Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Walt Farley, Maine on July 31, 2007:

I agree that religious organizations should have nothing to do with marriages. When I was first married in 1958, my bride and I chose a Unitarian minister. That was about as close as we could get to a non-religious ceremony, and we wrote our own text. The ceremony was only for the parents anyway. That marriage lasted about 20 years.

My second marriage was at a courthouse since we had stopped worrying about parent's wishes. It has lasted 25 years and is still going strong. Except for the tradition, and the act of pledging one's self to the other person, I'm not sure I see any reason for marriage in a formal sense, but I'm not going to worry about it much.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on July 31, 2007:

"In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Parson Brown.
He'll say: Are you married? We'll say: No man,
But you can do the job When you're in town."
~ Winter Wonderland, Felix Bernard, 1934

Interesting, isn't it, how pervasive cultural influence is?

I've long admitted around here that I'm a Christian, but I can't claim any particular denomination (& refuse to do so). So my wife and I were married in a civil ceremony, to provide certain legal rights and protections to each other. I'm certain that we could have accomplished the same thing with individual arrangements, but one civil ceremony covers a blanket of arrangements.

But I'm amused with the belief that a marriage of 5 years confers longevity of success. My first marriage didn't begin to deteriorate until 10 years and we were divorced after 12 years of marriage. My current marriage is coming up on the 16th anniversary in a couple weeks. It's been a good 16 years, but who can say 10, 20 years from now?

As for getting the government OUT of marriage, it will never happen because divorce is an inevitable aspect of many marriages. And courts ARE the government. So who needs courts for a divorce? How about WHO gets the children, when and for how long, who pays which share of support, what about division of assets, both current and previous, AND division of past joint obligations? In that last one, no matter how much both parties agree, the finance companies will not. And check out how many people, just living together, go to court for solutions to their financial disagreements. Also how often the courts exasperatedly tell them that they created their own problems without legal protections (such as a marriage contract) and NOW want the courts to resolve those legal complications, which ain't gonna happen.

To wish the government out of marriage licensing is as dreamy as wishing the government out of motor vehicle registration or home titles, although I agree that those have little religious basis. But the religious aspect of marriage has been created by people (read culture) as evidenced in the song lyrics above.

Posted by Martha, New Jersey on July 31, 2007:

This has been a fascinating discussion. Thank you, everyone, for giving me some interesting food for thought.

I wanted to bring up a couple of points that don't necessarily negate anything that's already been said, but might be of interest to some people.

According to Jewish law (which, by the way, is not only based on the bible, but also on the opinions of generations of rabbis -- written down in the Mishnah and Talmud and other such books), the marriage ceremony is very different than is commonly understood.

First of all, the marriage contract (the Ketuba) is solely a document to protect the woman in the event of divorce or death of her husband. It requires the husband's family to provide monetarily for her welfare if he cannot. Thus, it's a very different way of viewing the legal obligations of marriage. It's solely about finances and requirements. This, it seems to me, is closest to what has been talked about as the government's current role in marriage.

Secondly, the Jewish wedding ceremony does not involve any vows. The couple's obligations are laid out in the ketuba (she agrees to live with him "in the manner of the daughters of Israel," while he agrees to provide food, clothing, and sex). (Yes, really. The document requires him to provide her with sex. Interesting view of religion, no?) The actual ceremony has two parts. There's a symbolic action -- witnessed by the guests -- where he gives her an item of value -- a ring. And then there are blessings. That's pretty much it.

Again, this seems to me to be similar to the idea of "blessing the union" and showing the community that the couple is taking on this mutual obligation. (The reason the woman's specific obligations are so much less is a holdover from times when women had very little legal standing -- so they needed to be protected, rather than pushed into action.)

To move from marriage to divorce, Jewish law also has addressed the dissolving of unions. Even in the middle ages, when the general population didn't allow such things, Jews could get divorced for a variety of reasons up to and including the couple simply not wanting to stay married. However, Jewish law requires that the divorce go through before the woman can get married again. (Latent sexism, I know.) This has led to situations in modern times where some men withhold the religious divorce to punish ex-wives. As far as I understand it, New York state has addressed this very simply. They say that all barriers to remarriage (as defined by the participants) must be removed before a civil divorce will be granted. This means that if a Catholic wants an annulment, the civil divorce can't take place before that happens.

This seems to me to be a good way of separating the religious aspects from the civil aspects of divorce. The religion stuff only applies to those who want it, but the state will acknowledge it as binding upon those who want it.

I don't know if this theory works well for marriage, but I think it's the original idea of letting clergy perform weddings. If people so choose, the state will recognize their choice of HOW to marry. But it does not require such religious ceremonies.

One final point -- the question of big weddings/small marriages should be reframed. My husband (of five years) was married the first time in a tiny civil ceremony, and that marriage lasted only a couple of years. But they chose the date based on preserving an anniversary -- which meant that his parents weren't there. I believe that when the ceremony becomes more important than the relationship, that's when people run into trouble. Beyond that, have as big a party as you want!

Posted by Ken from New York on July 31, 2007:

Do I think churches (and other religious bodies) should get out of marriage? No.

That said, however, I do feel that the religious ceremony and the civil "marriage license" should be distinct. (And I believe that they are.) I have a Ketubah (basically, a Jewish marriage "contract") hanging on my wall. However, without a separate piece of paper that was filed with the city, I would not be "married" as far as any civil authority would be concerned.

You can certainly combine the two, as virtually anyone who has had a religious marriage ceremony has done.

You can also have a civil ceremony with no religious portion to it, and churches/synagogues/etc. are certainly free to refuse to recognize such marriages. (Which is why I don't understand people using religious arguments against things like gay marriage. Using those same arguments, divorced people shouldn't be allowed to remarry, and people who are married should be forced to have children.)

So, keep religion out of civil "marriage" and keep the government out of religious "marriage", but there's nothing to say you can't have both.

Posted by Jackie, Tacoma, WA on July 31, 2007:

I disagree with those who have stated that marriage is just a matter of convenience, or something that has come about only in the last couple of thousand years. You may or may not agree that marriage comes from God (obviously someone who doesn't believe in God would think it hogwash that He created marriage); however, I do think that most societies (perhaps all, but that's a big statement) have had marriage and family as one of the foundations of their societal structure. If nothing else, it provides a certain amount of structure and permanence for raising children as well as for romantic relationships. The fact that "it's always been done that way" doesn't necessarily mean we have to keep doing it like that, but on the other hand I think we should think carefully before throwing something that's been so prevalent in so many cultures out the window.

I'm definitely noticing a difference in past life experiences here. Part of my opinions come from my personality (influenced by my faith but different from other Christians); I tend to be a sort of "til death do us part" person in all of my relationships (I've had the same best friend for 16 years, wouldn't cut off a close friend for hardly anything, etc.). Part of them also come from more positive experiences with marriage than many people here have apparently had. I've certainly seen a decent amount of rotten marriages (including one of someone very close to me that was ended because of domestic violence and other abuse issues), but the majority of marriages that I've seen up close and personal have been reasonably good. Not perfect, and some of them I personally wouldn't want to have, but in general the people are happy being together and glad they've stuck it out through the tough times. Kind of interesting how different peoples' experiences can be.

Posted by Marissa, Morehead, KY on July 31, 2007:

I don't think that churches should be taking out of weddings in general, it really depends on the people in question. I know people who are more committed to making it work because of the vows they made before god.

On the other hand I know people who are "god fearing" people who have ended up divorced though it goes against their religion. I also know a couple of people that enjoy long lasting marriages that the government will not recognize. Let's face it: it does not matter whether the state or church recognizes your union but that you and your spouse do. I was officially married only four years ago (in a living room of a state ordained minister of no domination), but have been married in my heart and mind for six years.

I think most people just need to put more effort and time into getting to know each other to start with, and to making it work. Unfortunately to many people are thinking more about the happily ever after and less about the work and commitment that it takes to truly share your life.

Posted by Tom, Decatur, IL on July 31, 2007:

Have to add a little history update for Dave in Denver. There has been one unmarried president; James Buchanan, our 15th president. So it's rare, but not impossible.

Why are so many thinking the marriage/divorce thing didn't start until the middle ages? I seem to remember reading of divorces among the Claudian family of Rome (the family that provided the early emperors). Look in the bible for references to the various wives. Remember the stories of Ruth and Esther?

By the way, I was married in a church, although my wife wasn't baptized until 5 years later. We've been married for over 30 years.

Posted by James, Manteca CA on July 31, 2007:

"Marriage is a wonderful institution" was once said... but who wants to live in an institution?

To me, marriage is another example the wishy-washy way our culture operates. We hail the near perfect Constitution of The United States of America as standing for the people...by the people...in very clear language. Then someone or other comes along and changes it to suit them, be it marriage by the justice of the peace or a minister, if one is accepted without the other then the reverse should be true...BUT... (What about the separation of church and state?) Don't get me started on gun ownership (I am for it), or church groups that gather on government property to exercise their rights to free speech (Talk about a conflicting rights).

As far as cheap marriages, I could care less. If two people love and respect each other, be they straight or gay or… and they feel the need to have a ceremony, and a piece of paper to make them feel "Legal" or "Holy" great let them have it, or not...as long as the attained result is in the "Pursuit of happiness", AND any offspring (natural, adopted or…) of that union are cared for until they are old enough and capable to take care of themselves. Then maybe some other important things could be addressed, and maybe even made right for everyone.

Posted by Ed - Salt Lake City, UT on August 1, 2007:

I agree that churches should not be arms of the state in regards to marriage. My preference, which both separates church and state and puts everyone - gay or straight - on an equal footing, is to have all state-sanctioned legal relationships be civil unions, and religious ceremonies for those who so choose be marriages. The state can regulate civil unions; they are legal relationships with societal ramifications. The church can oversee marriages and deny them to some based on church tenets or doctrine, but not prevent legally sanctioned civil relationships that are - and ought to be - the exclusive province of civil government regulation, not church control.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Posted by Dan in Washington DC on August 1, 2007:

This is a good idea IMHO and I'm glad to see a "man of the cloth" advocating it; takes the heat off of us liberal pansies. It would "divorce" the whole conversation about who should and should not be allowed to get married (gay/straight) from 'marriage' as a legal status. If ALL marriages were 'civil unions' in the eyes of the state, any two people who wanted to set up shop together could. You wanna get married in a cathedral, you have to pass the tests for that cathedral. You wanna get married at the fire hall, join the fire dept.

It makes no sense to me that the policies surrounding who could and could not inherit/claim dependents on their taxes/file jointly/execute advanced medical directives, etc. should be so entwined with religious tenets that were set one or two millennia ago when we were all chasing sheep for a living. It ain't that way anymore.

If you think it is, you are more than welcome to live that way. You are cordially un-invited from setting policy for the rest of us.

For the record, I'm straight, married once and still married (coming up on 24 yr), in my 50's, with a couple of kids in college.