Post by Rev. Jim Cunningham on Nov 19, 2008 2:04:49 GMT -5
From: JayDWhite (Original Message) Sent: 2/21/2004 3:22 PM
There has been a lot of screaming over Same-Gender Marriages. Some of it centers on “morality” others on “Sanctity”, and still more on… You get the idea, but why all the screaming? Oh, and what about the threats? If the threats were anything but claims of bodily harm it would be hilarious.
There are several issues surrounding marriage, and it makes no difference what marriage. In the past, the paramount issue was “is the couple in love?” In most cases this was answered with an affirmative. With this affirmative reply few, if any, additional questions were asked. Of course there may have been snobbish questions of “social status” but we'll not go there.
Now the issue is “morality”. Whose “morality”? Certainly not those that raise this question! For their “morality” is above question! Of course the “highly” moral individuals claim that it is not “theirs” but “God's”, so take it up with him. But wait, aren't we now speaking of “church” matters? Sure we are!
“Church” matters with respect to “our” government? A government founded on a separation between them and the “church”? Is the government, i.e. “state”, passing laws “respecting” an “establishment of religion”? Sure seems like they are, or rather that is what many claim they are.
Here in the United States the matter of marriage was that of state interest. By recognition, regulation, and the granting of special rights, the state affirms marriage. I'd almost go as far as to advance that the state “sanctifies” marriage but they can not do that, you know the “separation of church and state” thingy? The state supports not “Holy Matrimony”, they issue licenses for civil marriage, or “unions”. If the couple wants their “marriage” to be “sanctified” by a church then they, after obtaining “permission” from the state, can ask a church to do so. The church does not have to “marry” the couple, it's totally up to the church.
This last is interesting. Does a church have to wait for “state” approval? No, they do not! Many marriages are performed annually that are not “state sponsored”. But what does this do for the couple? Peace of mind. Knowing that they stood before God and vowed to “Love, honor, and cherish…”, or something to that affect. But it also does a very negative thing to the couple, they are not “recognized” by the state as a “married” couple, and not granted the “special” rights granted to all “married” couples.
The point of all this is that a “marriage” performed by a church, without “state” sanction creates, at least as far as the state is concerned, no “marriage”! Thus the role of the church in marriage has been reduced to nothing more that “window treatments”, largely meaningless to the legality of the marriage.
Some have raised the objection that people are trying to “convert” marriage to a civil institution. The problem with this claim is that no “conversion” is necessary because marriage has always been a civil institution. Claiming that God defines, and mandates, marriage, is a red herring. It is a meaningless argument!
Call it what you will but marriage, at least in the United States, has always been, and will remain, a civil institution. To cloud that institution with false religious speech is a disservice.
“Holy Matrimony”? No, just Civil Unions, the “holiness” will take care of itself!
Jay
There has been a lot of screaming over Same-Gender Marriages. Some of it centers on “morality” others on “Sanctity”, and still more on… You get the idea, but why all the screaming? Oh, and what about the threats? If the threats were anything but claims of bodily harm it would be hilarious.
There are several issues surrounding marriage, and it makes no difference what marriage. In the past, the paramount issue was “is the couple in love?” In most cases this was answered with an affirmative. With this affirmative reply few, if any, additional questions were asked. Of course there may have been snobbish questions of “social status” but we'll not go there.
Now the issue is “morality”. Whose “morality”? Certainly not those that raise this question! For their “morality” is above question! Of course the “highly” moral individuals claim that it is not “theirs” but “God's”, so take it up with him. But wait, aren't we now speaking of “church” matters? Sure we are!
“Church” matters with respect to “our” government? A government founded on a separation between them and the “church”? Is the government, i.e. “state”, passing laws “respecting” an “establishment of religion”? Sure seems like they are, or rather that is what many claim they are.
Here in the United States the matter of marriage was that of state interest. By recognition, regulation, and the granting of special rights, the state affirms marriage. I'd almost go as far as to advance that the state “sanctifies” marriage but they can not do that, you know the “separation of church and state” thingy? The state supports not “Holy Matrimony”, they issue licenses for civil marriage, or “unions”. If the couple wants their “marriage” to be “sanctified” by a church then they, after obtaining “permission” from the state, can ask a church to do so. The church does not have to “marry” the couple, it's totally up to the church.
This last is interesting. Does a church have to wait for “state” approval? No, they do not! Many marriages are performed annually that are not “state sponsored”. But what does this do for the couple? Peace of mind. Knowing that they stood before God and vowed to “Love, honor, and cherish…”, or something to that affect. But it also does a very negative thing to the couple, they are not “recognized” by the state as a “married” couple, and not granted the “special” rights granted to all “married” couples.
The point of all this is that a “marriage” performed by a church, without “state” sanction creates, at least as far as the state is concerned, no “marriage”! Thus the role of the church in marriage has been reduced to nothing more that “window treatments”, largely meaningless to the legality of the marriage.
Some have raised the objection that people are trying to “convert” marriage to a civil institution. The problem with this claim is that no “conversion” is necessary because marriage has always been a civil institution. Claiming that God defines, and mandates, marriage, is a red herring. It is a meaningless argument!
Call it what you will but marriage, at least in the United States, has always been, and will remain, a civil institution. To cloud that institution with false religious speech is a disservice.
“Holy Matrimony”? No, just Civil Unions, the “holiness” will take care of itself!
Jay