http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1396644Oh my.
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:40 AM
Original message
A strategy to take religion out of marriage...
I've never quite understood why this isn't the case already. A couple goes to the office of whomever issues marriage licenses in their jurisdiction. They fill out the forms, show IDs, and sign their names, then hand over the form and a fee to the clerk. All that would be needed is a statement on the license forum declaring their intention to be married. Then, the clerk could put the form in the pile that will go to the person who records marriages.
What the couple does after that should be irrelevant. They can have a religious ceremony, have a secular ceremony, throw a big party for their friends and tell them they're married, or do damn-all. They're married when they sign the form. If they have a ceremony, they could get a nice certificate, suitable for framing from whomever performs the ceremony.
The additional step after issuance of a marriage licence of having someone approved by the state marry a couple is redundant. Their signatures on the license are more than enough evidence of their intent, and the clerk is the witness of their signing. A little embossed impression could be added, as with a notary public witnessing the signing of a document.
Religion should be irrelevant to the marriage of two people in the eyes of the state. If it's relevant to the couple, they're always free to have a ceremony, but they'd be married when they sign the license.
I thought that's long been the case anyway; as an option.
So what's the issue here?
Dappleganger (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed, but the fundies have laid claim to holy matrimony and have no chance of letting go. The only way to achieve this separation is getting religion out of politics, and in the US there's little chance of that happening.
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Pardon my French, but screw the fundies.
Figuratively, of course. I wouldn't get that close...
Seriously, though, they lost that battle long ago. In most jurisdictions, a free Universal Life Church ordination is all you need to register as a marriage officiant. I remember when I did that in California. I took my certificate, printed on my handy-dandy Laserjet Series II printer into the county clerk, and that was that. The clerk said to me, "We're getting a lot of these ordination certificates. What's this church about, anyway? I told him, "I don't know. I'm an atheist. I went to their website." The clerk shrugged. In reality, wedding officiants shouldn't have to register with anyone. My proposal would eliminate the need for them altogether. If a couple wants a ceremony, they could have it done by anyone, since it would carry no legal weight.
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. You can do that now by having the clerk marry you.
You are free to have any religious ceremony you want after that.
Uh huh. So what's the rockheaded primitive's issue?
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Not in all jurisdictions. Not in Minnesota.
The marriage has to be officiated by someone. Not in California, either, at least when I lived there.
You see, I'm talking about taking the church nonsense out of the legal equation altogether. Who officiate would have no legal function at all in the process. That way, they'd also have no voice in the discussion, since it wouldn't matter what they thought.
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. There is Civil marriage in Minnesota, no religion involved:
From: http://usmarriagelaws.com/mn_minnesota/marriage_license... /
Solemnization Authority: Marriages may be solemnized by any of the following:
• The officials authorized to solemnize marriages include judges, clerks of court, and licensed ministers, priests or rabbis.
In some counties there is a court commissioner who is authorized to officiate at marriage ceremonies. There are also special
provisions for marriage between members of the Bahai, Hindu, Quaker and American Indian religious groups.
There is Civil marriage in California too:
From: http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/californ...
Solemnization Authority : Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
A Priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination.
A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired
commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:
A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme Court.
A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district court, or a court created by an act of Congress the Judges of which are
entitled to hold office during good behavior.
A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while that person holds office.
Each county offers civil ceremonies performed by a judge or commissioner. The cost is approximately $40.00. For additional information call your County Clerk's office.
Uh huh. So what's the rockheaded primitive's issue?
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. But, someone still has to do it.
That's unnecessary. The contract is the signature of the couple, witnessed by the clerk. There should be no additional step required.
haikugal (289 posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Not if your same sex you can't...
It's a marriage pure and simple. This battle by the church to maintain control of the word is bullshit. We live in a diverse democratic nation and this should not be an issue.
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Even if you have a religious ceremony it is not legal till its registered is it?
I know there are some ministers or spouses of ministers in here.. maybe they would know
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Correct. The officiant has to return the signed certificate to the appropriate office. Take that away and all marriages are instantly civil marriages. The religious crap becomes irrelevant and unnecessary, although any couple could choose to have a ceremony. It just wouldn't matter in a legal sense.
I've married about a dozen couples, with my ULC ordination. It was funny. In California, I had to go register to be an official marriage officiant. Same in Minnesota. I'm an atheist.
peace13 (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. I agree but civil unions do not satisfy those who crave the mystical marriage.
In the end the contract is with the partners the government keeps the agreement. Notice who we file for divorce with. Your argument does not sit well with most nontraditional couples. As a hetero who has sucked off the teat of traditional marriage I have learned long ago not to present this as a solution. Good luck with this.
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. That is the case right now. No one is required to do any sort of ceremony at all, not required to so much as tell anyone but the one required witness and the State. No one has to 'marry' a couple now. No cleric of any kind is required, no clown, no comic doing a secular humor wedding, no Elvis impersonator, no Bishop, no nothing.
Religion is, right now, irrelevant to marriage in the eyes of the State. No one, no one is required to a religious or any sort of ceremony, party, or anything. Right now, all you have to be is straight.
This tactic of speaking of what is as 'that which should be' simply muddies the issue.
Uh huh. So what's the rockheaded primitive's issue here?
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Actually, that is not true in many jurisdictions. In many, someone who is "authorized" to perform marriages is required to sign and return a form before the wedding is official. It could be a judge or some other secular individual in most jurisdictions, but it is still required in many places. It is in Minnesota, I know, and in California, as well. County clerks cannot do it. It has to be a third party.
I'd like to see the entire ceremonial aspect be removed from the equation. You appear to disagree. That's fine.
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. They are required to return the signed paper work, not to do a ceremony. The paperwork is required of 'an officiant' in some places. No ceremony is required, no religion is required, the officiant does not have to be clerical, and the clerical status is just another set of paperwork, as you know, there is no training required, no faith need be professed, there is no chain of denominational command, there is no congregation. Some person who paid a fee signs the paper. That is not ceremonial at all.
In CA, one can be 'deputized for a day' to officiate, and also, as you know, an ordination does not have to be in any sense 'real' or religious. It just makes a person legal to sign that paper, and return it. The requirement is the signature and return, not any sort of ceremony.
So I am correct. No ceremony is required. Do you claim that you were required by law to show proof of ceremony? Of course not, you were required to sign as a witness and mail it back. No one asked about any ceremony, you did not have to do one at all.
The third party is not a 'ceremonial aspect' unless the couple wishes it to be such. I have a notary who as a third party witnesses my signature in some situations. Would you call that 'ceremonial'? Because it is the same thing. An 'officiant' is like a notary only with less fees and testing required.
The Velveteen Ocelot (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. You can do it that way if you want to.
Get the license, sign the paperwork, a judge says a few words, you have a party and off you go. You can have a completely secular ceremony. But as things stand now, members of the clergy are authorized by the state to make a marriage legal. They shouldn't be.
The religious ceremony, should you choose to have one, should be completely unrelated to the secular procedure. If your religious beliefs require such a ceremony for the marriage to be spiritually valid, go for it. But get the clergy out of it completely with respect to legal validity.
The reason it's all mixed together the way it is, is that under the common law in England, which we inherited, more or less, only the church had jurisdiction over marriage - the secular courts didn't. When the church courts (like the Court of High Commission, which tried people for stuff like heresy) were dissolved, the legal ramifications of marriage had to be handled by the secular courts, but marriage was still a sacrament for most religions, so now both the church and the state are mixed up in it.
hobbit709 (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
15. As I pointed out to a fundy once.
You go to a CIVIL authority-i.e. the County Clerk to get the license.
If you decide to get divorced you go to a CIVIL court.
And the clown that tried to tell me it was a "holy sacrament" got told by me "If it's so holy, what part of 'til death do you part did you not understand"
He'd been married and divorced 3 times.
lynne (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
16. All marriages must comply first with the laws of the state via licensing - - but the couple then has the option of having the service performed by a minister if they wish. As they have met the civil requirements, to deny them marriage by a minister is a direct conflict with Freedom of Religion as many religions have specific doctrine with regards to marriage.
LynneSin (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
17. Here's my thoughts about Civil Unions vs. Marriage and where we should go
Let's face it - we straight people SUCK at Marriage. Same Sex couples have not ruined the sanctity of marriage but us straight folks who marry & divorce like the changing of their undies each day. Quicky Las Vegas weddings annulled 2 days later, Serial Marrying with someone going thru 8-10 marriages in their lifetime, 80 year old men marrying 20 year old women (and vice versa) - let's face it - teh STRAIGHTS are to blame for the downfall of marriage.
Personally if I was magically appointed as the ruler over all of the US and could make any law feasible I would make this change in regard to marriage.
#1 Civil Unions would be the standard for EVERYONE. It would have all the same benefits as marriage but the one benefit is if you change your mind you can enter into a Civil Union and dissolve a Civil Union with the same efforts as one does today with marriage. Civil Unions would be non-religious. One thing with Civil Unions would be the requirement of a pre-nuptial agreement which states exactly what would happen when the union dissolves.
#2 Marriages would be for those people willing to take the extra step to ensure they could have a marriage that will last. Married couples would be required to go thru pre-marriage counseling where the couples can discuss their plans for the marriage - their goals, their dreams, how many kids they want and their expectations. Absolutely no pre-nuptial agreement is allowed this is a couple who are planning to make this a lifetime commitment. For a couple to divorce they would require 6 months of marriage counseling to determine whether or not the marriage can be saved. Failure to do so would could hold the partner who refuses in contempt. Exceptions would be made if there was an involvement of marital abuse. Marriages could be religious or non-religious. People in Civil Unions could even take the next step into Marriage if they choose to do so.
#3 Marriage/Civil Unions is between 2 consenting adults.
Romulox (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
20. There is no religious requirement for marriage in any state; you are confusing two issues.
You are arguing that it shouldn't be required that someone licensed by the state solemnize or preside over a wedding.
I'm not sure that's a good idea.
melm00se (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
21. an even more interesting question is:
Why is government even involved in marriages?
olegramps (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
22. This how it is done in Holland.
I have written about this sometime back. The legal contract should be totally divorced and separate from the religious rite. I agree that it would shut up the religious right-wingers by telling them that they have absolutely nothing to do with the civil contract. Consider this aspect. Although their minister can witness the marriage they have absolutely no legal input into divorce proceeding. Here is where I would agree with Obama to make the issue completely a legal proceeding governed by the laws of the state that would enforce the contractual agreement. If the couple, whatever their gender, wants a religious ceremony then fine.
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. What you describe IS how it is here, right now.
Marriage is legal proceeding governed by the state. No clergy, no ceremony of any kind is required of anyone.
Uh huh. Again, what's the rockheaded primitive's issue?
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
25. 1973. I got married in a court by a judge. This isn't anything new.
You know, franksolich had this all figured out a long time ago, a solution.
Marriage is a religious sacrament, and the state should have no part in it.
In the legal sense, marriages should be considered formal "partnerships" for tax purposes, and so if one undergoes the sacrament, one should also do the paperwork for formation of the formal partnership.
If one's a God-hater, just the IRS paperwork for a formal partnership should be required.
That would simplify matters greatly.
