Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Ed in Barcelona on July 31, 2007:

There is no reason for the requirement for ANYONE to approve, manage, or officiate a wedding, neither the church nor the government. Marriage can be handled like any other contract and let people celebrate it like they want.

Posted by Dustin in Calif. on July 31, 2007:

When you boil it all down, marriage is a commitment between two people to one another and the children they may bring into the marriage. This commitment can be made without the involvement of a third party. Why then would the government or the church want to get involved in this decision?

The government has an interest to keep order and prosperity. The family unit of man-woman-child has been shown to be beneficial for the development of children into responsible, productive members of society. This benefit of the nuclear family is why tax advantages are accorded to married people and parents. What other reason could there be for the government to collect less taxes?

The church does not need to be involved with any marriage. When clergy are ordained, they do not become compelled to perform marriage ceremonies. Also, I can see nowhere in scripture where God has appointed priests to officiate weddings. For those who choose to be held accountable to their religion's marriage covenant, having the ceremony performed by their religious leader in their house of worship before their family and body of believers is a way to proclaim their commitment and agree to be held accountable to the promises made in the wedding vows.

So why would anyone want to subject themselves to the rules and regulations of marriage as set forth by the government or the church?

The government bestows all sorts of nifty rights to you after you get married, most of which can be set up via various legal documents. Anyone can appoint a beneficiary after death, grant hospital visitation rights, the right to medical decisions, and shared property rights to anyone they want. It's just that in marriage it all comes wrapped up in one convenient package.

For those with a religious affiliation, the church offers a sort of "stamp of approval" or sanctification. This brings assurance to the wedded couple and the religious community that the union is in accordance with the spiritual laws of the faith. If you have no religious affiliation, this is meaningless - which is why it is not required.

I think the biggest reason why people allow any third party to have a say in their marriages (and why some want to change the traditional definition) comes down to one word: Validation. They want others to accept the choice they have made. The church is in a position to do this. One of its functions is to lead and instruct in the ways of the faith -- and most believers believe marriage was ordained by God. The government, on the other hand, should limit its involvement in marriage to sanctioning unions that will benefit society as a whole, allowing unions that are neutral to society, and banning those that are detrimental. We can debate what unions fit in each category, but that's where the discussion should start.

As far as having separate ceremonies (that's how this all got started, right?), I've never witnessed a "civil ceremony", but I can't imagine it would require anything more than the bride and groom's signatures on a document witnessed by two people or a notary. There is no reason that couldn't be done on the same day as the "church" wedding. It just seems like a matter of convenience that clergy have been "empowered" by the state (I don't remember my pastor using that line when I got married) to officiate the civil ceremony. I don't see a huge church/state issue here at all.

Posted by Kelly, Mississippi Gulf Coast on July 31, 2007:

My first wedding ceremony was performed by an Episcopal priest. It failed (not because of God or religion by any means). My second marriage was done at the courthouse by a justice of the peace. 9 years ago, and so far it is successful. Perhaps the success of a marriage (or union of two people) has more to do with the compatibility and willingness to work of the two involved. Whether they desire a government or church blessed marriage should be their choice.

Also, my experience with the government after Hurricane Katrina related to marriage is this: people who were not married but who lived together were seen by FEMA as roomates, separate individuals.They EACH got the monies given by FEMA. As a married couple with a child, we ended up being worse off as a "family"-the three of us got treated as one and received as a family the same amount that each of the "roomates" got as individuals. And yes, I'm thankful for what we received, but marriage at all in this case didn't prove to be helpful.

Posted by Andrita in California on July 31, 2007:

One of the definitions for the word marriage, in the Webster's Dictionary on my desk, is any close or intimate union. It does not always mean wed. In my opinion, the reasons for the license are many, some good, some maybe not so good.

Not all states have the so called "common law" marriage laws. In those states you can live with someone for years, then when a medical emergency happens a family member of the patient can legally step in and take control and leave you out in the cold with no say so. If you have a legal civil union the control is much harder to lose & a legal civil union requires a license.

Many laws would have to be rewritten or changed. I can fully comprehend the reason for the license. Can't comprehend the reason for the Judge, Justice of the Peace, or Cleric involvement. Any kind of service you want should be allowed, as long as you have witnesses to serve as evidence of the act.

The "separation of church and state" prevision, I believe, was meant to keep the church from dictating to the government. The system was based on the Christian beliefs when it was set up and since the majority of the population of this nation are so called christians I see no reason to change things.

Let the government issue the license, no big deal, then let the license holders choose the route they want to take. Let the Cleric have their choice also, they should have the right to decide if they want to do the ritual or not. If not, so be it, find someone else. If domestic partnership is your choice then there should be a form of registration so all of the benefits of a wedded couple could apply to a domestic partnership.

The license or registration process is a mere form of record keeping.

I've married more than once, divorced more than once, and see no reason to repeat the process again. ; )

Posted by David Hakala, Denver CO on July 31, 2007:

Few things are more ironic than a cynical man of faith. I wonder if Father Rick makes a sinner go straight for five years before offering him Absolution. Did he wait to join the clergy until he was sure there was a "reasonable chance of success" for his efforts to save souls?

Marriage is easy and divorce difficult because marriage is deemed the fundamental building block of society. Upon one's commitment to one other person, goes the theory, rests one's commitment to others in one's community. Those who break their contracts with the ones they purportedly love are considered unreliable members of society, apt to break the social contract. If you cheat on your spouse, you probably cheat on traffic lights and taxes. Hence the stigma attached to divorce.

I was about to add, "in days gone by", but then I remembered that no divorced or never-married person has a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected President. The equation of marriage with fitness for social leadership is still virtually absolute, no matter how dysfunctional the marriage may be. What else could explain the Clintons' continuing matrimony?

The power of religious faith, no matter how weak it may be in any given couple, is added to the power of the state in order to strengthen society's imprimatur on marriage. A religious marriage ceremony is not so much God's blessing upon a union as it is a couple's vow to God that they will remain united. Whatever terror the consequences of breaking a vow to God may inspire is used to keep people married for the supposed benefit of society.

So, Father Rick, it is perfectly reasonable for church and state to unite in approving marriage and censuring divorce. It makes as little sense for clerics to withhold their approval of marriage for five years as it would for bureaucrats to withhold marriage licenses for the same period. The whole idea is to lock people into marriages as early and firmly as possible.

I think that you, disappointment-weary priest, need to find a more suitable vocation.

---

You're such a contrarian, Dave! And by the way: Ronald Reagan was divorced; Nancy was his second wife, after Jane Wyman. -rc

Posted by DinaFelice, Larchmont, NY on July 31, 2007:

My father is an accountant. When I was younger, maybe 12 or 13, my father mentioned a couple of clients of his that weren't married but had 2 children together, both older than me. I assumed they were divorced, but my dad assured me that they were happily living together as a family...just not married. He saw my confusion and explained that financially it would be terrible for them if they were married.

"Why," I asked, "didn't they get married in synagogue or church or something and just not get a marriage license? I mean, since they clearly love each other and have a life and kids together?"

He explained that it was illegal for a 'member of the clergy' to perform a wedding ceremony without a government issued marriage license. Even at thirteen, that struck me as grossly unfair. In fact, that is probably a big reason as to why I wound up becoming a Libertarian.

When I find a man who I want to spend the rest of my life with, I want a ceremony to honor our commitment and I want friends and family there to share our joy. The government can mind its own business.

Posted by Rick, Maryland on July 31, 2007:

Fascinating debate. I honestly have felt for a long time that government should get out of the marriage business and allow it to be a right. That would then allow the government to register and record legal civil unions of any type accepted by the community. Of course, this is a compromise that no one would ever agree to. Oh well, give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's but give unto God that which is God's.

Posted by Liz in Kansas on July 31, 2007:

I'm in the camp of separating the idea of church ceremonies from legal unions. Whether a couple (and by couple I mean male/female, male/male, female/female, monogamy, polygamy and any other consenting adult combo you care to consider) wants to have their union god-blessed at the beginning, the middle or the end should be entirely up to them and entirely separate from any civil contract they make that needs to be recognized by government.

I also totally appreciate the sentiment of the individuals who commented on the church-shopping brides & grooms. The argument I have the biggest problem with are those who think making marriage should be totally within the authority of the church because it will increase society's commitment to god and good behavior. I might buy that if religion had demonstrated an increased capacity for moral living, but from the Spanish Inquisition to the Jonestown massacres to our local picketing bigot, I pretty confident that any church has the potential to be every bit as detrimental to righteous living as any atheistic or gay lifestyle.

I also don't care NEARLY so much about marriage licenses as I do about baby licenses. When a marriage doesn't work out it's two adults who are free to go their separate ways, but when they fail at parenting that little kid is pretty much trapped with them until the age of 18 or when an impossible legal/foster care system steps in to "rescue" him or her.

Posted by Todd, N.D. on July 31, 2007:

As a gay man I have to agree. So many people have commented on this. So many people are opposed to same sex marriage--because they think the Bible says it is wrong. Does it really matter to anyone else how someone lives their lives?

Taking the church out of the business of marriage is the right way to go. The United States was founded because of religious persecution. Now many in the US are facing some of the same issues. Monunents of the ten commandments on city property, gay marriage, different religious beliefs.

I have to agree the first step is to remove the church from civil unions.

Posted by Steph in Maine on July 31, 2007:

The two should definitely be separate! I agree with the clergy who don't feel their power is vested by the state. I also see that religion is used to deny taxpaying citizens full rights under the law. I say, Civil Unions for all. Let the religious sector continue to perform religious marriages. It would get our mind off the gay marriage debate long enough to start paying attention to the tremendous problems facing our country... recession, war, corruption, and an all-out corporate free for all.