- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Civil Union" versus "Religious Marriage"
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:00 pm
Lots of folks have advocated for separating the concepts completely, including me. But a complication hit me today. If we separate the legal and religious elements, creating separate and distinct concepts of "civil union" and "religious marriage," are there unintended consequences arising from that action?
Most people think "Oh, you can be party to a civil union, without being party to a religious marriage." But can the opposite become true, as well?
For instance, could Mormons have polygamous religious "marriage," even if only two of the spouses could be party to the related "civil union?"
Most people think "Oh, you can be party to a civil union, without being party to a religious marriage." But can the opposite become true, as well?
For instance, could Mormons have polygamous religious "marriage," even if only two of the spouses could be party to the related "civil union?"
20
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:03 pm to AggieHank86
What makes the difference between polygamous and serial monogamy moving in together?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:06 pm to AggieHank86
Or just do federalism and let people sort instead of taking the coward approach.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:06 pm to AggieHank86
I'll never understand why people care what marriage is called in a legal context.
The state letting two gays enter into a community property regime and letting them file a joint tax return has no bearing on what any religious group calls marriage, or the sanctity of religious marriages. Even in practice--one does not confer the other. You cannot get religiously married at the courthouse, and you still have to do the marriage certificate/legal paperwork after a religious marriage ceremony in order to be legally married. The concepts are already split.
I think splitting the concepts further as you suggest leads to unintended consequences. It would be much easier if the religious right just got over the semantics of using the word "marriage."
The state letting two gays enter into a community property regime and letting them file a joint tax return has no bearing on what any religious group calls marriage, or the sanctity of religious marriages. Even in practice--one does not confer the other. You cannot get religiously married at the courthouse, and you still have to do the marriage certificate/legal paperwork after a religious marriage ceremony in order to be legally married. The concepts are already split.
I think splitting the concepts further as you suggest leads to unintended consequences. It would be much easier if the religious right just got over the semantics of using the word "marriage."
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For instance, could Mormons have polygamous religious "marriage," even if only two of the spouses could be party to the related "civil union?
Why is this an unintended consequence? Not arguing, just not seeing why it would be
The movement towards civil unions would be a movement away from the judiciary being able to overtly punish men, so it will likely never happen
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:23 pm to AggieHank86
The govt shouldn't know or care if you are married. That was originally a religious thing. And they had no business getting involved.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:30 pm to AggieHank86
As soon as boat/ship captains started marrying people legally... the religious claimo of "owning" marriages was out the window in my opinion.
It's either a religious ceremony or it isn't. Captain of a ship is not clergy in any way, shape, or form.
It's either a religious ceremony or it isn't. Captain of a ship is not clergy in any way, shape, or form.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:36 pm to AggieHank86
Civil Union is really just a specialized partnership.
Think of an LLC with specific rules.
People can certainly declare what their relationship is religiously,
but that doesn't mean the state will enforce it.
That's what Sharia courts are for.
Think of an LLC with specific rules.
People can certainly declare what their relationship is religiously,
but that doesn't mean the state will enforce it.
That's what Sharia courts are for.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:42 pm to AggieHank86
They overturned DOMA, can't the overturn this silly bill when the Republicans are back in charge?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:45 pm to AggieHank86
I don't see a problem with it as the legal matters are all clear through the civil union. A man or woman who marries another person religously but not civilly can not expect any legal protections if there is a divorce.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
"Civil Union" versus "Marriage"
one is a governent sanctioned certification
the other is a religeous cerimony dont in churches only governed by religeous doctrines by the constitution under the separation of church and state rule
government have recognized religeous marriages as civil unions, it doesnt work in reverse
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:47 pm to AggieHank86
You’re parsing words and it ultimately means nothing in the realm of government. The government recognizes equally (as it should IMO) the contractual union entered into by two consenting adults.. the other stuff is word play.. I could buy the argument that states could ceremonially call them different as long as sanctioned in the same document. Ultimately the church/venue/officiate should retain the authority to call the ceremony what they choose
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For instance, could Mormons have polygamous religious "marriage," even if only two of the spouses could be party to the related "civil union?"
Sure why not? I don't see the problem here. Let them designate which of the marriages is the legal civil union and move on.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You kind of make your own fun, don't you Hank?
Lots of folks have advocated for separating the concepts completely, including me. But a complication hit me today.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 3:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But can the opposite become true, as well?
First of all let's establish some terminology.. As it stands now "marriage" is nothing more than a binding contract between two parties. A civil union, if you will. What you and others refer to as a "religious marriage" is actually Holy matrimony. That is a state in which two parties of the same sex may not enter into and the reason I've never quite grasp why people make such a big deal about it.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 3:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Lots of folks have advocated for separating the concepts completely, including me. But a complication hit me today. If we separate the legal and religious elements, creating separate and distinct concepts of "civil union" and "religious marriage," are there unintended consequences arising from that action?
What you do is that the government form of "marriage" is a civil union regardless of who wants it. That is the legal condition for purposes of taxes, property rights, inheritance, insurance, etc.
A wedding would be the name of the ceremony commonly used to celebrate the creation of this contractual state.
A marriage would be a purely religious/cultural term for such a relationship, but not the legal name for it.
That way, the government is treating everyone the same with the same term for everyone seeking the rights of marriage. However, you don't have the issue of religious people being upset that the government is hijacking their language and changing the meanings of words.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 3:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Would you have a problem with that? If so, why?
For instance, could Mormons have polygamous religious "marriage," even if only two of the spouses could be party to the related "civil union?"
Posted on 7/19/22 at 3:21 pm to AggieHank86
The proponents of nihilism and anarchy are the ones trying to appropriate the word marriage.
All began with a bunch of the alphabet crowd being pissed off at the Catholic Church.
Nothing more, nothing less…
All began with a bunch of the alphabet crowd being pissed off at the Catholic Church.
Nothing more, nothing less…
Posted on 7/19/22 at 4:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For instance, could Mormons have polygamous religious "marriage," even if only two of the spouses could be party to the related "civil union?"
You mean "state observation" of such contracts?
In general, frick all state observation of what I do with my business. Contracts are with other people, not the state.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 4:26 pm to AggieHank86
There are civil and spiritual effects of marriage.
Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s
The gvt sets the default rules for property rights
All the Gvt can do is set the parameters by which those civil effects automatically apply.
The Gvt can’t order any spiritual effects to apply.
Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s
The gvt sets the default rules for property rights
All the Gvt can do is set the parameters by which those civil effects automatically apply.
The Gvt can’t order any spiritual effects to apply.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News