I said a while back that the ultimate demise of marriage from a legal perspective will not be brought about by same-sex unions; it will happen when normal, decent people tell the state to "f#%& off" and refuse to obtain any legal recognition for their marriages.
A Roman Catholic does not get a state certificate when he is Baptized, does not get a state certificate when he receives Holy Communion for the first time, and doesn't get a state certificate on his Confirmation day. By that logic, he sure as hell doesn't need a state certificate to validate his marriage vows.
Ping.
Agreed! That's why I can't get too upset about the same-sex marriages, as marriage isn't any of the state's business anyway, IMO.
Carolyn
Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It is a cultural imperitave. Christians don't care about state sponsored marriage for the sake of the faithful, but for the sake of the culture.
Without a proper definition of marriage, and a proper attitude toward sexuality, the entire nation will go the way of the family. If you want just one example of what way that is, look at the black community.
Shalom.
I can see it both ways. I think it would be better for the sanctity of marriage if it was, in fact, purely a religious commitment and sacrament, and if the state stayed out of the equation altogether. But, on the other hand, I have two teenage daughters, and I very much hope that someday they'll marry and have children. If there are NO laws around marriage, what sort of protections will society provide for my daughters and grandchildren? Will my daughters even be able to find good young men to marry? Or, will marriage be one of those things that the young men consider "gay"-- i.e., not something that a real guy does?
Whatever happens, I hope it happens fast, because my daughters will be ready for marriage within the next ten years, and if they don't marry and have children during those years, they're unlikely to do so at all. And, more than anything, I want them to have the joys of a loving family life.
Amen! I second that! The real battle is not whether the secular State sanctions an agreement between two consenting adults which is perfectly within their rights of free association. The battle is within the churches that sanction an unholy matrimony. Marriage is a covenant before God, not the State.
Perhaps what we can do as Christians is be careful to use proper language when differentiating between holy matrimony and civil unions even when speaking with hetrosexual secularists. Take for example a case in which a secularist couple announces to you that they will be celebrating an anniversary. In that case you could respond, "How long has your civil union been in force?" My guess is that you will receive a response of "shock and awe" and perhaps to get the couple to think about the nature of their union.
No, but there is a difference between sacramental marriage and natural marriage. As Chuck says, the family depends on marriage, and society depends on the family. As marriage goes, so goes society.
The redefinition and dissolution of civil or natural marriage represents a death blow to society. In fact, it's historically unprecedented.
I'm not sure about this, but I imagine that it is illegal for a priest to perform a marriage without a marriage license.
However, I share your view on the the irrelevance of the state's position on religious issues.
Still, unlike baptism and communion, marriage has significant secular consequences, particularly in the areas of taxes, welfare benefits, and child custody.
So-called "gay marriage" will almost certainly require a complete overhaul of tax and welfare policies that would eliminate marriage incentives to normal families. For example, social security is already a wreck; "gay marriage" will create a new class of entitlements for gay couples.
Historically, the state's purpose in licensing marriage was to convey a permit to reproduce children in exchange for a lifetime commitment between the bride and groom. Reproduction was chief among the privileges granted by marriage: that's why close relatives could not receive a license, and why children born out of wedlock were called illegitimate. Lifetime commitment was its chief responsibility.
As a matter of law and fact, marriage is optional for having children and half of marriages end in divorce. Times have changed. Over the years, the purpose of the marriage license has become more about economics and less about children.
But marriage will retain some vestige of meaning. How long will it be until a legally wed gay couple sues their health insurer to pay for the services of a surrogate mother? The state, after all, has in effect authorized a marriage and marriage licences the right to reproduce. Would it be fair for an insurer to discriminate against a homosexual couple?
I wouldn't be surprised if the argument were eventually extended to a right to clone.
One thing is certain: this is a Pandora's box and no good thing will fly out of it.