Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Robert Tarzana,CA on July 29, 2007:

Getting the church out of the wedding business is a great idea. People might then realize they are entering into a legal contractual commitment that the state will enforce.

It will also make it easier to provide equal protection to everyone without an argument about "desecrating marriage".

Posted by Micah, NY on July 29, 2007:

Fr. Rick's idea is a brilliant one. It would help to kill two problems with one stone. The first is that, interestingly enough, the more religious states in the U.S. have some of the highest divorce rates, so making all couples wait 5 years before they're recognized by their respective religions as married would potentially go a long way toward helping people find spouses they could spend the rest of their lives with, as religion is a very important part of many divorcees' lives.

The second problem this move would solve involves the contention around same-sex marriage, and some religions' vehement arguments against it. The five-year gap would make same-sex marriages no different from any other marriages, albeit potentially without the 5-year plan. People would no longer be able to argue against same-sex marriage from a religious standpoint, and most other anti-same-sex-marriage arguments are specious and nonsensical anyway, so putting a 5-year gap in place would also go a long way toward improving equality in the U.S.

Posted by Peter, Orlando on July 29, 2007:

we are not the soviet union as one commented and it is hard to believe a priest does not recognize sacramental union so perhaps his comments were edited to not be recognizable to his original intent

---

1) Read more carefully; the commenter didn't say we were in the Soviet Union, he brought up what they do there as a comparison, just as others brought up France. The points are good; too bad you missed them.

2) Read more carefully; the priest's comments were not only not changed from his intended message, he has already weighed in (in the comments area) with his satisfaction over the resulting discussion.

3) Write more carefully -- consider using proper capitalization and punctuation. Your lazy construction makes you at least look stupid and ignorant, which means most won't even bother to consider your actual message. I nearly deleted your comments without reading them, as I do with morons who type in IM-like shorthand. If you're too lazy to take a little time to express yourself in what is an obviously well-read forum, why should anyone bother to spend the time trying to decipher your scribblings? Using proper English shows respect for other readers. -rc

Posted by Jackie, Tacoma, WA on July 29, 2007:

This has been an eye-opening discussion, to say the least. (which is probably a good thing, eh?) [That's why I host them. :-) -rc]

I do have one question, however. Why does everyone feel that it's such a bad thing to have both the govt. and churches able to perform a legal marriage? I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing. The constitution guarantees us "freedom of religion", and I feel like the laws allowing us to be married in either way are in fact permitting that (as long as religious leaders of all religions are allowed to perform the ceremony [not sure how one becomes an official "religious leader", but I think that could be worked out fairly easily]). Are you a member of a specific religion who wants to have your religious leader perform your marriage ceremony? Great! You go to your church/synagogue/mosque/etc., have the ceremony performed, sign the license, and voila. You have no particular religion, are against church weddings, or for some other reason don't want to go that route? Great! You go have a civil ceremony, sign your license, and again, voila. Either way your rights are respected. I can't see, however, how peoples' rights would be more greatly respected by taking AWAY an option that is a very significant and important option to many (or, to look at it another way, by creating more hoops for them to jump through -- instead of getting everything taken care of at their religious ceremony, they have to have TWO ceremonies).

I also have to say that I think people are really missing the boat when it comes to marriage and what it means. I have to admit my bias beforehand; I'm a Christian, and so I do think that marriage is something given and ordained by God. That view will come through somewhat in what I'm going to say. Yet even apart from my religious viewpoint, I think that people have really missed something.

Namely, marriage is NOT just a legal contract. Nor is it merely a piece of paper, a way to define who gets to sleep with whom, or even a way to make sure the rights of children are protected. Marriage is first and foremost a commitment that two people take in the eyes of their community (and in my mind, in the eyes of God, but even for those who don't believe in God, it's still in the eyes of those around them) to each other for the rest of their lives. One of the key points of marriage is that it is meant to be for the rest of your life. I know that not all marriages end up that way, but that is still one of the key underpinnings of a marital relationship -- two people choosing to make a PERMANENT connection between them. As such, this is (at least in theory, and in practice as well in a large number of cases) a different story than, say, a couple merely choosing to live together but without necessarily making a permanent commitment to each other.

That DOES have an important impact on society. First of all, think about the increased stability of such a relationship. Again, I recognize that many marriages fail. But starting off with the idea that you're committing to each other for the rest of your lives is going to give you a greater amount of trust and resilience ( sorry if I spelled that wrong; I'm rather tired) in your relationship, because you can hopefully believe that the other person isn't going to run off on you at the first sign of hard times. And look at the benefit to kids of having a stable family. I'm not saying that there aren't times when it's not working, and it may be better for the kids for you not to be together. But after all that's been said over the last few years about how hard divorce is for kids, how can it be seen as a good thing for relationships to be EASIER to dissolve?

Also, I feel like people haven't truly thought through the consequences of taking away the legal benefits of marriage. Some of those benefits include medical benefits, the legal right to make decisions for the other person in a medical emergency, the ability to buy things together and make financial commitments together (do you really want to make that impossible?), childcare decisions being shared, tax benefits, and a whole list of other things. Is that really something you want to take away from people? Conversely, is that something that you want to make available for anyone who moves in with someone else or at the beginning of a romantic relationship? That seems to me to be an unstable way to dole out such benefits. But marriages can dissolve as easily as live-in relationships, you say. That's true, but I think there's generally a greater level of initial commitment with a marriage than with a couple who lives together. But such benefits should be available to any couple who has made a commitment to each other, you say. Well, perhaps. But like it or not, the way that society has chosen for pretty much all of known history to define a relationship that is that committed is marriage. And honestly, if a couple has a life commitment to each other, it seems to me that rather than seeking out some other way to make it possible to get legal benefits or something so they can avoid marriage, they should just get married (assuming of course that this is possible; I know that homosexual couples and some elderly individuals with social security issues might not have that option. But at least in Washington, people in those categories now have a way [or we're going to vote soon on it; can't remember which] to gain the legal benefits of marriage, so this is theoretically available to all couples now if I have understood correctly). I know that might sound crazy and old-fashioned, but...

Okay, everyone jump on me now. :)

Posted by Melinda, Ona, WV on July 29, 2007:

Personally, I think it should be the other way around. I think the government should get out of the marriage business. If a couple wishes to make a personal commitment to one another, then they could have a religious ceremony or throw a party.

Insurance providers could start extending coverage to a designated partner rather than a defined spouse or same-sex domestic partner. Hospitals and doctors could consult with a responsible party as designated by the patient (perhaps with a card in the wallet?) instead of the traditional spouse. State and federal tax departments could either do away with joint returns, or allow anyone who cohabitates to file a joint return.

Posted by Fr. Rick, Louisiana on July 29, 2007:

Okay, Jackie. Consider yourself jumped on! ;)

My intention was to allow couples the benefits you described, while allowing couples desiring a religious ceremony to have one, just at a later date. Civil ceremonies can take mere minutes, but can be as elaborate as the couple and the officiant desire.

One civil ceremony done by a judge followed the ritual used in his own church except for the blessing of the wedding. The judge's parish priest allowed his church building to be used for the wedding and, in fact, even attended. It was a small ceremony and took about twenty minutes, and everyone was happy with it.

Posted by Clancy, Australia on July 30, 2007:

"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." And a way for the feudal lords to keep track of their serfs, and how many cons of fighting age they had.

I think we should do away with marriage altogether; it is an outdated, fairly pointless institution. If you, unlike our good friend Jackie, are NOT a religious person, what real reason have you got to make vows to each other? Even a civil ceremony is pretty much outdated in most parts of the world because simply being in a relationship for more than one year with some one, and declaring it...gives you pretty much the same benefits (unless of course you are homosexual...)

I have been with my partner for over 8 years. If you love with someone you stay with them...if you stop loving someone you leave them. Simple.

Posted by Will, Virginia on July 30, 2007:

The issue of should marriage and its regulation be under the arm of the government and not the church is an interesting one to say the least. I am very confused on the fact of how a supposed man of GOD can have the stance that the Government should only handle marriages? My reason for stating this is the following reference from the Bible in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

If the origination of the thoughts that are written in the Bible is attributed to the GOD of the Bible, than this GOD held the first marriage ceremony. If the belief held by a person, is indeed one of Christian than this reference I have made should be true. If this is the case than how can the statement that the government is or should be the only legal overseer, be correct.

I beleive that government has to legeslate morality if we are to have any in a society. This should be the extension of the moral foundations of the Christian church. I have used the Christian church as my reference for this point because of the background of Christianity that is part of the foundation of this country and it's laws. In other societies the observances of thier religion dictate the morality of their laws. My point to this is that marriage is founded (again per the Bible stance) by GOD and thus must be the responsibilty of the church and it's mouthpiece (the pastor). So back to my question, how can someone who claims to be a Christian and futher more a leader in a christian church say that marriage should be handled by the government only?

Posted by Chris, Scranton, PA on July 30, 2007:

Yes, I think churches should get out of the "wedding/marriage" business. A ritual or ceremony is not what makes a marriage; the marriage is made by the wills of the people involved. The ritual is intended to invoke the blessing of whatever higher powers one believes in upon the union. *That,* and that only, should be the function of the "religious ceremony." I don't see why people can't just hook up and part at will, provided they abide by some sort of legal code regarding property, particularly that which each brings to the union and that which they subsequently acquire together.

Posted by Kate, Dallas TX on July 30, 2007:

I am SO glad to hear a person of faith recognizing the futility of the church's involvement in marriage. It's amazing how blind we can be: when we marry, it's all goodness and light and church; when we divorce, it's all nasty lawyers. Marriage is a legal contract and must be treated as such. The trappings of religion overshadow the legal side and when divorce comes, as it does in over 50% of the cases, it's only a legal matter. Get the church out of the government ceremony and have church ceremony, too, if you must!