to deny someone a job, house, or voting rights based upon their gender... which makes denying them rights based upon the gender of the person their banging even LESS relevant.
Someday, when our progeny reverse this idiotic trend towards bullshit bigotry, I hope they will remember that not all of us who lived in this era voted to deny basic rights to homosexuals. It's not about 'the sanctity of marriage'... if it was, the states that made the biggest fuss against same-sex marriages would have the lowest divorce rates: the opposite is in fact true. Marriage is so sacred in those Bible Belt regions that almost NOBODY has a viable one. Who the **** are they to judge what a proper marriage should be?! | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 12/30/2006 12:44:48 PM | I agree, "marriage" has always been about economics and power. It was a uniting of families for political and economic reasons - increase the economic power of the joined families. History is rife with examples of marriages ocurring to cement a treaty - either trade or political. How did Henry II get his hands on Aquitaine? It was through marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, which was vehemently opposed by the French Monarchy, as it would grant Henry huge political power within France.
The one thing that I do agree with the Catholic Church on is their requirement that the bride & groom actually consent to being married. Before the High Middle Ages a couple could be forced to marry (atleast in Western Europe) without any say so. Once the Catholic Church required the consent things changed, where our concept of marriage being for the uniting of family interests to being a sacrement between a couple. | |
|
| On Marriage - Legal and/or Relgious
Posted: 1/3/2007 1:28:38 PM | | Well I am not sure I will really diasect this but theres alot of things going on today that are far from what I would call Marriage... | |
|
|
Home
login 
