SCOTUS ruling

YouAreHere

Well-known member
Shared household is enough of a criterion. Noone would force roommates to get a civil union if they don't want/need it. Just like noone forces a couple to get married under the current jurisdiction.

I'm not sure that cohabitation is the best criterion.

There would, of course, need to be exceptions for deployed military and those with jobs that take them away from home (thinking truckers, folks on fishing boats or oil rigs, etc.). I'm guessing one's legal residence would count toward cohabitation there, even if they don't spend much time there.

However, that still excludes spouses who are separated for some length of time, either by having to work overseas or in another state (and establishing legal residency there). Cohabitation currently isn't a requirement for marriage, and establishing it as such would disenfranchise a lot of folks in established marriages.

Just pokin' holes with my pokin' stick. Nothing personal. I like the discussion. :)
 

YouAreHere

Well-known member
Re: starting over on marital law ... will definitely take more than 100 years.

I see it as something akin to revising tax law. Not impossible, but nobody wants to tackle that with a ten foot pole.

And tax law revision would certainly have a LOT of public support! Changing marriage law, not so much.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
SSM is relatively simple, straightforward: something the average citizen can get behind. Poly marriage? Not so much.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Re: starting over on marital law ... will definitely take more than 100 years.
Eh... not many people would have seen this SCOTUS ruling coming five years ago, either.

I'm not an optimist by any definition of the word, but I think 100 years is certainly too pessimistic. I hope I'll still see it happen in my lifetime, actually.


Just pokin' holes with my pokin' stick. Nothing personal. I like the discussion. :)
No worries, that's actually very close to my own argumentation style. ;)

I'm not sure that cohabitation is the best criterion.

There would, of course, need to be exceptions for deployed military and those with jobs that take them away from home (thinking truckers, folks on fishing boats or oil rigs, etc.). I'm guessing one's legal residence would count toward cohabitation there, even if they don't spend much time there.

However, that still excludes spouses who are separated for some length of time, either by having to work overseas or in another state (and establishing legal residency there). Cohabitation currently isn't a requirement for marriage, and establishing it as such would disenfranchise a lot of folks in established marriages.
Cohabitation would of course be legally defined by place of registered long-term residence, and repeated absence for a few weeks or months should not impact it.

I've got to say, I see "traditionally married" people who do not share a common household, and not just temporarily (as with the job groups you mentioned), but do profit from the legal and financial benefits marriage currently brings as folks who are "gaming the system"... I wouldn't call it outright tax fraud, but it does seem more than a bit shady to me to give benefits to live-apart spouses that are denied to unmarried live-ins. Surely seems the wrong way around, to me.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Re:
"Eh ... not many people would have seen this SCOTUS ruling coming five years ago, either."

True ...

Re:
"I hope I'll still see it happen in my lifetime, actually."

Heh; me too.

Re (from Argonaut):
"SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States?"

Yes. That's exactly right.
 

Argonaut

New member

Because you simply cannot legally remove the religious meaning of the word. No state can deny that marriage is, e.g., a holy sacrament for Roman Catholics.

I do not see the problem. There are countries where all marriages are done in a registrations office and after that the pair can have a ceremony in the church if they want to. Then there are countries where a pair can choose if they do it in a registrations office or a church. So?


If you want a clear separation of the words used, it must be the state who gives up use of the word. Everything else would violate freedom of religion and separation of church and state, and could thus not be had in a secular state - with legislation, you can quite easily make marriage purely religious; but you can never make it purely secular (and a state must never be allowed to do so).

With due respect I disagree. See above.
The Roman Catholics are free to have their holy sacrament even if other churches do not have a sacrament of holy matrimony or secular people have a secular marriage.

Civil union. :)

Shared household is enough of a criterion. Noone would force roommates to get a civil union if they don't want/need it. Just like noone forces a couple to get married under the current jurisdiction.

Well, let's imagine a bit:
A married couple is expected to support each other economically if needed (At least in my part of the world). So if they together have enough income for two people the "less earning one" does not get any social security money even if he/she would get it if single.

If cohabitation is the sole criterion to define marriage/C.U. that would get some people into a less than nice situation. Imagine someone has rented a part of an apartment and lives there with the landlord, or two friends rent an apartment together just to be able to live a bit cheaper, without any meaning to have a C.U. One of them has sufficient income and the other does not. The poorer one applies for some support from social security. What happens? He/she is denied the support because his/her spouse is supposed to support him/her.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
There are countries where all marriages are done in a registrations office and after that the pair can have a ceremony in the church if they want to. Then there are countries where a pair can choose if they do it in a registrations office or a church. So?
A state in which all marriages are done in a governmental office simply has no freedom of religion. The rite in the church is getting married - that's its proper name, and a free, secular state has no right to impede on that practice or its naming.

Note that no country that would meet your description exists anywhere in the Western Industrial world, which is made up of (not perfectly, but at the very least nominally) secular states.


With due respect I disagree. See above.
The Roman Catholics are free to have their holy sacrament even if other churches do not have a sacrament of holy matrimony or secular people have a secular marriage.
Then you either oppose full separation of religious and secular terms, or you oppose full marriage equality.

If the former, then you must logically accept that religions do have, and will continue to have, a valid say in the matter of who gets and who doesn't get access to marriage, and that the state has no right to blanket overrule them.

(Btw, the SCOTUS ruling didn't touch that at all - of course religions in the US still have that say in it, and rightly so. It remains a constitutional right for religious representatives to refuse to officiate gay marriages, even after Friday's ruling; it's merely the secular, governmental offices that are held to the decision.)


Well, let's imagine a bit:
A married couple is expected to support each other economically if needed (At least in my part of the world). So if they together have enough income for two people the "less earning one" does not get any social security money even if he/she would get it if single.

If cohabitation is the sole criterion to define marriage/C.U. that would get some people into a less than nice situation. Imagine someone has rented a part of an apartment and lives there with the landlord, or two friends rent an apartment together just to be able to live a bit cheaper, without any meaning to have a C.U. One of them has sufficient income and the other does not. The poorer one applies for some support from social security. What happens? He/she is denied the support because his/her spouse is supposed to support him/her.
I do not see your problem? It just means they are financially better off not getting married/not entering a C.U. in the first place. You don't need to enter one if you live together (you have to live together to enter one, but that's not the same); and if it's financially better for people, then of course, that's valid motivaton to go for a divorce/dissolution.

Also, in my proposed ideal system, they could choose to get married in a church/temple/whatever place of worship their religion offers, and not get a civil union. Marriage is only dependent on the religious rite; the legal status is only dependent on the civil union. You are free to choose to enter both, either, or neither. They'd be married, because (and solely because) they went through a rite in a place of worship; but they would legally be singles, like unmarried couples are in the current jurisdiction.

(Divorces/dissolutions of civil unions need to get made a lot easier, anyway, if you ask me. But that's just as an aside here.)
 
Last edited:

Argonaut

New member

A state in which all marriages are done in a governmental office simply has no freedom of religion.

In Europe; at least France, I think also Belgium and Netherlands. Might be more, but I do not have the energy to check. You are entitled to your opinion of their lack of the freedom of religion.


The rite in the church is getting married - that's its proper name, and a free, secular state has no right to impede on that practice or its naming.

If you are simply writing how you wish the marriage should be, then I have nothing to say.
If you are describing what marriage is, then you are fighting against some hundred years research of several anthropologists.
One of their definitions (Edvard Westermarck: "The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization", year 1936): "Marriage is a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law"
(See, no religion, theology, or church mentioned.)

The naming: Marriage, wedlock, and matrimony are nowadays English terms for this relation. The naming comes from language, etymology, and tradition. It is not religion or jurisdiction. The rite is called marriage no matter is it done in a church or a government office.

Before further conversations I recommend reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
I realise Wikipedia is not the ultimate authority of anything but it is a good place to start.


Note that no country that would meet your description exists anywhere in the Western Industrial world, which is made up of (not perfectly, but at the very least nominally) secular states.

Just out of curiosity; what description of mine? :confused:
 

tenK

New member
You can add the UK to that list of countries which don't exist as well. Here you are not married until you sign the paperwork. That has been built into the 'standard' religious ceremonies to some extent, as most religious institutions are also registered to perform that legal element and can do it on site, but for some minority religions people have to pop into the registry office and do the paperwork and have the religious blessing separately. I had thought that things were much the same in the US too, but perhaps I'm wrong.

This is the great irony behind much of the protestations about same-sex marriage. The idea that it is THIS that is changing the definition of marriage is laughable. Protesters complaining that it removes God/Allah/Divine Spirit#83 out of the equation. The real shift happened along time ago when marriage became a civic matter. Whilst you can be 'married in the eyes of God', the state is not content until papers are lodged in the correct offices. If the priest says 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' and then you drop dead before signing in front of your two legal witnesses, you simply never married, and your partner gets none of the inheritance rights.
 

PinkPig

Well-known member
I had thought that things were much the same in the US too, but perhaps I'm wrong.

This is the great irony behind much of the protestations about same-sex marriage. The idea that it is THIS that is changing the definition of marriage is laughable. Protesters complaining that it removes God/Allah/Divine Spirit#83 out of the equation. The real shift happened along time ago when marriage became a civic matter. Whilst you can be 'married in the eyes of God', the state is not content until papers are lodged in the correct offices. If the priest says 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' and then you drop dead before signing in front of your two legal witnesses, you simply never married, and your partner gets none of the inheritance rights.

It is similar in the US. But, there isn't clear separation of church and state in that churches who are sanctioned to perform weddings can not perform a wedding and not file the paperwork (thus making it a marriage in God's eyes but not in the state's eyes.) True separation of church and state would allow such non-legal weddings. There are officiants who will do non-binding ceremonies but they call them by names other than marriage (commitment ceremony, handfasting, etc.)
 

InsaneMystic

New member
In Europe; at least France, I think also Belgium and Netherlands.
You can add the UK to that list of countries which don't exist as well.
It is similar in the US.
Absolutely false, in all cases. In none of these countries are churches/religions banned from performing marriage rites. Thankfully, otherwise these would be very oppressive countries indeed, blatantly disregarding human rights.


If you are simply writing how you wish the marriage should be, then I have nothing to say.
No, I'm not describing my preferred scenario there, I'm describing actual real world fact in every society with freedom of religion. Including France, Belgium, the UK, and the US.


If you are describing what marriage is, then you are fighting against some hundred years research of several anthropologists.
One of their definitions (Edvard Westermarck: "The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization", year 1936): "Marriage is a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law"
(See, no religion, theology, or church mentioned.)

The naming: Marriage, wedlock, and matrimony are nowadays English terms for this relation. The naming comes from language, etymology, and tradition. It is not religion or jurisdiction. The rite is called marriage no matter is it done in a church or a government office.

Before further conversations I recommend reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage
I realise Wikipedia is not the ultimate authority of anything but it is a good place to start.
Everyone who thinks that marriage does not have a religious meaning simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Fullstop.

It is an indisputable fact that marriage is a holy Catholic sacrament. Everyone who denies that hard fact is too delusional to be worth having any kind of discussion with, and certainly should not be involved with any kind of work in a scientfic field.


And since you already linked to the Wikipedia article about marriage, kindly look at this passage in it:
Marriage and religion

Among the precepts of mainstream religions are found, as a rule, unequivocal prescriptions for marriage, establishing both rituals and rules of conduct.
That settles the matter conclusively.


Just out of curiosity; what description of mine? :confused:
The description of "all marriages being done in a registrations office".


Whilst you can be 'married in the eyes of God', the state is not content until papers are lodged in the correct offices. If the priest says 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' and then you drop dead before signing in front of your two legal witnesses, you simply never married, and your partner gets none of the inheritance rights.
Yes, you did get married, the very moment the priest pronounces these words, because that fulfills the rite of marriage. The state simply doesn't recognize it, but that changes absolutely nothing about the cold, hard fact that you did, indeed, marry.
 

tenK

New member
Yes, you did get married, the very moment the priest pronounces these words, because that fulfills the rite of marriage. The state simply doesn't recognize it, but that changes absolutely nothing about the cold, hard fact that you did, indeed, marry.

You say potayto I say potarto. If you are a religious person, you are going to say no no no, REAL marriage is what the holy man does. If you are an atheist, you are going to believe it's the legal document that entwines your civic existences together. You can keep your semantics. They don't interest me, and I don't think anyone is actually challenging the fact that that is one subset of the meaning of the word. However, marriage the way you mean it does have a much more narrow scope these days, and I don;t know why you would even try to deny that. When most people use the word, they are referring not to your very specific (you keep talking about Catholicism, so I'm going to assume you believe a Muslim marriage, or a Hindu marriage are different things too) version, but to the wider secular meaning. That was how I interpreted your statements, hence the confusion about your claims. Hope there is less confusion now.
 

Nadya

Member
Getting legally married in France is only possible through a civil ceremony which takes place at the council offices (mairie). The couple can then follow this with a religious ceremony, a secular service, or whatever celebration they choose, in a destination of their choice.

This is the case for both heterosexual and same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage was legalised in France in 2013, and the procedures and ceremonies are nearly identical to those for a heterosexual marriage. Both are called a marriage (mariage).

From: http://www.expatica.com/fr/family-essentials/French-weddings-A-guide-to-getting-married-in-France_101112.html

Although the country is famous for its bureaucracy, getting married in Belgium is relatively easy. Both heterosexual and same-sex couples in Belgium can get married, be in a registered cohabitation or live together without any legal status.

Only civil marriage ceremonies are legally recognised in Belgium. After the civil ceremony, which must take place at a registry office, couples often have a religious or secular ceremony as part of their celebration but this is not required.
From: http://www.expatica.com/be/family-essentials/partners/Getting-married-in-Belgium_106060.html
 
Last edited:

InsaneMystic

New member

@tenK - The broadness or narrowness is irrelevant. The fact is, it's not zero, and will not ever be zero as long as freedom of religion exists.

BTW; I'm not a Catholic. I did grow up in that faith and used to be a member (increasingly more just on paper, though) until my late twenties, which is why that religion is simply the one best known to me from experience. I'm a confessionally independent panentheist since then, and I'm also a radical secularist (far more so than the vast majority of atheists I've met, to be frank - I've seen a lot of atheist nutcases speak out against secularism and freedom of religion. They're just as dangerously ideologically deluded as any old Bible Thumper).

As for Muslim, Hindu, etc. marriages, they are actually the exact same in regards to my argument: Each of them is, in itself, solid proof that marriage is not a purely secular term without religious meaning. Catholics alone suffice to prove the statement wrong; Hindus, Muslims etc.pp. just nail the logical coffin ever more shut. ;)


@Nadya - the word "legally" in the first sentence of that quote is not just empty filler. ;)
 
Last edited:

Argonaut

New member
Well, InsaneMystic, I did not realize earlier that this is Serious Matter of Religion for you. Sorry for trying to reason and sorry if I have hurt your feelings.


It is an indisputable fact that marriage is a holy Catholic sacrament. Everyone who denies that hard fact is too delusional to be worth having any kind of discussion with, and certainly should not be involved with any kind of work in a scientfic field.

Just for your comfort; no one in this thread has tried to deny marriage as a holy Catholic sacrament.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Well, InsaneMystic, I did not realize earlier that this is Serious Matter of Religion for you. Sorry for trying to reason and sorry if I have hurt your feelings.
Oh my. "Sorry for trying to reason". Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

It's a serious matter of FREEDOM. For everybody. Including you, very personally.

If you don't care about that, kindly show some humility and logical consistency, and immediately convert to whatever is the majority religion in your area and start doing your best to follow all its guidelines. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.


Just for your comfort; no one in this thread has tried to deny marriage as a holy Catholic sacrament.
Just for your education and in the name of sober logical rationality: you yourself did so, repeatedly.
 

River

Active member
As for Muslim, Hindu, etc. marriages, they are actually the exact same in regards to my argument: Each of them is, in itself, solid proof that marriage is not a purely secular term without religious meaning. Catholics alone suffice to prove the statement wrong; Hindus, Muslims etc.pp. just nail the logical coffin ever more shut. ;)

Marriage is a religious term, with religious associations and connotations when the user of the word intends such religious associations and connotations.

It is a secular term when the user intends to use it as such, as when it is used to refer to a legal document in a secular government.

Which meaning the word has depends on the context of its usage. Millions and millions of non-religious people are married. And millions and millions of religious people are married. To say that only one of these is married is ... just not accurate.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Which meaning the word has depends on the context of its usage. Millions and millions of non-religious people are married. And millions and millions of religious people are married. To say that only one of these is married is ... just not accurate.
Correct. Which is exactly why I'm speaking out against obviously wrong statements such as Argonaut's.
 

Argonaut

New member
Marriage is a religious term, with religious associations and connotations when the user of the word intends such religious associations and connotations.

It is a secular term when the user intends to use it as such, as when it is used to refer to a legal document in a secular government.

Which meaning the word has depends on the context of its usage. Millions and millions of non-religious people are married. And millions and millions of religious people are married. To say that only one of these is married is ... just not accurate.

Amen :)

Edit:
Thank you River. You spoke out what I tried to express in post #48:
"The naming: Marriage, wedlock, and matrimony are nowadays English terms for this relation. The naming comes from language, etymology, and tradition. It is not religion or jurisdiction. The rite is called marriage no matter is it done in a church or a government office."​
 
Last edited:
Top