Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Steven,Colorado Springs on July 28, 2007:

The church should get out and stay out of marriage. The only marriage ceremony that is recognized in the bible is the sex act (he took her into his tent and knew her as his wife). This same scenario is repeated over and over in the Old and New testament. The only reason the priest or pastor has a Bible with him when performing a wedding is to give his words the appearance of having true theological weight. He's usually reading from a note he put into it that sounds nice. This is not to detract from marriage which is a beautiful and God ordained institution, but only that the Church has cheapened it by trying to take control of it. Much like what they did with the birth of Christ. I mean they can't even get the date right!!

Posted by Brian, Frederick, MD on July 28, 2007:

I spent a number of years in Germany where marriage must be officiated by the state. The problem? An enormous amount of bureaucracy gets in the way. My wife and I had to travel to Denmark as the paperwork was too intense. Also, you can't get "married" in a German church unless you claim the religion officially on your tax records so the government can automatically tithe in the church's name.

Posted by Peter, Brisbane, Australia on July 28, 2007:

Big wedding >>--> small marriage.
Small wedding >>--> big marriage.

How big a wedding will you need?

---

I like it. My first wedding was big and (as I liked to say) the most photographed since Charles & Di. Didn't work out. My second wedding was tiny in the biggest and grandest "church" on the planet: the great outdoors (in my case, a mountain lake in the Rockies). And guess what? We're still married. -rc

Posted by Dave, South Africa on July 28, 2007:

I am a Baptist pastor in South Africa and we do free weddings. We work with a lot of refugees who can't afford an expensive wedding, so the church provides everything, including the bride's dress and wedding rings (not diamonds of course).

But on the issue of Churches and ministers doing the legal stuff for a marriage - that is the way things are done in SA, though a couple can get married in the registry office (Home Affairs). As a Baptist I have always struggled with this as it is against our principle of the separation of Church and State.

I rather like the idea of the state licensing the marriage and then the church having a blessing and celebration 5 years later! The only problem in SA is that our Home Affairs department is in such a mess and have such huge backlogs, they will never cope.

Posted by John, In Detroit on July 28, 2007:

I have often said the solution to many of our arguments like "Gay Weddings" is to separate the church and state as the constitution guarantees. The Legal part of the ceremony would be the "Civil Union" and the term "marriage" would be a civil union that has also been blessed by a church. Thus the "Marriage" would be full under control of the church and the state would be out of it. Where as civil unions would be handled by the state and would allow for alternative unions.

Of course with many it's no longer the church of Almighty God, it's the Church of the Almighty Dollar. And I have to assume such a church would bless any civil union.

Posted by Bruce, Ontario Canada on July 28, 2007:

The French have it right. To be legal, there must be a civil marriage ceremony. Any optional religious ceremony must FOLLOW the civil one:
http://www.beyond.fr/a/marriage.html

Posted by Alice Shade, Ukraine on July 28, 2007:

IMHO, church wedding and civil wedding should be entirely separate concepts.

Such need is dictated by the clause of state and church separation (which, to my best knowledge, is true in most parts around the world).

Civil wedding, putting it bluntly, is a form of trust partnership including cohabitation and certain degree of shared finances and responsibilities.

At this point, I`d disagree with David Weigel and his comment before - civil marriage actually gives a fair amount of mutual benefits and flexibility for people involved.

What it would benefit from: removal of limits on number of involved and gender of involved. Of course, on other hand, that would complicate the jurisdictional affairs, most notably parental rights.

Church wedding, on other hand, belongs to religion - aka, personal convictions of specific persons. While there is nothing wrong with such union, it is simply too rigid to cover all the range of civil unions.

Therefore, church wedding is a specific ritual which is available only to representatives of certain religion. As such, it should NOT be substituted in lieu of civil wedding.

Posted by Angie, Kansas on July 28, 2007:

In sort of a sideways manner, I agree with both David and Fr. Rick. I have no problem with the government issuing licenses (or charging for them - let the agency be somewhat self-supporting by supporting the people using it), but the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Put government in the civil union business, and register any two consenting adults that want to enter into that contract.

Then leave the church in the marriage business. Churches & ministers have always had the option of setting whatever requirements they choose before permitting a couple to marry in their church. Even now, you can be married in a church without a state license if the minister chooses - the state won't recognize your marriage, but I'm assuming that God would. And even now, no church has to recognize your marriage just because the state has chosen to do so.

Posted by Jim, Knoxville, TN on July 28, 2007:

If the Church pulls out of this "sacred" ceremony then marriage will barrel towards what it is already heading for, a purely financial arrangement. It will be undertaken, without bar, for all the wrong reasons. Without some semblance of being a moral decision or one of the fruits of love, there will be no need for it. Maybe, with all the controversy over gay marriage, this is what the clergy and ministers have in mind. If weddings are no longer blessed by the church, they won't have to endorse what some perceive as an amoral unity?

Posted by Albert (Benson, Arizona) on July 28, 2007:

The church should definitely get out of the marriage business. It would remove a great deal of controversy over the "civil union / marriage" for gays (as churches would now be taken out of the loop and not be required to give implicit approval) and preserve the legal status (which is all important when these unions are dissolved). The current church / state hybrid is way too troublesome.