![]() |
|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#37 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
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".
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|