Marriage is a Religious Ritual

rohitcuny:

"Note that marriage has also existed in atheist countries like the USSR or communist China.
Why do THEY have marriage?"

Neither country was atheist. Both countries had very strong religious bases, even if their governments did nto recognise them And given that both countries demanded that theri citizens effectively (and sometimes factually) "worship" both the state and the leadership (Lenin, Stalin & Mao were spoken of as if deities and often rumored to have supernatural skills), even the governmetns were not atheist. They had created their own deities and religions. And I have mentioned this to several well known theolgians who hve agreed with this idea. There has never been a truly atheist government.

And once again, civil marriage was not focused on children (which is why tax breaks for dependents are NOT tied to being married.) They are separate concepts.

Rohitcuny,

Te problem that I have with your posts is that you have not shown one valid non-religious reason to prohibit civil same-sex marriages.

The concept of "tradition" as a reason is not legally valid. There are many things that were tradition that society has realized were in fact garbage (often after the courts voided those "traditions" on constitutional or legal grounds).

I am heterosexual and in no way can is see how allowing two men or two women to have civil marriages would in any way shape or form harm heterosexual marriage.

The notion that "conventional marriage" in any way shape or form needs "protecting" seems absurd. In all the years that this debate has been going on I have not seen a single intelligent reason why it would need protecting, or how preventing same-sex marriage would do so.

As for homosexuals not being able to have children, you are wrong. I personally know 4 different gay couples who have children through a surrogate who used one of the couple's sperm to get pregnant. In fact one of the couples surrogate was a lesbian friend of theirs. They total number of children is 10 and they range in age from 4 to 29. The two oldest are medical school grads and one of them (a brilliant young woman got married a few years ago to a very nice man and just had twins.) I also know at least 5 lesbian couple who have children. All of the children so far are doing very well, and in fact seem to be better adjusted than some children of heterosexual couples I know are.

What is best for children is loving caring and committed parents and families. Only a complete fool would claim that same-sex couples are less capable of providing those things than heterosexual couples. In fact, the troubles that children of same-sex couples tend to run into are caused by those who oppose same-sex marriages and homosexuality as a whole. (Those fools who spout off about "Love the sinner hate the sin".)

The notion that childless couples are "free riders" on the institution of marriage makes no sense. Civil marriage has nothing to do with children. It is purely a contract law issue. And what is being discussed is civil marriage. Religious marriage is irrelevant in this discussion.

Additionally your comment "But if ALL or even most couples were childless, there would BE no such an institution as marriage." is irrelevant. No one has EVER said that ALL or even most marriages would result in no children. But given the simple fact that marriage is not needed to have children that two are no longer tied together. To use children as any basis for denying same-sex civil marriage is a fallacy.

Athena,
I've never understood how allowing PaganPlace to marry her sweetie harms my marriage to my sweetie. I don't feel any need for my marriage to be "protected" from that of my minister and her wife. Their relationship cannot harm mine - nobody else's relationship can - the only people who can harm my marriage are me and my husband.
Anyone whose marriage is so frail that it cannot survive if other people are allowed to marry should not be looking at other people as the source of the problem.

Obviously, this person is misinformed about certain issues.
1) A "heterosexual couple" does not necessarily have to have children to be a marriage. Many married people - myself included - are childless, either by choice or because of infertility. Does this make my marriage less valid?
2) "Homosexual couples" certainly can reproduce, using methods that infertile couples use. There can be sperm donors, egg donors and surrogate mothers.
3) Adoption, which conservatives push as the only alternative to abortion, is being discounted as a less-than-satisfactory solution. That does a disservice to the many people - singles and couples - that have adopted children. Is an adopted child less loved than a "natural" child? I'm sure that in some cases, they are.
4) Why do we need to "protect" male/female marriages from same-sex marriage? Many countries have same-sex marriage, and there hasn't been an overwheming spike in the number of straight couples splitting up so that one person can "turn gay". If you're so concerned about protecting "traditional marriage", try outlawing adultery. Of course, that wouldn't be as popular with Republican Congressmen and governors.
Posted by: Athena4 | August
-----------
"Misinformed"? Do you actually imagine that I do not know any childless couples? Of course I do. But if ALL or even most couples were childless, there would BE no such an institution as marriage.

The point is that childless married couples are essentially "free riders" on a traditional institution. People who get a law degree but do not practice law are also free riders in a similar way. You cannot force them to practice law. But if most lawyers did not practice law, the institution would not exist.

Your argument amounts to saying, "Many lawyers do not practice law anyway, so let us also allow engineers to practice law." Such a suggestion makes no sense.

As for adultery, it used to be illegal. It is still grounds for divorce in all the states that I know about.

As for the popularity of adultery among "Republicans", are you thinking of Bill Clinton? Are you thinking of governor Spitzer of New York? Are you thinking of JFK's many affairs? All are Democrats. JFK got away with adultery, but Clinton and Spitzer did not.

Let us keep party politics out of this shall we?

"And since heterosexual couples produce children and gay couples do not (though they can adopt them), the institutions governing gay relationships and heterosexual relationships have to be different."

Obviously, this person is misinformed about certain issues.

1) A "heterosexual couple" does not necessarily have to have children to be a marriage. Many married people - myself included - are childless, either by choice or because of infertility. Does this make my marriage less valid?

2) "Homosexual couples" certainly can reproduce, using methods that infertile couples use. There can be sperm donors, egg donors and surrogate mothers.

3) Adoption, which conservatives push as the only alternative to abortion, is being discounted as a less-than-satisfactory solution. That does a disservice to the many people - singles and couples - that have adopted children. Is an adopted child less loved than a "natural" child? I'm sure that in some cases, they are.

4) Why do we need to "protect" male/female marriages from same-sex marriage? Many countries have same-sex marriage, and there hasn't been an overwheming spike in the number of straight couples splitting up so that one person can "turn gay". If you're so concerned about protecting "traditional marriage", try outlawing adultery. Of course, that wouldn't be as popular with Republican Congressmen and governors.

It is important to remember that the needs of male gays and lesbians may well be different. They form a political alliance but that is really an alliance of political convenience.

Note first of all that gays who have been persecuted have typically been male. Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing (both of whom I admire) are two prominent examples. It may be my ignorance but I do not know of lesbians who went to prison just for being lesbians. Violence towards gays tends to come from heterosexual males, who are more likely to be hostile to male gays than to female ones.

Secondly it is possible for a lesbian couple to have natural born children such that one of the partners is a biological parent of the child. Gay males do not have that possibility.

It may even be possible, just at a guess, that a lesbian couple is better able to take care of children than a male gay couple. I point out that this is a guess, requires statistical study and should not be answered by the claim that everyone is equal to everyone else.

At the moment we do not know whether children brought up by gay couples do well or not. We do know that children brought up by single mothers tend to do worse than children growing up in typical hetero, two parent households.

Children are not toys or pets. We all have the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. But when children are involved we do need to ask what is best for THEM.

There two kinds of people I would like to address.

A) People who are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds. I want to say to them that it is more intelligent to oppose it on rational grounds, and that gays are entitled to have an institution which addresses their needs. This was the position of Kerry and seems to be the position of Obama.

B) The second group I would like to address is "reasonable" gays, with an emphasis on "reasonable." I want to say to them that opposition to gay marriage need not be at all due to homophobia or hatred of gays but out of a desire to preserve the character of an ancient institution which has served society well and which, in contemprary America, is in deep trouble.

A compromise between gay needs and the need to protect conventional marriage is definitely possible. Those gays who sneer at that compromise are doing harm to society and setting up a conflict when we need to address other urgent concerns like health care or the financial crisis. Don't pretend that non-homophobes who oppose gay marriage are out to "hurt" gays. We are not.

Few of us here want to hurt gays. We are looking for an intelligent solution. If you are unable to see that, then you may need to wash out your eyes.

There are gays posting here who seem to believe that all opposition to gay marriage is caused by homophobia. They are mistaken. There can be and are people who are pro-gay and yet who do not believe that "gay marriage" is the right solution to the needs of gays.

Rohitcuny,

"But let them keep their hands off an institution which is centered on children."

In your current homophobic incarnation, it is you who pose a threat to children, who join with like-minded others in placing them in moral danger. I would not want a homophobe like you teaching my daughter; in fact, I would not want one speaking to her in any capacity. Unfortunately for her, we will never protect her from the prejudices of this world.

As for your particular bigotry (no offense), I wonder how it plays out at CUNY, how it is received. Or do you keep it on the down low, so to speak.

I said, "While Ramdas claims to oppose gay marriage, in fact the stance he takes promotes it. When you give a bad argument against gay marriage, i.e., "marriage exists because of God", then in fact you make the case for gay marriage stronger", and many of the postings show that I am right.

For instance, "If that were the case, the majority of couples wishing to marry would not bother to file a marraige license with the civil authorities, but would simply have a religious ritual binding them to each other spiritually, but not legally."
Posted by: lepidopteryx.

I don't usually agree with her, but she is right on the mark here.

You (R.L.) offer a weak, relgious argument against gay marriage, and the weakness of the argument makes the case for gay marriage stronger.

I disagree that marriage is a religious issue at all. I think marriage and family exist primarily to take care of children. Human children take a very long time to grow up compared to the young in other species and it is necessary to have structures to take care of them for a sufficiently long period. Note that marriage has also existed in atheist countries like the USSR or communist China.
Why do THEY have marriage?

So the connection between religion and marriage, while often asserted, is fake. When a couple gets married, who blesses them? The Buddha? Agni, the fire God? Jehovah? Allah?

Marriage has primarily to do with children. And since heterosexual couples produce children and gay couples do not (though they can adopt them), the institutions governing gay relationships and heterosexual relationships have to be different.

While Ramdas claims to oppose gay marriage, in fact the stance he takes promotes it. When you give a bad argument against gay marriage, i.e., "marriage exists because of God", then in fact you make the case for gay marriage stronger.

It cannot be the case that an institution like marriage which is connected with hundreds of CIVIL laws, like tax benefits, community property, etc, should be primarily a religious institution - that makes no sense.

What does make sense is to go back to the reason why an institution like marriage is supported by the State, and you can see that the State has an interest in children being born and in their being brought up properly.

If gays want to have relationships of love and commitment, they are welcome to them.
But let them keep their hands off an institution which is centered on children.

Let them instead push for an institution which is custom made for them.

"Marriage is a religious ritual? Then why should it be subject to the peoples will in a legal issue? Prop 8 in CA should have been nullified as an unwarranted intrusion of the state in a religious matter."
postmichael

That it is. As a religious matter, only certain elements of certain religions believe it is their religion to try and have the state stop people of other beliefs from having their wedding days.

Married before the Gods is married before the Gods. Church and State cannot stop that. Only try to hurt people over it.

I find it unworthy of both to try.

"Ho Ho OBAMA & CO. Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"DOWN with OBAMA & CO., 2013"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

-Prof. GATES, not Bill Gates, Not Asst. Sec. State Gates.., Must GO To Jail asap For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National & Possibly International (RACE BASED) RIOT!? The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-N THIS!

......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
............|"""""""""""""""""""""|......
....|ACTS AGAINST AMERICAN|
......|A-CRYIN-LYING-SHAME|.

-- W O W! The "mistake" (election) is leaching-out Through The President's Dear African/American friend, Mr. GATES like "A FREUDIAN SLIP OF GENUINE PROPHECY"!?? Soo,

Mr. OBAMA. Please, like an EX-Friend, Distance yourself from Mr. "Racist-GATES", not P.O. Crowley, like ye didth with REVrend/Brother Mr. Wrong, ooopps Meant your Ex-Friend Rev. Jeramiah (Bul{Frog) Mr. Wright!

--Or Else: "DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!"

"Ho Ho OBAMA & CO. Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

(Subconsciously) Prof??? Gates WANTED TO "GO{TO{JAIL." It was a decisive momement for (Opportunists) both his Age and Career; or is it 'self Serving' (Actings) that got him so-much 'Attention' that will give him an 'Excuse' to take early Retirement from his Tenure at the University so that He can Write his Million dollar self serving Story/Book(s)!?

Oh, IT's TRUE that (Psychologically) HE surely wanted to 'get-collared' (arrested) so that BROTHERs. Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lui Far{akhan will make-Him (as addditional 'Mouth{Pieces') or give him more spotlights and audiences for his CAUSE? Can RACISTS have a New-RELIGION called "RACISM" by Proxy" like. and gates wants to organise them 1,000,000+ 'MARCH to D.C. Black People of Collor'd hues' [an ARMY of Black/Brown folk] into his/their Black-Blooded-Camp or hidden secret VOODOOist Churchs in a too-Open "Tax-Exempt" Society??

-Prof. GATES, not Bill Gates, Not Asst. Sec. State Gates.., Must GO To Jail asap For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National & Possibly International (RACE BASED) RIOT!? The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-N THIS!

......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
............|"""""""""""""""""""""|......
....|ACTS AGAINST AMERICAN|
......|A-CRYIN-LYING-SHAME|.

-- W O W! The "mistake" (election) is leaching-out Through The President's African/American friend, Mr. GATES like "A FREUDIAN SLIP OF GENUINE PROPHECY"!?? Soo,

Mr. OBAMA. Please, like an EX-Friend, Distance yourself from Mr. "Racist-GATES", not P.O. Crowley, like ye didth with REVrend/Brother Mr. Wrong, ooopps Meant your Ex-Friend Rev. Jeramiah (Bul{Frog) Mr. Wright!

Or Else: "DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!"

"Ho Ho OBAMA & CO. Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

Perhaps Prof. Lamb might do more research on European/Christian history. Most of Europe, as a vestige of the Roman empire viewed marriage as a civil contract because it represented a transfer of property (along with her dowry, a female was property and was legally considered chattel even in this country until the early 20thC) and this attitude remained for the first 1000 plus years of Christianity. While marriages might be blessed by a priest, marriage did not come in to the church and was NOT a sacrament until I believe the 12thC.

Marriage is a religious ritual? Then why should it be subject to the peoples will in a legal issue? Prop 8 in CA should have been nullified as an unwarranted intrusion of the state in a religious matter.

So...

The modern english word "marriage" derives from the latin "maritare", which was a simple non-religious mutual agreement. So lets keep religion(s) out of marraige.

I see I'll have to say this a lot. Civil marriage, such as the government is allowed to regulate, is *not* a religious sacrament. It's a civil contract which clergy are extended the courtesy of solemnizing *at the same time.*

Clergy are allowed to not marry a couple they do not approve of: they do not have the right to use government to tell a couple they cannot be legally-married elsewhere.

In the case of polygamous marriages that may be called for by certain Muslims or Mormons or the like, the law codes simply do not exist to make state sanction of such arrangements equitable under the law.

That's not a matter of discrimination, and religious beliefs about them are irrelevant until maybe the nation starts discussing whether or not the government should make 'reasonable accomodation' in this regard.

'Reasonable accomodation' would not mean the government could enforce the inequalities of Muslim and Mormon and other Biblical style polygamies: it would have to mean that groups could be married as legally-protected and mutually-co-equal partners. Any 'wives submitting to husbands' would have to be part of their own religious devotions, not the US Government.

I think it would be fair to work this out, but it holds no weight as regards who is denied access to civil marriage as it exists.

Certain religions *wanting* it to be otherwise simply does not make it so.

Not in a nation with freedom for *all* religions. Including, I might add, those that will recognize same sex unions as marriages.

We don't have statutes for polyamory. If you want them, that's something else entirely. If it's free, fair, and equal under the law, I'll even back you. But it's not about these laws.

Regardless of anyone's religion or lack thereof, to be legally married in the US requires a marriage license from the STATE. Religious institutions cannot provide the required state license. It doesn't matter how religious someone is, or how "holy" their view of marriage, a state marriage license is required. Period!

Since states sell these licenses to the majority of the population, making civil marriage a civil right (the Loving case), then states must also sell these licenses to the same sex majority under the equal protection laws. Anything else is discrimination.

The history of marriage and the arguments that surround it, become meaningless when all 50 states require a marriage license to be legally married. Religion is irrelevant in obtaining a state marriage license. Pay your fee, get your license.

There is absolutely no sound reason to deny civil marriage to same sex couples.

this is funny/sad. religious people say marriage is a religious issue, but are happy to partake of the CIVIL laws designed to encourage it. if they want to keep it religious, they can do their ceremony or whatever and give up those tax advantages and so on associated with CIVIL marriage.

are these "marriage-is-religious" people thinking that people who marry at the courthouse are not really married? sheesh...

You have it quite backwards; marriage was a contract between important families long before the Church got involved in the Middle Ages. The source of the work marriage is not even religious. Religious folks have no historical claim over the work marriage.

Ceremonies binding people together date back long before any religion performed today came about and they exist in cultures not tied to modern religion.

It is time to stand up for equal rights for all and get Religion out of our politics and the government our of our bedrooms.

To me, there are two types of marriages. There are religious marriages--whatever your religion rules is marriage, and government-regulated marriage relationships. Religious marriages might be recognized by God, but don't have to be recognized by the Government. Religous marriages have occurred for a long, long time. Government regulation of marriages not so long. So religious groups, set your rules for marriage. But don't try to force the Government to force everyone else to abide by those rules. And don't expect the Government to recognize those rules. Government marriage has specific legal implications as stated by Lamb, inheritance, tax, insurance benefits, etc. It deals strictly with property and wealth distribution here on the Earth. Religous marriage--well, that is a commitment between two individuals and God. If your belief is that God doesn't recognize same sex marriages, then so be it. But the doesn't mean that Government can't continue to regulate its marriages in a different manner than what a church has set up. Basically, think of them as two completely separate systems. If you do a religious wedding for God, but you also want to have the earthly benefits of a Government-sanctioned marriage, then you have to go ahead and do the second part--follow the rules for a Government-sanctioned marriage as well. If you are content with God and your partner and don't need earthly benefits, then don't bother with the Government-sanctioned part. Nobody is forcing you to "buy-in" to the Government's view of marriage. But don't expect to profit from benefits that accrue by teh Government-sanctioned marriages also.

Prof Lamb misses an important point in his arguement: that for most of human history religious institutions were stable and governments were transitory. So of course property contracts (aka marriages) were kept in the churches because they were more likely to be intact than your local overlord's castle. The Church also started pushing primogentiture in an attempt to make record keeping easier for the monks.

The problem is not religious marriage vs. civil marriage, it is divorce and what happens to the children and property after the marriage. The state must step in and control how a marriage ends in order to protect the people involved. The only real way for the state to control a marriage's end is to make it a civil contract between people at the beginning.

If religion had an equitable way of ending a marriage the state might never have gotten involved in the first place. But, since it is involved, it should go all the way and control all the legal aspects of it and provide the right to everyone without regard to sexual orientation.

Prof. Lamb says that "if a religion that is recognized by the government seeks to limit whom it wishes to provide the ritual for, it should be free to do so...." I don't believe religions need to be "recognized by the government" -- for we have freedom of religion; while he mentions the issue of polygamy he fails to acknowledge that if indeed the many ways and means, methods, and modes of marriage across the world are to allowed in the country we will have the worst kinds of discrimination and acts of abuse -- from talak and vaginal mutilation to underage partners to whatever else one can imagine. Modern countries are civil societies, not religious. Thus Prof. Lamb's argument becomes untenable at various levels. I also believe that marriage has not always been considered a sacrament, and as far as even Hindu traditions and practices go there have been many varieties of marriages -- some of which have not been either officiated by priests or blessed in the presence of their families or the pantheon of their Gods.

The problem that Ramdas Lamb fails to understand is that the view of religions (and religous adherents)are irrelevant to US law.

The Loving case stated that marriage is s a civil right. I may or may not agree with same-sex marriage but in a purely civil marriage issue, same-sex partners MUST have equal rights. There is no valid legal (Constitutional) reason to deny them that pruely contractural option. Religious reason are of no value.

And the opinions of voters and others do not matter (otherwise there is a fairly good chance that blacks would still be segregated which would be a clear and absolute violation of the the equal protection clause.)

Let's dissolve divorce courts. Religious institutions can decide if a couple can divorce. Property will be divided according to religious text, upon divorce. A religious leader will decide on alimony, child support and custody. This guy is a treading on thin ice. I find his ideas bordering on prejudicial. I won't want to be within 100 miles of any church he was leading.

What he apparently does not want to accept is that for the vast majority of Americans, as well as people all over the world, marriage is primarily a religious ritual and only secondarily, if at all, a government or civil issue.
**************************************************************************************
If that were the case, the majority of couples wishing to marry would not bother to file a marraige license with the civil authorities, but would simply have a religious ritual binding them to each other spiritually, but not legally.