Should there be separate church and state marriages in the US?

[honestrosewater]

why can't it be changed? so much throughout history has changed...why can't the legal definition of marriage be changed?

One notable change is the term "citizen".
Of course the definition of marriage can be changed. But the law has to think about the consequences of its actions; It can't do its own thing and pretend it has no effect on and is not effected by the real world. If the law's decision to define "marriage" as between both hetero- and homosexuals causes otherwise law-respecting people (who are opposed to that decision) to lose respect for the law, then it should try to find a wiser decision that still meets all other needs. After all, the people give the law its power.

why are heterosexuals able to marry the one they love but it is illegal for homosexuals to marry the one they love?

This is a good point as far as equality goes, but legal marriage has nothing to do with love. Even if you think getting married is an inalienable right, everyone already has the right to get married, just not legally married. Do you think getting legally married is an inalienable right? I wouldn't think anything legal could be inalienable, but I'd have to think more about it.

I hope people are actually evaluating these arguments, instead of agreeing or disagreeing with them based on the conclusions alone.

 

[theriddler876]

why are heterosexuals able to marry the one they love but it is illegal for homosexuals to marry the one they love?

by this logic if i loved my sister I should be able to marry her? or my cousin, I mean why shouln't I marry the one I love?

yeah this is why you should have a legal "union" and a spiritual "marriage"

 

[learningphysics]

Why is the government involved in marriage in any way at all?? Why is it a state recognized institution?

 

[honestrosewater]

Why is the government involved in marriage in any way at all?? Why is it a state recognized institution?

Probably for the same reasons the law grants copyright, trademark, and patent protections: To promote certain behavior by offering protections and privileges.
People do things as a married couple (shared financial investments, for one) that make marriage a risky venture. For example, a couple marries right out of high school, buys a house, and has children. If the father works and the mother stays home to raise the children, and, ten years later, the father leaves, the mother and children could be in a heap o' trouble- if the marriage was not legally recognized. The law can use its power to reduce the risk and make marriage more appealing.

 

[theriddler876]

see the legal purposes of marriage were have deviated soo much from it's original meaning back in the day, which is why we need to redifne diffrent statuses for each

 

[honestrosewater]

see the legal purposes of marriage were have deviated soo much from it's original meaning back in the day, which is why we need to redifne diffrent statuses for each

How should the laws be redefined?

why are heterosexuals able to marry the one they love but it is illegal for homosexuals to marry the one they love?

It isn't illegal for anyone to marry the one they love. It's illegal for some people to legally marry the one they love. See post #36 for more.

 

[theriddler876]

The laws would be redifined in such a way that legal protection and benefits would not be granted by marriage at a church, but rather a union presented in front of a judge that required signing papers and such, now if you are religious and want a priest to do it, you would still have to go to the judge afterwards or before

 

[honestrosewater]

The laws would be redifined in such a way that legal protection and benefits would not be granted by marriage at a church, but rather a union presented in front of a judge that required signing papers and such, now if you are religious and want a priest to do it, you would still have to go to the judge afterwards or before

That already is the case. The laws already say that.

 

[theriddler876]

not completely, if you go to a priest and say you want to get married he will ask for government paperwork, and if all is not in order he might even refuse to marry you. read some posts around the first page

 

[honestrosewater]

not completely, if you go to a priest and say you want to get married he will ask for government paperwork, and if all is not in order he might even refuse to marry you. read some posts around the first page

Even if that is true, it is the priest's choice whether or not to marry you. It isn't the government saying the priest can't marry you.
I imagine some religions may require government marriage licenses since some religions preach that people should obey the laws of their governments. But this is the religion's choice, not the government telling the religion what to do.

 

[theriddler876]

actually the government has some control over religion through taxes, for example, the catholic church didn't get "involved" in the last election because then they would have been forced to pay taxes

 

[honestrosewater]

actually the government has some control over religion through taxes, for example, the catholic church didn't get "involved" in the last election because then they would have been forced to pay taxes

If not paying taxes is a part of someone's religion, it better also include miracles.

Of course the government has some legal control over religion- or more specifically religious institutions (owning land, exchanging money) and practitioners (people)- because the law (at least in the US which is what we've been talking about) is the supreme law of the land. It says so in the Constitution, Article http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art6.html , Clause 2. Though I imagine it's mostly used in state v. federal powers.

Rights are not absolute, the law is supreme, and so on. Ever heard people say, "No one is above the law?"

 

[honestrosewater]

actually the government has some control over religion through taxes, for example, the catholic church didn't get "involved" in the last election because then they would have been forced to pay taxes

If not paying taxes is a part of someone's religion, it better also include miracles.

Of course the government has some legal control over religion- or more specifically religious institutions (owning land, exchanging money) and practitioners (people)- because the law (at least in the US which is what we've been talking about) is the supreme law of the land. It says so in the Constitution, Article http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art6.html , Clause 2. Though I imagine it's mostly used in state v. federal powers.

Rights are not absolute, the law is supreme, and so on. Ever heard people say, "No one is above the law?"