Minnesota's marriage amendment fight funded by Catholics across U.S.

[adinasauce]

Catholic parishes and affiliated groups around the country are pouring money into Minnesota's fight to pass a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

From the $3,000 sent by Catholics in Baton Rouge, La., to the $500 from the Diocese of Austin, Texas, more than two dozen dioceses and archdioceses have dug deep for the local effort. The

Comments

[ragnor144]

I have been thinking that the church shouldn't have the right to confer legal benefits to anyone. Perhaps all marriages should be civil only, and then if you want a religious component you can do that separately, which would have no legal relevance. Aren't there a few countries that do this already? The LdS church usually requires you to wait a year before being sealed in the temple if you have a civil service, but I believe that is waived in countries that require civil ceremonies first.

[evilnel]

I think they do it this way in Germany. This is the solution I've been advocating for since I was like 16. Church and state. They are not the same, people!

[thecityofdis]

Except that this is exactly how marriage works in the United States. Literally.

[thevelvetsun]

Good point!

[rex_dart]

Honestly kind of shocked that people don't know this.

But it would explain some things.

[kishmet]

Now I think about it I'm not surprised a lot of people in the US don't know this. Tons of religious groups act like legal marriage is somehow part of their purview when that's not the case at all

[ragnor144]

I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. I don't think that the state should license religious officials to perform a legally binding ceremony. It is more of a philosophical position since for those who are fortunate enough to be allowed the legal protection of marriage may have a civil ceremony, and those who are not may still have a religious ceremony if it is permitted.

It is really more from an anger that religious officials think they get to tell me as a bisexual atheist who I get to marry. Reason isn't my friend here.

[adinasauce]

That's already how marriage works in the U.S. though.

It isn't the church that's giving legal rights to people, it's the state. Churches cannot issue marriage licenses. Ceremonies can be performed for marriages without one, but they won't be legally recognized without it.

Anyone who gets legally married first has to go to their county clerk's office and apply for a license. If they meet all of the requirements, they will be issued one, and then they can go and have whatever ceremony they so choose (as long as they have X amount of witnesses, a legally ordained officiant, etc, it varies from state to state). They usually look something like this. As you can see, there's a section for the "solemnizer" (a.k.a. officiant) to fill out certifying that they performed the ceremony on such and such date, that they're licensed to perform marriages in X county or Y state, etc. That is the part the clergy can sign off on. Once all of that is filled out, the happy couple bring their license back to the county clerk's office so it can be recorded

[silver_apples]

The Maryland amendment specifically states that religious institutions are not required to perform marriages that go against their religious beliefs. The pro-ammendment people are really emphasizing that right now.

[ragnor144]

I didn't really express myself well, since I do know that it is the state that licences officiants. I just know too many people who think that it is the church's right to "defend" marriage for everyone since it is a sacrament in some, and sacred for others. Plus they love to add that gay marriage will bring down god's wrath so they are protecting the nation. I'm too angry to think straight most days.

[adinasauce]

Trust me I know how frustrating this shit is, I totally feel you. The thing is, I think it's fine that both secular and non-secular officiants can sign off on marriage licenses/certificates. The problem is the church is being flat out misleading about their role in the civil side of marriages. Whether they actually BELIEVE that they're going to be forced to sign off on/perform/recognize same-sex marriages, I really don't know. That level of paranoia is hard to wrap my head around, tbh. All they do is essentially rubber stamp the marriage license saying yep we had a ceremony! If more people were aware of this I'm pretty sure there'd be far less arguing about same-sex marriage in the first place...