Religious leaders should promote marriage for all

Marriage means husband and wife. By definition it is the union of the two sexes. There is no such thing as so-called "same sex marriage". Such a thing would be a logical nullity and absurdity.

Thank you for pointing out that "the organizations committed to promoting marriage seek to exclude same sex couples." To be very specific, the "Institute for American Values" which co-sponsored the report in question is not some objective research institution but has been politically active in opposing same-sex marriage.

I became aware of this when the Washington Post published a opinion piece by an affiliate of the IAV, who twisted and mischaracterized research in an attempt to convince readers that interfaith marriage is doomed to failure. The Washington Post did not even mention the author's paid affiliation when they published the piece.

Those of us in successful interfaith marriages would like to join with those of us in successful same-sex marriages to oppose the publication of "research" and opinions published without full disclosure as to the funding sources and the agenda of those funding sources.

Susan Katz Miller
onbeingboth.com

twmatthews:
“We've concluded that they are allowed to conduct a marriage ceremony and at the conclusion of that ceremony these two people are legally married.”

Not exactly. Licensed ministers are on the list of people that are allowed to sign a marriage license. The marriage is only actually ‘legal’ once that license is filed with the state. The license does not require a minister to sign it, it actually requires no ceremony at all. In most places a mere JoP, judge, captain of a ship at sea, et al. can sign off on it.
I last got married by a judge, in his office. There was no real ‘ceremony’ though he did read through a short script of common, secular vows, most of which we laughed or joked about. We even stopped and chit-chatted about some other subject for a while, fishing or something. It was just my wife, myself, him and the required ‘witness’, an armed bailiff that the judge yanked in as he just happened to be walking down the hallway at the time.
He flipped the license over, signed it, we walked down the hall, filed it, done.
None of the ‘vows’ we took, or that any minister uses in a ceremony are part of the license, nor are they legally enforceable unto themselves. So for all practical purposes, what a minister does IS pretty much strictly ceremonial.
I agree though, the middleman (minister) adds no value to the legal filing of a marriage license and would like, in the spirit of separation of church and state, to see the two aspects, the civil and the religious, completely severed.
I also find it amusing/interesting when attending a religious wedding ceremony, that for whatever talk there is about god-this and Jesus-that, that the minister usually ends it by saying ‘by the power vested in me by the state of. . . “ Acknowledging, I guess that it is indeed the state that holds the ultimate legal authority over marriage.

Gabrielrockman: The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Taking away the rights of preachers to be involved in marriage formalities interferes with the free exercise of religion.

Well, in fact the government can and does limit the free exercise of religion. American law makes it illegal for a husband to have multiple wives. That legality contradicted Mormon religious practices at the time. And in the same way, if your particular religious practice violates a law -- say slaughtering and consuming an animal -- then it is not allowed.

The point that David6 was making is that we have granted special rights to ministers. We've concluded that they are allowed to conduct a marriage ceremony and at the conclusion of that ceremony these two people are legally married.

I agree with David in that we should look closely at continuing this practice. Either ministers, priests and rabbis should oversee strictly ceremonial services or we should allow any adult to perform such ceremonies because granting special rights to religious leaders is implicitly advocating for religion.

David6 - The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Taking away the rights of preachers to be involved in marriage formalities interferes with the free exercise of religion.

GabrielRockman -

How does giving clergy special rights in marriage formalities not violate the First Amendment?

Anyone should be able to officiate at the ceremony if those being married want one. There's no value in giving preachers a special right.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things. Certainly, in many instances they can go hand in hand - i.e. having a religious ceremony to celebrate a civil marriage, as so many people do - but they are NOT the same. If certain religious denominations refuse to accept or perform gay marriages, it ought to have no bearing on whether the government sanctions & accepts them. It is the government's duty to treat all individuals equally - "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness," & all that jazz! Religious views should have no impact on civil marriage - which should be legal for all couples, gay or straight.

That said, I balk at your line "We indeed should be alarmed that economic injustices in our society mean that many do not have the supports to enter into and build strong marriages." We should also be alarmed at the societal economic injustices that mean many ONLY have the means to support themselves IF they marry - I'm thinking health insurance, in particular, though there are a number of others. Benefits granted to spouses, nearly impossible to attain on one's own.

Several decades ago headlines declared: "God is Dead". Now we have mega churches and our country is in the throes of a religious ferver that makes me think of Elmer Gantry has been reborn a million times over.

That headline was wrong and so is the assumed demise of civil or religious marriage. I don't have any proof. I just think the economic times are bad, they have been bad for the lower and middle class for quite a while, and the outcome is fewer young people marry or they delay marriage. Economic opportunity creates the opportunity to marry; economic decline takes that away.

As for ministers, priests, rabbis, or imans having the ability to certify a legal right, I don't really have a problem with it, s Davd seems to in the 12:44 comment. My only problem is in limiting what is permitted in the civil world to what is permitted in the religious world - that is, religious opposition to gay marriage or even multiple wives or husbands. There is nothing to show harm is done to the civil world by gay marriages. We are legislating on the religious beliefs that gay marriage is a sin, rather than any observation that a gay marriage actually causes harm to the individuals involved, the children they may raise, or society at large.

Sinful and legal are two different things. Sometimes they overlap, but not always. Thank God everything some religion considers a sin is not illegal. What a world that would be!

David6 - I don't think you've even read the first amendment.

In fact, your very last statement makes it very clear that you have not read the first amendment.

David, I would love it if those who wish to legally marry were allowed to do so, regardless of number or gender, and were required to get the signature of a judge on the necessary paperwork.
If they wanted to have a religious ceremony, fine, but clergy should not be the ones to sign off on a change of legal standing.

Those organizations don't care about marriage per se. The largest one forbids all of its leaders from being married. Others have long histories of bigotry. They want to control marriage rather than let individuals make their own decisions. They want to tell the state what to do, despite the First Amendment. This is about their ability to wield power.

Maybe the first thing we can do is take away the special rights of preachers to be involved in marriage formalities.