Though I haven't discussed this with her, I could see her go either way on this, and I'd respect it.
Thank you. That really means a lot to me.
(Er, you were talking about me, right? Heh.)
And you'll be happy to know that while I have many complicated thoughts about this issue, the short version of my stance is that there aren't any reasons to prevents gay marriage that aren't religious, and since this country has separation of church and state, (thank G-d) there is no real legal basis for preventing it.
It goes like this: If I went to a courthouse with a man, after getting the requisite blood tests and documentation, and declared before a judge that I would love said man till death do us part, and we exchanged rings, and were pronounced man and wife, and got a paper proclaiming us legally to be so, I would not consider myself married. I would not live with that man. I would not take his name. I would not even kiss him.
On the other hand, if I stood under a canopy with a specific man, and I walked around him seven times, and said a few blessings in front of two witnesses, and got a ring, and had a ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) read aloud, and broke a glass, but I did not have a single paper that was legal by U.S. standards, I *would* consider myself married. I would take my husband's name. I would live with him. We would have many hours of hot, steamy sex.
My point? Marriage is sacred to me because of my religion. What other people due outside of my religion? Means nothing to me. But it would mean something enormous to them. So who the hell am I to stop them, and frankly, why should I care? That people can get legal documents so they can spend their lives together has no bearing on my sacred traditions. In short: If marriage is sacred to you because of your religion, then people getting married in non-religious (or other-religious) ceremonies does not affect you or your religion in any way.
Marriage is sacred to me because of my religion. What other people due outside of my religion? Means nothing to me. But it would mean something enormous to them. So who the hell am I to stop them, and frankly, why should I care?
A very well-said way of expressing the same feelings I have (as a Catholic).
"We would have many hours of hot, steamy sex." Now, THAT I respect. Heh.
Thanks for the explanation; it totally makes logical sense to me. My Aunt Linda, when we talked about this topic a few years ago, bascially thought there should be two types of marriage: civil, and religious. And while I can understand that distinction, logically, the state should only be able to sanction one of those, because if they get in the business of sanctioning religious marriages (or weddings), then we get into the idea of which "religions" get to have their own sanctioned weddings? Catholics? Jews? What about Scientologists? Satanists? Wiccans?
And then we get into the arena of the state having to decide whether Scientologists are mentally fit enough to decide to get married. Because, well, they're Scientologists. Viva la Science Fiction!
Does the state currently sanction strictly religious weddings? I think most people I know also have to get separate legal documents in order to be considered legally married, although it can all be done at the traditional ceremony rather than a trip to the courthouse.
I knew a couple who never got legally married. Something got messed up and there wasn't time and then they procrastinated and ended up getting divorced- there wasn't one legal document involved.
So basically, I'd say that if people want only a religious marriage, and their church or whatever allows it, then people can do that, but it won't be legally sanctioned. If they want a civil marriage, they should be able to do that. And if they want both, then they would have to get separate legal documentation other than their religious ceremony. There is no reason to bar homosexual civil marriages, but religious institutions that don't sanction it should never be compelled to do so by the state.
I'm sorry, I was responding to what my aunt said- that there should be two types of marriage that should be sanctioned, as if there were to be multiple levels. I agree that now the state only sanctions the application, not the ceremony. As it should be.
In the same way that the church (any church) should have nothing to do with the state (including, IMO, "faith-based initiatives," or Bush's excuse to spread our tax funds to Christian entities), the state should have no say in church ongoings, with one exception: employment. I think employment laws should apply to churches as employers. They shouldn't apply to volunteers, but any employer, non-profit or no, should follow the same set of common sense and ethical rules regarding benefits and unlawful termination as everyone else. The New York Times is running an interesting string of articles about that this week, apparently, which is why it's on my mind.
Thank you. That really means a lot to me.
(Er, you were talking about me, right? Heh.)
And you'll be happy to know that while I have many complicated thoughts about this issue, the short version of my stance is that there aren't any reasons to prevents gay marriage that aren't religious, and since this country has separation of church and state, (thank G-d) there is no real legal basis for preventing it.
It goes like this: If I went to a courthouse with a man, after getting the requisite blood tests and documentation, and declared before a judge that I would love said man till death do us part, and we exchanged rings, and were pronounced man and wife, and got a paper proclaiming us legally to be so, I would not consider myself married. I would not live with that man. I would not take his name. I would not even kiss him.
On the other hand, if I stood under a canopy with a specific man, and I walked around him seven times, and said a few blessings in front of two witnesses, and got a ring, and had a ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) read aloud, and broke a glass, but I did not have a single paper that was legal by U.S. standards, I *would* consider myself married. I would take my husband's name. I would live with him. We would have many hours of hot, steamy sex.
My point? Marriage is sacred to me because of my religion. What other people due outside of my religion? Means nothing to me. But it would mean something enormous to them. So who the hell am I to stop them, and frankly, why should I care? That people can get legal documents so they can spend their lives together has no bearing on my sacred traditions. In short: If marriage is sacred to you because of your religion, then people getting married in non-religious (or other-religious) ceremonies does not affect you or your religion in any way.
Reply
A very well-said way of expressing the same feelings I have (as a Catholic).
Reply
Thanks for the explanation; it totally makes logical sense to me. My Aunt Linda, when we talked about this topic a few years ago, bascially thought there should be two types of marriage: civil, and religious. And while I can understand that distinction, logically, the state should only be able to sanction one of those, because if they get in the business of sanctioning religious marriages (or weddings), then we get into the idea of which "religions" get to have their own sanctioned weddings? Catholics? Jews? What about Scientologists? Satanists? Wiccans?
And then we get into the arena of the state having to decide whether Scientologists are mentally fit enough to decide to get married. Because, well, they're Scientologists. Viva la Science Fiction!
Reply
I knew a couple who never got legally married. Something got messed up and there wasn't time and then they procrastinated and ended up getting divorced- there wasn't one legal document involved.
So basically, I'd say that if people want only a religious marriage, and their church or whatever allows it, then people can do that, but it won't be legally sanctioned. If they want a civil marriage, they should be able to do that. And if they want both, then they would have to get separate legal documentation other than their religious ceremony. There is no reason to bar homosexual civil marriages, but religious institutions that don't sanction it should never be compelled to do so by the state.
Reply
In the same way that the church (any church) should have nothing to do with the state (including, IMO, "faith-based initiatives," or Bush's excuse to spread our tax funds to Christian entities), the state should have no say in church ongoings, with one exception: employment. I think employment laws should apply to churches as employers. They shouldn't apply to volunteers, but any employer, non-profit or no, should follow the same set of common sense and ethical rules regarding benefits and unlawful termination as everyone else. The New York Times is running an interesting string of articles about that this week, apparently, which is why it's on my mind.
Reply
Leave a comment