Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by AP - St. Petersburg, FL on July 28, 2007:

I disagree.

Marriage is in the purview of religion, and the Guvmint should get out of the marriage business altogether. The government should be facilitating people in putting together their families rather than forcing them into a single model of family structure.

Let the civil part of marriage be a legal contract, like any other, and let the parties of that contract structure it any way they like. Then people would be able to structure their families in any way their religion, or lack thereof, allows.

If a Muslim wants to have the 4 wives allowed him by Islam then let him.

If a Mormon wants to have as many wives as he can support then let him.

If 3 women and 2 men want to get together and all marry each other then let them.

Let the religion take care of the religious part of the marriage, and let the state simply see that the civil portion of the contract, as written by the parties to the contract, is properly handled in contract law.

Posted by Joel, Melbourne on July 28, 2007:

Certain "christian" denominations will not want to get out of the marriage business because it will bugger up (pun intended) their ability to demonise homosexuals. If that happens they only have the abortion issue with which to win more followers (and please existing followers) through anger and devisiveness.

Posted by James, California on July 28, 2007:

Begs the question — what is marriage? I guess it's different things to different people. So I suppose it can be anything you (and your intended) want it to be. It seems to me that for most people it's an arrangement to make it harder and more expensive to break up. I guess so you'll be less likely to do it (break up, I mean).

Personally, I think neither the church nor the state should be involved in my love relationship. As it stands right now, a state recognized marriage needn't have a church sanction. My girlfriend and I had been living together for 5 years without any particular plans to marry when we discovered a tax advantage to marriage. We decided, why not? My own feeling was I knew her well enough to be pretty sure I'd be fine spending the rest of my life with her. So we did it. Neither of us being religious we opted out of any sort of ceremony. There was a place on the marriage license for a "minister" to sign so we had a friend who was a Universal Life minister officiate the document for us. We cracked a bottle of champagne with him and another friend and passed out candy to children coming by the house (it was October 31) — and that was that. We were just as married as anybody — but in reality, no more married than we had already been.

If you and your intended mate want a tax break and other spousal benefits you will need to have a relationship the state recognizes as a marriage — you know, "legal," as they say. If you don't care about that, you're free as a bird to make your relationship anything you want.

Posted by Susan, PA on July 28, 2007:

Of course churches should get out of the marriage business ~ either that or the government should! It is vital that religious groups be able to practice as they see fit, and that should be completely unrelated to enjoying the benefits of being partners.

Posted by Bill, New Hampshire on July 29, 2007:

I'm of the opposite opinion. Government should get out of the marriage business. All the problems we have with marriage now can be traced to the fact that government recognizes the marital practices of one particular religion as the only practices it will honor, to the extent that, up into the 1970s, there was some question as to whether a Muslim or Buddhist wedding was recognized as "legal" in the United States, and that's not even getting into the laws against interracial marriage - all of which had a religious basis.

Why shouldn't each religion, from atheism to fundamentalism in all its varieties, be able to define the form of marriage it will recognize, WITHOUT government getting involved in the process? Then we would no longer have arguments in Congress over whether homosexual marriage would "endanger the institution," and we would no longer have to worry about religious colonies facing down the entire might of the US Army with an ultimatum to change their marriage practices or be invaded, and we would no longer have to worry about couples who happened to be married by a practitioner of a non-mainstream religion being frightened of whether their marriage would be accepted as "legitimate" by the government.

The government needs to say "If everyone involved, freely and without coercion, considers it a marriage, then it's a marriage," or the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. Either way, it would bring its marriage laws, at least, closer to fitting the ideals the Founding Fathers expressed when they said that America would be a haven for ALL religions, not just different sects of the Christian religion.

Posted by Mitchell, Cortlandt Manor, N.Y. on July 29, 2007:

This is why the whole same sex marriage thing is a bogus non-issue. Couples (groups??) not wedded in a religious ceremony are state-licensed relationships with certain legal benefits (tax advantages, easier inheritances, etc.). So outside the context of a religious ceremony, there's absolutely no good reason why the legal benefits extended to married couples can't and shouldn't be extended to all others (and this would even include those who could marry but only live together).

Posted by Mac, Australia on July 29, 2007:

A previous commenter mentioned: 'Everything that happens via a "legal" marriage, such as property arrangements, medical decision-making, etc., can be accomplished without that one piece of paper ... I just don't think the government needs to be involved in the process.'

What happens when only one member of a partnership works?

Without marriage/de facto status on a government piece of paper, the stay-at-home-mother would suddenly appear to be impoverished, while someone else at the same address has MUCH more disposable income than others. Should the non-working partner suddenly appear on statistics for living in poverty?

Here in Australia, anyone applying for benefits discovers that it is assumed that you ARE in a family relationship with others at the same address .. unless you fill in paperwork to insist you aren't.

Posted by Kelly - Glenwood Springs CO on July 29, 2007:

Fr Rick's idea dovetails nicely with what I have been advocating for years. The state should also get out of the wedding/marriage business, instead issuing generic civil union contracts for all. Then, churches and other like private organizations (lodges? humanist societies? whatever) can marry whomever they like however they like.

I also like his idea of waiting until the union has some miles under its belt before celebrating it. Conservatives like to advocate making divorces harder to get, but if they really wanted to strengthen the institution, they should raise the bar for marriage.

Posted by Steven in Denver on July 29, 2007:

In the Soviet Union it was quite common for Christian couples to have two ceremonies (though not years apart): the "official" state-sanctioned, "courthouse-style" marriage, and then a Church-sanctioned one such as is familiar in the United States, Canada, etc.

While not for the same reasons, my wife and I also had two "weddings": one before a judge at the courthouse and another one about a week later with family and friends at a very nice park. Since we went by the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine there was no "official" clergy necessary (and no "vows" per Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12), and the state was satisfied. That was in A.D. 1985, and, by the grace of God, we are still happily and lovingly together.

Posted by Marc, Chicago on July 29, 2007:

The problem with Fr. Rick's suggestion is that almost all religions condemn couples who are living together and having sex without the approval conferred by a religious ceremony with the term "living in sin." Children of such unions are termed "bastards," and although this has little meaning in the U.S., it has been, at least until recently, an official designation stamped on all official papers, e.g. passports, in Germany. In Israel, these children cannot marry a Jew except another bastard in an Orthodox religious ceremony. Orthodoxy is the only officially recognized religion for all Jews, and there are no civil marriages. Of course, having to wait 5 years living together without sex would give people a hell of an incentive to qualify for a religious marriage ceremony.