- 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 squid_hunt
quote:
What makes the difference between polygamous and serial monogamy moving in together?
So you're one of those, a serial monopolygamist?
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 2:07 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So you're one of those, a serial monopolygamist?
No, I'm one of those quit pretending government makes us more moral.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:07 pm to squid_hunt
quote:Or just three people (any combination of sexes)? Or four?
What makes the difference between polygamous and serial monogamy moving in together?
As long as their are no government-recognized benefits or penalties, does it matter? Does some sort of religious sanction (or alternatively disapprobation) for such relationships matter to anyone outside that religion?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:11 pm to squid_hunt
I was just kidding, BTW.
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 2:19 pm to Padme
quote:Just struck me as a potential consequence that your average "get government out of marriage" advocate outside Utah might not consider.
Why is this an unintended consequence? Not arguing, just not seeing why it would be
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 2:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Or just three people (any combination of sexes)? Or four?
WTF? People are identifying as whatever they please, now. Why stipulate how many pronouns one can have a union with?
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 2:33 pm to omegaman66
quote:
That was originally a religious thing.
Except when it came to property, inheritances and children and all the other legal effects of marriage that have always been entertained with marriage..
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 7/19/22 at 2:35 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So you're one of those, a serial monopolygamist?
I prefer playing Yahtzee while doing the dirty myself but different strokes and all
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
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News