Homosexual marriage

[methodius]

The TV news today is full of what they call the first "gay wedding" in Britain. "Gay wedding or civil partnership, call it what you will..." says the news announcer. But that is the problem, or perhaps the evasion of the problem. In Britain the government has introduced "civil partnerships" for couples of the same sex. In South Africa the

Comments

thumbs up

[anonymous]

Absolutely agree. Unless it's a theocracy, the state being involved in the church's business is ridiculous.

imho, Marriage is a sacrament, it should have nothing to do with a political entity; similarly, civil unions are an economic consideration, and should be entirely seperate from a religious entity.

Smitty - http://pistevo.blogspot.com

Re: thumbs up

[methodius]

The problem is, though, that for many centuries the Church simply accepted society's definition and understanding of marriage. The "Christian" celebration of marriage was simply the receiving communion by the marries couple. It was only later that a special "marriage service" developed, which was based on generally understood conceptions of marriage.

But now there is no generally understood meaning, which as I understand it demands that Christians think about defining it a bit morer closely. This is traditional after all. The Church saw no need to define the relation between the two natures of Christ in detail until someone questioned what was generally understood. Then a closer definition was called for.

And the time has come, i think, to do that with marriage.

[ibid]

The only thing that immedeately springs to mind is Durkheim's beleif that religion is society worshipping itself. Marriage would therefore be the ultimate symbol of the law's/society's pseudo religious charactor.

[canonjohn]

As a priest, I would be very much in favor of separating the Church's role in marriage from the States role in these arrangements....with all the rights and obligations. It might result in fewer marriages in Church...but that would probably mean - in the long run - that those who chose to marry in Church would be Christians. We have enough - good people, yes - who come to the Church for marriage but have little understanding of the sacramental reality. And, on the other side, I think that folks who, for whatever reason, cast their lot together in domestic units deserve some form of legal protection and rights. Keeping the civil and religious functions separate allows the Church the freedom to define its sacraments authentically and the State to protect people's civil rights.
John

Church and state in marriage

[methodius]

That makes sense to me from the point of view of practical arrangements.

But it's the unspoken assumptions that lie behind different sorts of arrangements that concern me more. I think these assumptions need to be brought out into the open and discussed.