Marriage isn't obsolete - but it could use some help

Let's not hyper ventilate about this marriage thing. There may be a few changes in how marriages will function. As long as the human beings yearn companion ship and intimacy the, meme of marriage will continue. May be there will be a significant many who may not get tethered, but then this is a new phenomenon. The repercussions of being single may be felt in full import in the late stages of life. Which means in another 30 or so years the youth of that time (most of whom aren't born yet) may realize the folly of trying to go it alone and marriage may come back in vogue. I don't like to be an alarmist in these matters. What I certainly hope and long is our fellow humans who are of non-heterosexual persuasion not be stigmatized and countries all over the world legalize their marriages too, very soon.

Rev Lynn

Thank you for a thoughtful and sensible post. You made no arrogant and totally indefensible claims about God or the religious sanctity of marriage. If I were a church goer I might enjoy attending your church and even listening to your sermons.

My wife and I will celebrate our 60th wedding aniversary in June. Most of the time we are in favor of marriage.

Gabe, I agree that legal status matters - and legal marriage should be available to any consenting adults who desire it.

We had two separate events - a wedding which did not change our legal status, and a meeting with a judge for the signing of a marriage license which did change our legal status.

I'm simply saying that your concern over governemnt telling churches what rituals they can perform is unfounded. Government can only decide what riutuals can be used to confer a change in legal status. Only people who would qualify for legal change with a judge's signature qualify for legal change with a cleric's signature.
We just need to open up who qualifies.

Lepidopteryx - yet legal status matters to a lot of people, especially the law abiding ones. Especially when some religions teach their followers to obey the authorities.

Gabe, the government decides who can be LEGALLY married, not who can have a religious ritual with no legal standing binding them together spiritually.
My husband and I served as priest and priestess at the religious ritual in which we solemnized our commitment to each other. That is the day we refer to as our wedding day, that is the day we celebrate as our wedding anniversary. The government had no say in whether or not we could do that.

Lepidopteryx - I know. Hence my worry about what will stop them from deciding other matters of religion.

Farnazmansouri - are bigamists a sexual minority?

Also, marriage exists independent of government. The government does not have the right to prohibit the free exercise of religion, including telling churches who they can or cannot marry. Your suggestion violates the first amendment, since marriage is an essential part of religious practice for many many people.

On whether to call it marriage, etc. Religious institutions should be kept out of the marriage business. What it once was is not what it is, which is a binding civil contract.

If religious institutions want to have some sort of "blessing" ceremony, so be it.

Once gays and other sexual minorities are granted civil rights, any entity that discriminates against them in any way should be removed from the public dole ASAP, bigot religious institutions, included.

Rev. Lynn,

"And let's open up marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Who knows? They may have something about commitment to teach the rest of us."

These were my thoughts exactly. Moreover, I'm in dead earnest. I seriously believe they will bring new life into an ailing institution.

Why are people hooked on the terms religious and civil? Ministers don't have to perform any marriages that they don't wish to take part in. Call it what you will, all adults should have the right to join together legally as a couple.

Gabe, the government already decides who can and cannot get married.

"Adding religion to a civil ceremony"

That's the problem. To most religious people, marriage is a religious ceremony that predated legal recognitions of marriages.

The simple answer is to completely separate marriage and civil unions - to leave one of them as a religious ceremony with similar regulations to baptism or the ordaining of preachers (i.e. every religion chooses its own way), and to make the other a purely legal matter.

My worry is that when the government can decide who can or cannot get married, what is to stop it from deciding who can or cannot become a preacher, or who can or cannot be baptized?

Just as every church can decide whether or not they want to ordain female preachers, every church should be able to decide whether or not they want to marry two or more consenting adults regardless of their sexual orientation.