“When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing altogether in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role at all for government.” —Time‘s Michael A. Lindenberger pointing out how marriage is the only religious ceremony with government involvement [Time]
The Government Never Says ‘Mazel Tov’
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
strumpetwindsock
Ridiculous.
For all the chatter government will never get out of the business of marriage because they should not. Marriage is a legal contract that requires legal protection.
What needs to happen is that churches need to realize that they do not own the institution. After all, churches recognize secular marriages as valid, and it would be a big mistake if someone no longer had the power to sue for divorce in court.
This proposal would just cause a pile of headaches, make a bunch of money for lawyers, and have no effect whatsoever on the root issue at all, which is that homophobic bigots need to butt out of our business.
Darrien
Not sure about the US, but in in 13th/14th century England, the government started getting into the business of marriages to give priests a guaranteed stream of income. Clergy in poorer parishes had to rely on minimal patronage from bored aristocracy and the ‘glebe’ – every man in the parish with land dedicating produce from a tenth of the land to him (which sometimes happened and sometimes didn’t). By saying that only marriages performed by the priest had any validity, the local form of government not only kept an eye on what the populace was doing, it also guaranteed that the priest got paid and didn’t turn to alternative means of raising money. This later got extended into baptisms and (to a lesser extent) funerals so that the local form of government had some idea of births and deaths. Priests were used as census takers.
Obviously, as government grew in power, the registering of births and deaths moved to civil authorities.
Realistically, there’s no reason why a government shouldn’t get out of the business of marriages. For purposes of record keeping all unions could be recorded by government agencies and if people want a religious aspect added, they can pay for the pomp and ceremony of a church/temple/whatever blessing at their local place of worship.
John (yet another John)
The fact of the matter is that in lots of countries there is a distinction between legally married and religiously married. I have known many couples that had a civil marriage performed a few days or weeks before the religious ceremony. The religious ceremony was the one attended by family and friends. The religious ceremony was only binding in the eyes of the couple and the religious institution granting the marriage. The civil ceremony was the legal marriage and the one recognized by the courts and the government. Big deal–why can’t we separate them here too?
Ted C.
What an utterly ridiculous article.
This article suggests that marriage is primarily a religious thing. That would mean that China’s one billion non-religious people aren’t actually married.
Marriage is a legal arrangement, and has always been a legal arrangement.
You aren’t married when the priest pronounces you “man and wife” or whatever. You’re married when you sign the registry afterwards.
strumpetwindsock
@John (yet another John):
Interesting. But what happens if a couple decides to get a divorce legally but the church doesn’t grant the religious divorce?
Would it be legal for one of the partners to get a civil marriage again and be married to two people?
Or what would happen if someone was unhappy with the terms of a religious marriage? would that person be able to sue in civil court? Actually I heard recently about a case where this was done because of an orthodox Jewish man would not release his wife from marriage. His consent was required to allow the divorce.
I’m not firing these questions at you personally… just pointing out that having two different kinds of marriage (actually three, since the state recognizes common-law relationships as equivalent to married – at least here in Canada) is terribly complicated and doesn’t really solve the problem.
Bitch Republic
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. Marriages were first performed as legal contracts in ancient Rome. It wasn’t until the 18th Century that religion was regularly involved in marriage across Europe. When America was founded both civil and religious marriages were acknowledged.
HYHYBT
@Ted C.: “That would mean that China’s one billion non-religious people aren’t actually married.” I’ve heard of polygamy, but THAT’S taking things too far!
🙂
strumpetwindsock
@HYHYBT:
I read a news piece a few months ago about China forcing people into institutions for internet addiction. The story I read (not this one) mentioned one woman who had 20 virtual husbands and spent a lot of time in virtual room decorating competitions.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/12/business/addicts.php