Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Liz, Rochester NY on July 27, 2007:

Hell Yes. Marriage in this country carries a host of civil legal contracts, something that every citizen should have the right to. If people want to do the religion thing too, spiffykeen. They shouldn't be forced to, and people shouldn't have to kowtow to the religious nimrods who insist that civil legal contracts should be denied to a good chunk of the population because their religion says so.

I'm a happily married atheist. We didn't do the church thing, and I don't regret it a single bit. Having a kickass party on the 5th anniversary sounds great! And, for the religious, it would probably be nifty to religiously recommit or whatever.

Posted by michelle, Arizona on July 27, 2007:

Yes, churches should get out of the marriage business. Or rather, church weddings should not have any legal implications. Legal weddings should be done strictly by the government.

Even better, do away with the concept of legal marriage entirely; any two consenting adults should declare themselves to be married, and that is that.

Posted by Mary Ann, Colorado Springs, CO on July 27, 2007:

I lived 14 years in Bolivia. There (as in many Latin American countries) no clergy had the civil right to perform weddings. So, couples would first have a civil ceremony at the Justice of the Peace or similar place, then have a church wedding later if they wanted to. Usually the church wedding was the same day, but sometimes it would be quite a bit later. I always thought that was a pretty good arrangement.

Posted by Wes, IL on July 27, 2007:

What a wonderful idea. Any mixing of church and state dilutes both entities. Where is the uproar from church officials to separate these ceremonies, freeing them from being minions of the state? It's a pity that the poor friar will be silenced because common sense and religiosity rarely co-exist.

Posted by Roberta, Gilroy, CA on July 27, 2007:

Marriage is a civil contract. It should be governed entirely by civil law and religion should not play a part in it. I'll go one step further--the marriage contract should be a fixed term contract with a renewal clause should the parties wish to continue the marriage. Matters such as property division and responsibility for offspring are already a matter of civil law--why should marriage be for life if both people don't agree on that?

Furthermore, gender should not matter either. Two people should be able to enter into a fixed term marriage contract no matter who they are, as long as the terms of the agreement are clear. It's an unrealistic expectation for two people to be forced to enter into an agreement with no clear termination date.

Let's make the marriage laws match the reality of life and treat it like the contract it should be instead of the unrealistic expectation of a binding lifelong commitment.

Posted by Becky, St. Louis, MO on July 27, 2007:

Let's make all legal marriages "civil unions", solemnized as such when the marriage license is obtained.

Sure, clerics can continue to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, but they should not have the authority to make their ceremonies legally binding. This allows for perfect freedom of religion for all faiths. If you believe your marriage must be blessed before you live together, then go ahead and have the religious ceremony before you get the legal license.

As a side benefit, there would be no more need for controversy over gay marriage. Any two consenting adults could get a civil union with all the legal benefits that marriage currently provides. If your church won't provide a religious ceremony for a couple, they can easily find a different one that will.

Posted by Bruce Doxey, Zephyr Cove, Nevada on July 27, 2007:

Yes churches should get out of the wedding business. And they should get out of business entirely unless they can offer a contract defining exactly what their customers are going to receive and exactly what the costs will be.

Posted by Gene, Vincennes, IN on July 27, 2007:

I agree with the Catholic priest on this matter almost entirely. But that shouldn't surprise anyone as I'm a protestant pastor and I too am tired of being used by the general public as some sort of "Marrying Sam". You can't imagine the couples who just like to go shopping for a church that fits their image of a nice place to get married without any consideration for the actual ceremony.

I don't know if we need to wait 5 years to have the religious ceremony, but we certainly don't need to tie state and church together on this issue. If we separate the two, it has the added benefit of getting rid of the issue that seems to be such a hot debate topic in American politics of whether or not gay couples should be allowed to get married. I say for couples who want to enter into some sort of contractual legal arrangement (whether you call it marriage or civil unions) let the state take care of that aspect with all couples. Then those that truly want God to be part of their lives can celebrate that in a church ceremony and each church can then also say for itself how it feels about who they are willing and not willing to celebrate as blessed by God without regard to legal issues that are left with the state.

Posted by DeeDee, San Diego, CA on July 27, 2007:

From what I can discern, the entire notion of the marriage license/contract first existed because the bride was considered the "property" of her father and he was "trading" or legally agreeing that she become the "property" of another male. Thankfully we've come a long way in our culture when it comes to choosing a mate.

A few decades ago the Friar's idea of civil ceremony followed by a Fifth Anniversary Celebration may have met with extreme opposition due to strongly held traditions. But with the sexual revolution and general moral upheaval we've undergone, traditional protocol is ripe for new notions. Folks all over the place are creating more unique styles of matrimony all the time. I say let YOUNG LOVE do what it will with commitment.

Posted by Darrel, Tumwater, WA on July 27, 2007:

Hmmmm.

This really makes one think. I have often wondered why God's servant would be subject to "the power vested in me by the state of ____". The only power vested in a man of the cloth is the power granted by God. The church is responsible for helping us all to decide on the eternal destination of or eternal soul.

Yes, a man and a woman who choose to follow God's will for their lives (through the love of Jesus and guidance of the Holy Spirit) ought to most definitely enter into a covenant before God and His people. However, since this country has all kinds of laws regarding health care, kids, real estate and just about everything else, I agree the two are a silly combination. Now, I personally believe that God's idea for what is marriage are what is best for us as humans, but if one does not want God, then that is their choice and their right. Where I draw the line is when someone wants to force me - or my church - to recognize their legal (or otherwise) arrangement as marriage. Marriage is a covenant before God. Anything else is a legal arrangement.

The thing that saddens me about legal arrangements without God, is that they want to drag children - who do no get to choose and do not have the wisdom to choose if they were allowed to - into the fray with them; I feel that this should not be done. God does love us all and is well pleased when we turn to Him for guidance. Thank you all for sharing your hearts.