Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Frank in Charles Town WV on July 28, 2007:

Revenue for the state? I was also under the impression marriage licenses were also racist in nature, keeping a member of one race from legally marrying another.

This is one case where I say "A pox on both your houses." It is the business of neither the church nor the state to get involved, except as a matter of contract law. Far as I'm concerned, you should be able to marry anyone or as many ones as will agree.

Posted by Jerry, Orlando, Florida on July 28, 2007:

A more profound discussion involves thinking about the response of the legal profession, rather than the religious profession, as it relates to 99-cent divorce. Attorneys would see their business collapse quickly, and I doubt they would let that happen without a [legal] fight. As it stands now, attorneys don't make any money on wedding ceremonies.

---

Jerry, I think you've hit closer to the truth than anyone so far! -rc

Posted by Kim, Virginia on July 28, 2007:

I think the church stepping out of the legality of marriages initially and, a few years later, having a ceremony blessing the union, is a fantastic idea.

Marriage isn't a religious institution. If it were, then people who are not religious would not be allowed to marry, and all marriages would have to be performed by a religious figure and not, say, a justice of the peace. Sociologically speaking, marriages are to restrict sexual access and keep people from sleeping around with anyone they choose, thereby strengthening the family unit. More social guidelines for marriage would encourage this. A 5-year ceremony would be like a bar mitzvah or confirmation for the wedding, and who wouldn't like that?

That "restrict sexual access" bit hasn't worked all that well, especially with politicians...! -rc

Posted by barbara, california on July 28, 2007:

Wow! Loving this discussion!

I happen to be Roman Catholic, happily divorced and annulled. The interesting thing about my annulment is that the Church will not begin annulment proceedings until you have had a civil divorce. Then, they can do their investigations with no civil court oversight. So, divorce is the only way, apparently, to actually have separation of church & state...

Posted by Dan in St. Paul, MN on July 28, 2007:

"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."
Darrel in Tumwater, WA.

I respect your position and it's nice to see you were able to convey your thoughts as well as you did - too many deeply religious people seem to get defensive too quickly.

Anyway, one thing I feel I need to point out is that "marriage" is simply a word, and in the event that church and state are separated on this subject, I'm fairly sure that the term marriage would still be used. "Civil union" is all right, but there's no real adjective for it whereas marriage has "married".

You'd be hard-pressed to have that changed. It would be like Hormel trying to get people to stop calling junk mail "spam" (to my knowledge they've been unsuccessful in getting companies to change it through the legal system).

"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."
David Weigel, Farmington, MI

I have to disagree, David. Look back at history. Religion dominated politics in the Middle Ages, yet that's when divorce first came about. It was taboo and it still caught on rather quickly. Even if privatized marriage didn't allow divorce, you'll still have people leaving each other, despite the fact that they "can't". Let's say my (imaginary) wife and I have changed over the past couple years, and we no longer get along. We want to separate, but society says, "Tough, deal with it." Do you really think that's going to stop us?

Being a child of divorced parents, I guarantee that the divorce and separation worked out much better than living in a home in which my parents would have been together, but fighting. I feel I should note that my dad lives in California, and my mom lives in Minnesota, so it wasn't like visitation was easy. Luckily, they were both mature enough to handle the whole ordeal intelligently.

As a good friend of mine once said, "If you hate each other when you break up (or divorce, in this case), you were together for too long."

Posted by Andrina Lindstrom, Lawton, OK on July 28, 2007:

I absolutely agree there needs to be a separation of church & state in everything, including marriage. As I've read the comments posted so far, I find that most of the posters have the same opinion & belief that I do regarding marriage. I especially like the term limit idea!

Marriage in today's society is a legal business arrangement. It is totally unnecessary from a civil standpoint. There are laws that protect and provide for the care of children. There are laws that provide for property ownership. Civil marriage is anachronistic.

Let people marry within their religion if they choose. That is their right. But let's get the government out of the business of deciding who gets to live with whom, who gets to have children with whom. People already do as they please anyway.

Posted by Mike, Austin, TX on July 28, 2007:

I found the reference to the reason that "the church" originally got into the marriage business interesting. If I may I'd like to add another bit of history to that.

Back in the pioneer days it was sometimes a year or more before a cleric visited some of the more remote outposts. The couple would celebrate their union and live together until a representative of a church was available to "formalize" their state. The resulting confusion, when lawmaking bodies got involved, is seen in laws involving "common law marriage" that are still on the books in some states (Texas included).

This method works quite well and eliminates the need for superfluous licenses and legal maneuvering if it becomes necessary, for whatever reason, to end the marriage.

Posted by Larry, Florida on July 28, 2007:

No, leave the churches in the marriage business and get the GOVERNMENT out of the business altogether. Stop punishing people because of the color or the gender or the numerosity of their spice, and stop giving special privileges based on marital status.

Posted by Joe Fayetteville, W.Va. on July 28, 2007:

I totally agree that religion should get out of the marriage business. Lawyers should also get out of the divorce business or at least have their fees cut way down. $3000 for a few hours work in a divorce where both parties are reasonable and have worked everything out on their own is ridiculous. The world would be better off if there were no lawyers or if lawyers were forbidden from holding elected offices and so would marriage.

Posted by Rick - Georgia on July 28, 2007:

If you look back at the middle ages there was a lot of turmoil about the role of the church in society. Around 800 AD the "current" wedding traditions began as the bride and groom were usually joined at the outside entrance of the church after which the wedding party entered the church for mass. This was, of course, after the announcement of marriage was made for three weeks prior to the ceremony. Since the church was the only public building and was used for all government functions such as courts, councils and education, of course all civil ceremonies such as marriages were held at that building.

In addition, most protestant religions can look to the most famous divorce in history for guidance... Henry VIII. He not only wanted to divorce his wives to ensure a legitimate male heir to the throne, but he divorced the Anglican and Roman churches over the concept of marriage in the church. In all areas Henry VIII was a defender of the church, but he believed that marriage and divorce were strictly state issues.