Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

I always wondered about that. To me the process for recognition here in the US is more Civil than Religious in respect that you must have a license, must be married in the US to make it legal, and in some states must be done 30 days from filing the license for it to be recognized. Don't know from state to state, but it seems for some of the states I have experience with, it could be argued that the recognition has nothing to do with religion but by an state recognized officiant.

The bolded is what I'm talking about. In every state, so far as I know, a religion-related officiant (priest, minister, rabbi . . . ) is a state-recognized and state-empowered officiant, so that the religion-related officiant's participation in the marriage ceremony (and signature on the marriage license) makes the marriage legally recognized and legally binding.

In many countries, this is not the case. In Spain, to continue the example I was using, a church wedding means that the couple are married in the eyes of the church, but they are not married in the eyes of the state. They must be married by a civil authority for the state to consider them married. So what happens is that to get married, a couple goes first to the civil authority (the magistrate's office or whatever) and gets married civilly. They then go to the church for the religious ceremony, if they want that.

Hardly a scientific survey, I know, but almost every member of the clergy I have heard express an opinion on the subject dislikes the way we do things here. They dislike being agents of the state and would rather keep civil marriage and religious marriage separate.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The bolded is what I'm talking about. In every state, so far as I know, a religion-related officiant (priest, minister, rabbi . . . ) is a state-recognized and state-empowered officiant, so that the religion-related officiant's participation in the marriage ceremony (and signature on the marriage license) makes the marriage legally recognized and legally binding.

In many countries, this is not the case. In Spain, to continue the example I was using, a church wedding means that the couple are married in the eyes of the church, but they are not married in the eyes of the state. They must be married by a civil authority for the state to consider them married. So what happens is that to get married, a couple goes first to the civil authority (the magistrate's office or whatever) and gets married civilly. They then go to the church for the religious ceremony, if they want that.

Hardly a scientific survey, I know, but almost every member of the clergy I have heard express an opinion on the subject dislikes the way we do things here. They dislike being agents of the state and would rather keep civil marriage and religious marriage separate.

Yes, but also in many states, the person does not have to be religious as well be it a justice of the peace, judge, ship captain (LOL) that's why I said it could be argued we are not so much in bed with religion as we think we are sometimes.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

I'm under the understanding that the current legal precedent is set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

It is, but Casey didn't change the basic legal analysis of Roe. While some aspects of Roe have been overturned, the basic idea of the right to choose as being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment has not been overturned and continues to underlie abortion/right to choose cases.

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Yes, but also in many states, the person does not have to be religious as well be it a justice of the peace, judge, ship captain (LOL) that's why I said it could be argued we are not so much in bed with religion as we think we are sometimes.

Every state provides for some non-religious officiant -- justice of the peace, magistrate, judge, etc. That's not the point.

The point is that every state authorizes clergy to act as agents of the state in officiating at weddings. In every state, provided certain other requirements are met (licenses and the like -- thanks, Kevin), a religious wedding will also create a legal marriage. In other words, participation in a religious ceremony results in a change in legal status. I can't think of any other instance where this happens in our legal system. The result is that we think of marriage in the civil sense and marriage in the religious sense as the same thing.

Because we do not draw a distinction between marriage as a religious institution/status and marriage as a legal institution/status, the lines get blurred in a discussion on something like same-sex marriage, and it can be difficult, like preciousjeni says, to distinguish between marriage as a religious status and marriage as a legal status. This problem doesn't exist where a clear line is drawn between civil and religious understandings of marriage.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not necessarily. Consider homosexual marriage, polygamy, or marriages where no one bothers to get a license and there's no common law marriage provision in the state's law.

In many states, the only aspect that gives religious marriage the power to legally marry someone is that we authorize certain people to act for the state in obtaining, filling out and filing marriage licenses.

Very true, and thanks for the clarification.

And always the only thing that gives clergy the power to legally marry is that the state has authorized clergy to act for the state. But is there any state that doesn't do that? The result is that Americans generally see marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense as being the same thing.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Every state provides for some non-religious officiant -- justice of the peace, magistrate, judge, etc. That's not the point.

The point is that every state authorizes clergy to act as agents of the state in officiating at weddings. In every state, provided certain other requirements are met (licenses and the like -- thanks, Kevin), a religious wedding will also create a legal marriage. In other words, participation in a religious ceremony results in a change in legal status. I can't think of any other instance where this happens in our legal system. The result is that we think of marriage in the civil sense and marriage in the religious sense as the same thing.

.

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

No, that's NOT the point - the point is that states create a quagmire by doing this. Nobody is arguing whether or not it is the state's "prerogative" - that's a silly, tautological argument that intentionally obscures the issues.

You really can't see why having a priest or pastor as state's representative in the marriage ceremony has created unintended negative consequences?

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

Again, you're missing the point - in most cases, the religious ceremony and legal act are somewhere between partially and completely intertwined (think "by the power vested in me by _____"). The state can (and often does) provide another option, but THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO with MysticCat's point, which is that the religious component's utter dominance over how marriages actually take place means that people view the law through a religious lens, and that this sucks.

The exception doesn't DISPROVE the rule - it actually confirms what MC is saying! I commend you on your slavish devotion to all things conspiracy, but you are indeed the one missing the point here.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

It's really not that hard:

1) For a variety of historical reasons, American states have chosen to allow clergy to act as agents of the state for the purpose of solemnizing marriage. No state has limited solemnization of marriage to the clergy, but all states have authorized the clergy to act as their agents in this regard.

2) Because of this historic arrangement, Americans in general do not see a clear difference between marriage in the legal/civil sense and marriage in the religious sense.

I never said that religion is "embedded" or "in bed with" religion. Those are your words. Nor did I ever suggest that religion or the clergy control marriage in this country. What I said was that "civil marriage and religious marriage are intertwined and entangled in our current system." That's a very different thing.

Because we do not have a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage, then any discussion of "marriage" is likely to pull in and refer to both, without regard to how they may be different. And it provokes arguments about whether if same-sex marriages are legalized, clergy can be required to perform them against their consciences, or whether, say, churches can be held liable for refusing to let their facilities be used for them. In a country where there is a clear distinction between marriage in the civil/legal sense and marriage in the religious sense, such questions aren't nearly as likely to arise.


ETA: What KSig RC said.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

LOL.

I think BluPhire knows that his logic works well in theory but not practice.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL.

I think BluPhire knows that his logic works well in theory but not practice.

And that is the point.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL.

I think BluPhire knows that his logic works well in theory but not practice.

I don't know -- it really came across more to me as BluPhire rtotally missing the point I was trying to make, because his responses did miss the point. Which is why, as you say, say what you mean or at least give a heads up you're playing devil's advocate.

Meanwhile, the urge to quote Buffy was just too great. Sorry BluPhire.