![]() |
Marriage hasn't always been a religious contract, and isn't solely one now. It usually involves inheritance rights, which in a non-theocracy is a non-religious state matter.
Civil marriage and religious marriage exist now, and can be done independently of each other. You can be civilly married without clergy, and you can be religiously married without the state. In both cases, if you try to claim the benefits of the other when you only have the one, you may be subject to the penalties (whatever they may be) of the other. Getting the government "out of the marriage business" would do nothing but make up a new name for civil marriage. That would be OK, but I doubt colloquial use would change. People married by a justice of the peace would still call themselves married. All that renaming would do is let some people tell them "but you're not, really". |
It would also make people's religious views completely obvious. Religious views are a personal matter and I doubt many people would like to have them publicly displayed in that manner.
|
Quote:
Any religion imposing their political agenda on marriage is promoting contempt for principles defined by the American Constitution. A church is only a consultant. Religion is 100% about a relationship between one human and his god. The church can advise. And, as a consultant, must concede or agree with the views of any person. Consultants have no right to impose their views on anyone else. A concept so deeply embedded in fundamental American principles that this post should not even be necessary. Nobody needs a church wedding. But marriage must be defined by civil structures. I keep posting these concepts. And still cannot get excommunicated. What does it take to get on the Pope's hate list? Government must be in the marriage business. Organized religion does not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.