Big Brother, Get Out of My Marriage!

Rohitcuny:

"I see. And does that mean that the cops cannot be called if there is a possibility of domestic violence in case that violence happens in the bedroom? :)"

Er... No?

If cops could actually be called about *potential crimes,* what he said *still* wouldn't mean that. Nor would your statement bear on who is allowed equal marriage.

Shuklars:

"Dr. Shukla I do agree with your opinion that government should not unduly have meddling power in marriage between two consenting heterosexual adults"

But you believe they should be able to have undue meddling power in how heterosexual your marriage bed is?

Or do you just think that acting heterosexual, whoever you are, makes you 'more equal than others?'

Fortunately, it's not down to your 'belief.' It's down to Justice and equality. It's down to you not having the right to penalize people for simply not being as you are.

Dr. Shukla I do agree with your opinion that government should not unduly have meddling power in marriage between two consenting heterosexual adults adults. As we are living in a civil society it is important for all of us to follow some general rules laid down in the constitution. Religious institutions have rights to form and adhere to their rules, but they are not binding to individuals. Anyone should have a freedom to choose the wedding process through their own established religion on a civil union through legeal means.

Congratulations on your wedding! I agree that religious institutions may exclude whomever they wish from whatever they wish.
The government, however, may not defer to them on civil matters, among them marriage.

This means that religious institutions must be excluded from the marriage business once and for all. They may perform whatever ceremony they wish for whomever they wish once a civil marriage ceremony has occurred.

When this much desired, long overdue separation of church and state has been partly achieved, I would hope that bigoted houses of worship will rapidly lose congregants, their backwardness having become more obvious, thereby encouraging them to rethink their oppressive ways.

We have succeeded in booting Big Brother out of our bedroom, we'll keep working on keeping it out of our houses of worship. And it should never get between my marriage! By Aseem Shukla
-----------
I see. And does that mean that the cops cannot be called if there is a possibility of domestic violence in case that violence happens in the bedroom? :) What if your wife is being raped in your bedroom? The cops have to stay out?

You are taking for granted all the benefits you get from living in an organized society where the government plays the role of protector and rule giver and many many times you benefit from such governmental action. And then suddenly, when it is not convenient you want to "boot" the government out.

But the fact is that when the government stays in, and when it stays out, is a pragmatic matter - you cannot make hard and fast rules as if you were dealing with Euclidean geometry.

Of course we all want limits on governmental action. But those limits need to be decided in each case based on common sense. Note that Gates himself would have been grateful in case there was actually a burglary in his house, and Crowley had prevented it. So, Gates should not have been arrested, but overly righteous indignation is not appropriate.

So let me suggest that you keep your boots "leashed"!

Gosh, Dr. Shukla, I'm impressed with your insight into the foundations of India's great religions and your efforts to sweep away the cultural accretions and dogma that don't always bode well for religious tolerance and diversity. May you continue to prevail at the Hindu American Foundation!

But, I don't agree religious leaders or clergy should choose not to bless a gay union, any less than a straight one. They have been imbued with far too much power to mediate between humans and their supreme power. True believers do not need assurances from bigots blinded by prejudice or clinging to outmoded practice to 'bless' their union. Their union, by being a loving consensual one that advances their spiritual growth and happiness is by its very nature blessed by the supreme power without question or judgment. No other blessing, though it mat be desired, is needed.

Blessed be, Aseem Shukla! :) It was a brief description, but I realize that this is the first time in many iterations of this debate here, where anyone's actually seemed to *mention* the pure joy and celebration in a wedding.

The interesting thing in listening to all these Abrahamic monotheists discussing the issue is, that they can only seem to see it in terms of using government to 'approve' or 'disapprove' of a union before the Gods.

The fact that what they call 'holiness' about civil marriage is *neither,* and the fact that such joy and commitment *cannot be stopped, whatever force they apply or however grey-faced and miserly they feel they can be *about it...**

Something's missing.

How do good Gods, 'God,' if you'd rather... *Really feel* when we do and experience these things? Have these dances? Commit these lives?

Funny, but it seems that those who want to spoil the joy... Forgot something.

We will have mayhem if we say government should stay out of the activities of and rule-making by religious institutions. Welcome then four wives (Islam), marriages between 12 years olds and 60 year olds (Middle East), dog and man (India), and so on. Modern societies are organized through and by the commonality of laws, and it would be difficult, almost impossible, to tease out the religious and the sacred from the civil as they intersect in myriad and complex ways.
Posted by: tarle_subba**********************************************************************************************************************
Religious institutions can perform marriages among multiple partners, across species, and with minors. That does not make those marriages legally binding on the participants, and does not render those committing statutory rape or cruelty to animals exempt from prosecution.

There are a number of flaws with this argument. If religious institutions have the right to and the choice of blessing or not blessing unions it should be incumbent then that these institutions are completely separate and independent of civilian government, which they are not and which they cannot be: the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law in the country; religious institutions get tax exemptions; they cannot ignore civil law in terms of age of marriage, number of partners, etc. We will have mayhem if we say government should stay out of the activities of and rule-making by religious institutions. Welcome then four wives (Islam), marriages between 12 years olds and 60 year olds (Middle East), dog and man (India), and so on. Modern societies are organized through and by the commonality of laws, and it would be difficult, almost impossible, to tease out the religious and the sacred from the civil as they intersect in myriad and complex ways.

We did pretty much the same thing. We held a wedding ritual in our living room in which we pledged ourselves to each other in the presence of our family, friends, and gods - no officiant, no paperwork. We considered ourselves married at the conclusion of that ritual, and that date is when we celebrate our anniversary.

Some time later, after we had cleared up some personal debt/credit issues, we went to the courthouse, purchased a marriage license, and had it signed by a judge and two witnesses. That is the day that the law recognized us as married, the day that I was able to add him to my health insurance policy, that we became eligible for survivor's Social Security benefits in the event of the other's death, etc.

The law should recognize all consenting adults equally in terms of the rights and responsibilities it bestows in the form of civil marriage.
Religious institutions and individual clergy persons have always had the right to refuse to bless any union, for any reason, and should retain that prerogative.