Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Rodney (Hayama, Japan) on July 27, 2007:

I no longer consider myself a Christian, but I've got a better idea: Get the law out of marriage by getting rid of 'marriage licenses'. If people want to conclude a lifetime-commitment civil contract let them do it. That would open the way for same sex unions or whatever -- minus the name-calling and insult-hurling precipitated by the debate over whether homosexual or other non-traditional unions can be called "marriages".

As for getting the Church out of marriage, I'm surprised to hear a priest say that "We got involved in weddings in the Middle Ages purely to legitimize political arrangements relating to estate management and inheritance and in so doing gave up our claim to any semblance of moral authority".

My early religious training regarding marriage pretty much revolved around what Jesus told the Pharisees:
"... Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [Matthew 19:4–6, KJV]

I would have thought that if the Church jumped into the legal fray in the Middle Ages it would have been because it wanted to extend its powers into the temporal realm. Instead of getting out of the 'de facto functionary' business, maybe the Church should think about getting back into the 'holy sacrament' business.

Posted by Garry, Dearborn, MI on July 27, 2007:

Agreed, totally agreed, however I am surprised to find men of the cloth agreeing with me. Surprised, but gladdened by it. I approached the question from the other side of the stick at this site.

Government is weakened when it dips into the realm of religion, and religion is destroyed when it dips into the realm of governance. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. A clear call for separation of church and state if ever there existed one.

Posted by Pastor Rick, Missouri on July 27, 2007:

I'm in favor of a covenant-based marriage which is an old fashioned marriage by public vows. These vows are recorded in a formal contract or pact and witnessed {signed} by 4 non family {adults}, 2 on behalf of the bride and 2 for the groom. Licensing only started in this country {USA} after the great depression of the 1920's. Its sole purpose was to help generate tax revenue for each state.

Most preachers are licensed or registered by city or county as clergy and as such are acting as government agents. Preachers serve a much higher calling than to become de facto government agents or bureaucrats.

Posted by David Weigel, Farmington, MI on July 27, 2007:

The priest seems to have it backwards. We need to get the state out of the business of issuing licenses. Licenses are nothing more than a scam by the state to tax something and like everything the state reaches its grubby hands into, it screws it up.

The institution and sacrament of marriage pre-dates government. Civil society defined and regulated marriage way before the govt got involved. Privatizing marriage instead of making it a govt sanctioned act would solve a lot of divorce problems. Individuals would have to deal with the society they live in and its regulations on marriage and divorce instead of taking the easy civil divorce route.

Posted by Janet, Arizona on July 27, 2007:

"...whether churches -- Catholic or otherwise -- should get out of the marriage business?"

Not if they're dealing with MY mother!! I personally don't believe in organized religion, but got married both times in a church because I'd never have dared to cross my mother....

Posted by Fr. Rick, Louisiana on July 27, 2007:

What fun! I expected to catch all kinds of grief, so I'm pleasantly surprised. One correction, though, to the respondent who said, "I agree with the Catholic priest. . . . " I'm Catholic, yes--but of the Cantuarian rather than the Roman variety.

---

Probably my fault, since in my invitation to comment I mentioned "churches -- Catholic or otherwise". Glad you popped in to clarify. But yes, fun indeed! For the most part, TRUE readers are an open-minded bunch. -rc

Posted by Johnny on July 28, 2007:

I agree that either the religions or the state should get out of weddings, there's not room for both. Since not everyone is religious, and since the main consideration is indeed for purposes of clarity in regard to legal responsibilities such as property ownership and inheritance, then it indeed makes sense to get rid of the religions. I say this as a priest who has performed a wedding or two. The two functions, religion and state, serve entirely different purposes.

Posted by Lindsay, Vancouver BC on July 28, 2007:

Sorry, a great idea but it won't happen.

(1) The marriage industry is big business - just take a look at the size of a monthly "Brides" magazine.

After 5 years, who's pays? ...

(2) The couple can't afford a big celebration - they're paying for the kids braces, sports, etc.

(3) And the bride's mommy and daddy won't pay - they're in the clear.

Better keep this one quiet - you'll get attacked more viciously than a global warming septic. And we won't even get into the SSM debate.

---

After 5 years, who pays? The couple! After 5 years they should have figured out how to budget. Kids in braces? I guess maybe, if they already had a couple of kids when they got married. While I'm not sure what SSM refers to, I just had to leave the typo: "global warming septic" is just too good! ;-) -rc

Posted by Jason - Melbourne, Australia on July 28, 2007:

Really the question is not if they should get out, but if they do, who or what will replace them?

Churches officiate at wedding so that the union is recognized, if no church then how do we validate a wedding so that it is legally recognized?

Please don't suggest lawyers, the last thing we need is another excuse for a lawyer to put her/his hand in your pocket.

a .99 cent wedding yes please, and a .99 cent divorce is the way things would be if we did not have to support the high social and financial costs to society of lawyers and an out of control legal system that is in place for its own gain not for the betterment of society.

---

How do you make the wedding legally recognize? The parties (and, hopefully, at least one witness) sign the marriage license. That's how it works in Colorado. Pretty simple. -rc

Posted by Jackie, Tacoma, WA on July 28, 2007:

I disagree. In my opinion, what's necessary is not taking religious officials out of weddings, but taking the religious aspect more seriously. This could just be my opinion, but I think that if you're going to want to get married by your religious leader (pastor, priest, rabbi, etc.), you should at least have a minimum of faith in that particular religion. The whole "I don't believe in God but I'm going to get married at church because [it's tradition, it's nicer that way, that's what my family wants, etc.]" seems to me to be an issue.

I say that because I think one of the main purposes of a wedding is to make your vows to your future spouse in front of your community. Becoming a family is not something that affects just the two of you; you become a new unit in the eyes of society, and what happens between you does affect the rest of your community as well (your children first and foremost, but look at the extended families, groups of friends, etc. that have been torn apart because someone in them got divorces). If the people at the church/synagogue/etc. that you want to get married at aren't a part of your community, then why do you want to get married there? And if you don't know the religious official that you're asking to marry you, why do you want him/her to perform the ceremony? (I know that sometimes you may not know anyone else in the area, say if you've just moved, but otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.)

I guess I'm strongly in support of the sort of wedding that the priest opposed because I've seen what a good thing it can be if you take it seriously enough. I've known a number of pastors (since I'm Protestant, that's what I have the most experience with) who won't marry a couple unless they've done marriage counseling with them (sometimes extensive) and feel like the couple has a reasonable idea of what they're getting themselves into (that doesn't necessarily mean that they personally have to agree 100%, but they want to make sure that the couple has thought things through). I've also known many couples for whom being married by their pastor at their church was part of what made things more serious for them; they had taken their vows in front of God and their community, and they couldn't take them lightly.

I hope this doesn't come across wrong. I don't want to condemn those who had a church wedding because it was the way things happened in their family, or because it was tradition, etc. I just get frustrated sometimes when people use the church to give what they're doing a stamp of approval even though they don't really believe in what the church says, especially when if it doesn't work out the church and God get the blame. If you actually believe in God and your faith has meaning to you, great. But if not, don't use the church just because "that's the way things are done".