To truly have this so called "seperation of church and state" shouldn't we abolish marriage?

Question

Marriage is religious joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. That's how it started. That's what it is. But in modern days the government recognizes it and regulates it.

Since the liberals all want a seperation of church and state (whatever that means) shouldn't we eliminate marriage alltogether? Makes sense to me.

Hey, some_polisci_major, You're right. Marriage didn't start as a religious thing. It started as a way for a woman to be bonded to her man so that he could be guaranteed that his children were biologically his.
hmm.. go figure.. YOU helped me find another argument AGAINST gay marriage.
THANKS

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567

J-son.
I had to stop and take a minute to tackle a couple things you said, before blood squirted out of my eyeballs and my head exploded.
Even though this is not really the place for this let me explain a few things for you. There is no seperation of church and state. What most think is a seperation is the 1st Amendment's claim to freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion. It merely states that the government will not make endorse any one religion or make everyone follow any one religion. It also says you're free to worship however you like. But remember, the founding fathers were very strong God fearing Christian men. Not that that matters much really.
Second of all, I don't know where you live, but HERE in fly-over country and most places I know of, we STILL do say "under God" in our pledge.
Thirdly, I hope we never change our money. "In God we trust" is a great slogan, it helps remind us that we need to rely on something greater than ourselves and NOT money.

J-son cont'd:
I know that when a lot of liberals read "In God we trust" they feel like the fascist dictatorist Bush is shoving his religous beliefs down their throats, but that's not really how they should be looking at it. They should look at it like I said. Like they should be relying on something larger than themselves. Whatever they choose that something to be. Besides, the president on the front of the bill was a Christian, so what's wrong with having the word "God" on the back?
And finally. It is the family oriented God fearing Americans that do not want what liberals call a "seperation of church and state." Because ultimately the ultra-liberals would love a country where the only place you can worship is in your own home with the blinds pulled down so nobody can see you from outside on the street where they're currently holding their gay pride parade.

I'm reading the answers i'm getting and it's clear that... nobody is reading the little back and white text (like this). Only the big black and yellow text up above.

If you had bothered to read all of this you would have seen that you actually agree with me on A LOT of points.

yadda yadda yadda.. Wubba Wubba Wubba.

Good night.

And God Bless the U.S.A.!!!!!!!!


Yes I said "God", what's your point?

Answer 1

Marriage actually has two components, the religious ceremony recognized by the church, and the marriage license recognized by the state. You could have one without the other. You could be married by a justice of the peace in a civil ceremony and be legally married without setting foot in a church. I suppose you could even get married in a church without a license, but you wouldn't be entitled to any of the legal benefits. That's separation of church and state.

If you still don't understand separation of church and state, consider this. How would you feel if our next President were a Muslim and required by law that all citizens must kneel facing Mecca and pray to Allah in their schools and workplaces? You wouldn't like that, would you? So why do you think it's OK if it's the "right" religion? Even if everyone could agree on Christianity, which denomination would the government choose as the state religion? Catholic? Baptist? Mormon? They can't even agree with each other. It would hurt the Christians as much as it would hurt anyone if we lost our freedom to choose how, where and when to worship (or not to, as the case may be). That's freedom of religion, and if we lose it, the Nazis might as well have won World War II.

Answer 2

Not necessarily, though I can respect where you're coming from. Marriage is actually a custom that pre-dates Christianity or any other religion that believes in a "God", singular. Marriage is simply a union between two partners, and are not always conducted by a priest, minister, etc. It can be done by a judge, mayor, govenor, king, queen, senator, or anyone with the "power vested" within themself. The term "separation of church and state" was actually to stray away from the redundant errors that Europe had long suffered due to an incorporation of religion and government...i.e. England (Henry the VIII ring a bell?), France, etc. It also permitted religious tolerance for those who sought sanctity in a new land (13 colonies).

For the most part we do have a seperation of church and state...we no longer say "under God" in the pledge of allegience, and the only thing that has not changed is "In God We Trust" on our current currency. However, it is in fact the radicals and neo-conservatives that do not want a separation of church and state.

Answer 3

Above and apart from being a religious institution, marriage was initially an economic institution and a way to bring together people from different clans. It is worth noting that in fact, your initial statement is actually backwards. Marriage is a civil joining of two persons, and a church *can* bless or sanctify that union if it chooses to do so. Note that a church's blessing is not necessary to have a marriage, nor is a church under any obligation to bless a marriage if it chooses not to do so (e.g. divorced persons in the Catholic church). Your argument is clearly based on the fear that if gay marriage were allowed, churches would be forced to recognize or sanctify them.

In terms of "separation of church and state", a better phraseology is "freedom of religion." Freedom of religion does *NOT* mean simply that a person is free to be a Christian; rather, it embraces the freedom to practice Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto; AND it also embraces the right NOT to practice any religion and to be agnostic or atheist. Unfortunately, many on the right choose to interpret the First Amendment as covering only their religion. This, conjoined with rampant Christian proselytization, leaves America a very, very scary place for anyone who is not Christian.

The other part to this discussion is that marriage includes some 7,000 rights and responsibilities that two unmarried partners do NOT share, from the right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency to the right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will to the right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. If you abolish marriage, you need to find a mechanism to ensure that those legal rights are extended to any two adult partners who have chosen to live their lives together. (The corallary here is if you DON'T abolish marriage, you need to find a mechanism to ensure that those legal rights are extended to any two adult partners who have chosen to live their lives together).

The problem isn't marriage, the problem is inequality.

Answer 4

Not ONCE!!!! when two married people get a divorce, is the word GOD mentioned by the courts. NOT ONCE!. its all about who gets what and how much.$$$$$....
You seem to have your facts wrong about what IS a civil and religious ceremony.
But what really scares me is that you have NOOOO!!!!! understanding of what the separation of church and state means. you should focus on

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.
Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
Don't concern yourself with "liberalism" when it comes to this issue. the framers of this country did not.

Answer 5

Not at all, because there is a difference between what is considered marriage in legal terms as opposed to the various religious terms for this state. Marriage in legal terms goes back to various customs from around the world, both in religious and secular societies. Marriage in modern America does not violate this separation as a legal marriage license is required that is SEPARATE from the religious ceremony.

As for liberals crying about separation of church and state, they need to realize the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion.' The former is guaranteed in the Constitution, while the latter is sloppy language used in the attempt to make a case based upon fallacy.

Answer 6

Why does there have to be a separation of church and state? No where in the constitution does it state there should be a specific separation. I think getting rid of marriage is a bit extreme.

Marriage may have started as a religious action, but like many traditions, things change. Besides, you are half way to getting your wish. At least half of all marriages end in divorce (not religions in nature).

Answer 7

Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. You can get married in a church or you can get married at city hall. You are choosing to just look at the religious definition. Marriage also involves about 1,000 different rights (everything from inheritance to community property) that have nothing to do with religion.

Answer 8

There are significant civil consequences to marriage, so to abolish it as a civil facility would not be advisable. Marriage affects property distribution, childhood rights, taxation and many other civil affairs. But some foreign countries (I believe France is one) have an idea appropriate to this: there is a civil ceremony, which puts the marriage on record for civil purposes, and a separate religious ceremony.

Answer 9

We pick and choose our battles. Yes, we should abolish the use of marriage status as far as government and taxes are concerned. That would shut down all the other freaky situations we read about trying to get marriage benefits. See, there's your reason for keeping Church and state separated.

Answer 10

No, I wasn't married in a church and god wasn't mentioned once. Marriage is a civil ceremony recognized by the State. Marriage existed long before your god was created and will exist long after people stop worshipping him.