Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Should marriage be the property of the Church or the State?

I believe in the sepperation of Church and State, and when it comes to the business of "marriage" we either need to get the Church out of it, or the State.
Either strip from all the clergy in America the ability to sign the legal document binding two people together in the eyes of the State...you could still have a religious ceremony, but either way you need to go before a Judge to sign the paper.
or
Get the State out of it. Nix the tax benefits. Nix the insurance. Nix automatic inheritance. Nix all the legal rights. Make marriage purely religious.

 
MamaK88

Asked by MamaK88 at 10:54 PM on May. 14, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 33 (61,993 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (32)
  • Take the church out of the civil contract that we call marriage. If one chooses to have a religious ceremony or blessing that is their perogative but for state recognition and benefits have a judge, clerk or JoP handle it.

    Friday

    Answer by Friday at 12:52 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • marriage was around for thousands of years before anyone invented a church, so there's no logical reason to give it to the church now
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 5:10 PM on May. 26, 2009

  • ALL marriages, in order to be legal and recieve the benefits of a union, have to be licensed through the state. You then take that license and have it OFFICIATED by either a religious or state authority. So, it is seperate. No need to add anything to it, IMO.

    ozarkgirl3

    Answer by ozarkgirl3 at 3:57 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • I don't believe that marriage is something that belongs to either the state or the chruch. I think it belongs to the two people who want to enter into marriage. It doesn't matter to me what gender those two people are as long as they are consenting adults. I suppose for legal reasons we need to keep track of mariage but a marriage registry would surfice for me with documents signed by the two parties stating their consent to enter into a marriage contract. Other than that ....not my business.
    frogdawg

    Answer by frogdawg at 2:40 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • Who is bashing God and Jesus? If we use the bible to define marriage, it leaves out the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Daoists, Taoists, Deists, Rastafarians, and many, many other religions, faiths, beliefs, and non-believers.  That strikes me a patently unfair to a large portion of American citizens.

    mancosmomma

    Answer by mancosmomma at 1:52 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • I think that both should be allowed their own set of rules, that are as separate as separate can be! The gov't can allow anyone to marry- gay or straight giving these couples the same exact benefits. I also believe that the Church should be allowed to have their own rules for who can marry in their Church and who cannot. Neither would have any involvement in the other. As in, the Church cannot be the decider for who will and will not be considered married in the eyes of the law. The same goes for the gov't, who cannot tell the Churches who they can and cannot marry. This way, no one is forcing those who are religious to change their rules, and no one is denying gays/lesbians their human right to marry!!!!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:04 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • Its not always done by judges. My marriage was performed by a County Clerk.

    Really its pointless to argue with Christians on this. They use their book as evidence to them it is infallible, and they have that right to their opinion.

    However, they do not have the right to the word marriage. No one gets to own words, that is just silly.
    momandvet

    Answer by momandvet at 12:25 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • So we would have to pay a judge to be legally married? Wouldn't that take the judge away from his other tasks? Wouldn't tax payers have to pay extra for more judges? I don't have a problem with people being legally but not religiously married. But I think its a little extreme to take away clergies ability to legally marry a couple.
    lovepotato

    Answer by lovepotato at 12:17 PM on May. 15, 2009

  • i am glad that this became bash god and Jesus post i thought that this was about marriage?

    and if you read in the bible it talks about marriage and the only reasons that a couple could get divorced. so for some of us god did create marriage and i guess if you don't like it oh well. god has been around a lot longer then some of you think his first commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth pretty sure he did not want that happening out side of wedlock.
    mrssundin

    Answer by mrssundin at 11:38 AM on May. 15, 2009

  • I think we need to split it up in to legal marriage and religious marriage. People would get legally wed in front of a judge or registrar or whatever legal designation is chosen. Religious people could choose to have a blessing type ceremony if they like. That would stop the christian right whining about gay marriage.

    That's basically what I had to do for my wedding, a civil ceremony followed a few hours later by our religious ceremony, because we wanted to get married outside and didn't want a christian ceremony.
    RhondaVeggie

    Answer by RhondaVeggie at 11:37 AM on May. 15, 2009