Let's Return to the Separation of Marriage and State

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jun 1, 2008.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that we should privatize marriage - like it used to be before Americans, including conservatives, starting thinking of basically every issue in collectivist, political terms.

    Having the government so tightly bound up in the issue of marriage is a fairly recent phenomenon, just as issues such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare are. The state's formal involvement with marriage(in relationship to America with the colonies) basically began with the Earl of Hardwicke's Marriage Act in 1754 in England. Through almost all of human history marriage has been seen as a contract between two families, without the state's involvement.

    We have never had religious wars in the United States because our Founding Fathers wisely kept the government out of showing preference legally to one religion over other religions. As with a whole host of controversial issues, if the government, especially the federal government with its one size fits all mentality, would keep its nose out of them there were would be much less political conflict in this nation which would lead to less personal conflict as well.

    What is needed is for government to stop distinguishing a person's marital status when it passes laws. A marriage contract should be a legal document between two people with such provisions as they deem necessary.

    Churches and other religious institutions should be free to perform marriage ceremonies within the dictates of their belief system and not required to recognize anything as a marriage other than within their belief system.

    Individuals deals with myriad of contracts in their personal dealings all the time. Marriage should be no different. They handle these other contracts without clatter; marriage contracts need be no different.

    KenH
     
  2. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    But if we did that then people might not stay married and the govt would lose revenue and heterosexuals might not be prone to fidelity!!! Oh, wait...
     
  3. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homosexual marriages would automatically be legal then, because some religion married them under their standards. With no legal binding what so ever there would be no responsibility in the event of divorce, which would become easier and cheaper, no alimony, or paying for your own children. Since there was no legal marriage there would be no legal obligations and responsibilities concerning marriage. The number of wives wouldn't matter anymore, as long as some religious group would marry them.
    Yes I'm sure the homosexuals, people like the LFDS would love to see the government have nothing to do with regulating marriage.
     
  4. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Riiiiight... because the unlicensed would be exempt from child support as they currently are.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    What part of the words "contract" and "legal document" do you not understand?
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    So does God need the government to protect His divine institution?
     
  7. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    If He does, poor Him. Have you seen the stats? They aren't exactly protecting anything.

    ::realizes the question wasn't serious::
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought that Christians considered marriage to "holy matrimony". I guess that now some only consider it to be holy if the government gives its imprimatur upon it and it can be called "state matrimony".
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I actually like the way it works here. We are not a recognised church so our weddings don't "count" with the state. Couples go to the registry office to get legally married in the state's eyes, then we have a church wedding for them.

    I like the division there. Hom*se*ual marriage is illegal, so the state won't marry those couples.
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not offering a personal opinion in this reply, just an interesting theological and historical fact.

    The Pilgrims, of 1620, did not believe in religious marriages. In fact, that was sort of the rule among early American seperatists. William Bradford, Christian and first Governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote:

    "May 12 was the first marriage in this place which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they had lived, was throught most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances do depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as part of their office. This decree or law about marriage was published by the States of the Low Countries Anno 1590. That those of any religion (after lawful and open publication) coming before the magistrates in the Town, or State house, were to be orderly (by them) married one to another. -Pitit's History, fol. 1029. And this practice hath continued amongst not only them, but hath been followed by all the famous churches of Christ in these parts to this time - Anno 1646." -William Bradford, "Of Plymouth Plantation"

    Colonial historian Edmund Morgan wrote the following about this issue in his wonderful little book "The Puritan Family":

    "The wedding itself took place under supervision of the state. Although marriage retained a solemn religious significance, all ecclesiastical ceremonies connected with it were abandoned; and the minister was replaced by a civil magistrate, who was forbidden to join any couple unless they had been published according to law...Civil magistrates continued to perform all marriages in New England until 1686." -pgs31-32

    It is likely that the reasoning behind their abandoning all church connections to the marriage ceremony had to do with their great distain for the Anglican Church and Catholic Church. They were attempting to go in the other direction and this, I believe, was part of that direction. As Morgan points out, church weddings did start after 1686 when New England was put under direct English rule.
     
  11. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    This applies only if every person who marries in the world is christian, or the world is 100% christian. Otherwise people need to be protected.
    Lets do away with laws, and police, and courts, governments and nations then. Does God need help governing the world and leading man?
     
  12. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is homosexual marriage illegal? Because the state said so?
    Doesn't seem to fit with your previous statement.
     

Share This Page

Loading...