Tune into the ongoing debates over same-sex marriage and you’ll hear the same concepts. Both in civil-union states kicking the SSM can around and in others with no accommodation for homosexual couples, you see the same effect. Legislators and other politicians say what the ministers, rabbis and priests do.
They muddle government and church, to the detriment of people just trying to get along with their (they hope) equal lives. The clergy have helped give the politicians the right to imbue marriage with religious implications, concepts, verbiage, and power.
I went to a symposium in Rhode Island last week on the culture of same-sex marriage in New England. While it was well worth it, the comments of a retired UCC minister on one panel continue to chafe.
For those invested in SSM, there’s a long rant on this at Marry in Massachusetts. I won’t take up the space here, but if you’re at all as wired about this as I, click on over.
it is especially galling to me that obama calls marriage a religious thing. we know that he knows better. it is unfortunate that journalists rarely make the distinction for the reader either, thus perpetuating and supporting the misunderstanding.
…being in a church that sanctifies same-sex marriages.
<
p>That said, I think his basic view is “a lot of people think it is” so providing for federal recognition of same-sex unions regardless of what each state calls it is a step forward in the nation of DOMA and DADT.
with the anti-SSM positions taken by all Presidential candidates. Both Clinton and Obama scurry for cover by promoting “separate but equal” Civil Unions as a “reasonable” civil compromise. Surprised by the retired UCC clergy, UCCs have generally been supportive. I wish the clergy would stay out of this, but I also know that a lot of clergy have also been supportive of Marriage Equality.
<
p>I note that Obama supports a complete rejection of DOMA. Clinton supports a rejection of only the Federal portions of DOMA. I have faulted Clinton (who has significant support in the LGBT community) for what appeared to me to be more pandering to anti-LGBT forces.
<
p>But I recently heard Obama speak about SSM on Hardball at West Chester College. I noticed that in his explanation of CUs, he said that he believed that all (all) Federal “marriage” benefits should be applied to CUs. If this is the case, this may be farther than any of the candidates have gone on SSM rights. Most of the CU discussion has been only as a “state’s rights” solution. I wondered if Clinton’s understanding of CUs is also as broad as Obama’s – so, in fact, CUs would have the same federal civil standing as OSM.
<
p>Does anyone know if Clinton’s opposition to the Federal portion of DOMA mean support for the extension of OSM federal benefits to CUs?
the difference is as you stated: obama supports full repeal of doma, clinton supports repeal of the section preventing ssm access to federal marriage-related laws and policies. the other part of doma allows states to refuse to recognize ss unions from other states.
<
p>this morning i finally got around to looking at the 2004 dnc platform, and was sad to read that the party endorses the states rights approach. so in essence, the party endorses states discriminating if they want to. pathetic. and sad that clinton and obama are not leading in civil rights, but just toeing the line.
The people at that symposium seemed to think that an Obama or Clinton victory would advance marriage equality, even though neither of them supports SSM. The hope would be weakening or dumping DOMA, while leaving marriage definition to the states.
<
p>I concur that SS couples deserve equal tax and benefits treatments. So, such improvements would be welcome.
<
p>However, I’m with Laurel on the fundamental issue being equality and equal treatment. No second or third-class citizens. Where’s our leader on civil rights?
What you have to say is not so different from the way I think some religions actually characterize marriage. In Jewish law, for example, the process of marriage has two steps: kiddushin, or betrothal, (acquisition of the bride, by the bride’s acceptance of the offer of money, contract, or sexual intercourse), and nisuin, or marriage, on which the details vary depending on what custom you follow, but it generally takes place under the huppa, the Jewish wedding canopy. Interestingly, according to Judaism 101:
.
<
p>Similarly, in canon law (as I understand it–I disclaim any expertise and am happy to hear corrections), while the priest or the bishop is the minister of many of the sacraments, the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage. The priest or deacon assists at the marriage by receiving the consent of the parties to the marriage in the name of the church (Can. 1108), and if a clergyman is not available, a specially appointed layman can act in this role (Can. 1112). In exceptional cases, even this can be dispensed with, and the marriage contracted in the presence only of witnesses rather than any officiant. (Can. 1116).
<
p>I don’t have my books with me, but I think that even at common law in the early period, a man and a woman could enter a marriage contract without any officiant or ceremony. “Common law marriage,” where it is still recognized, is I think, a vestigial remainder of this.
<
p>So I think you’re right to say that, at least in some religious traditions and even in our own law, the presence of an officiant, let alone a religious officiant, is unnecessary to creation of a marriage. The requirement of an officiant is purely statutory.
<
p>TedF
You won’t find a stronger proponent of marriage equality than I am, but I see nothing wrong with mixing religious and civil aspects in this case. Otherwise couples would be forced to go to both church and court. As long as clergy are willing to be agents of the state and as long as the state offers non-religious options, then why not? I am proud of the fact that the United Church of Christ, my denomination, has taken a strong stand for marriage equality. Our church’s position is very useful to this debate because it proves that their is not a single Christian position on this matter.
… is perhaps the wrong term. The truth is there is a dual function because both religious and civil entities can claim the term marriage. Most of this would go away if religious officiants would just acknowledge that they serve a dual function and as such there are non-religious considerations to marriage. You can go ahead and treat it as a sacrament, but that doesn’t change the civil functions. As such (not all obviously) religious people need to stop acting as if they own the copyright on the term.
<
p>Once we can agree on what the term really means in a civil context the argument for suppression becomes hollow.
Indeedy, M.L., terminology is key…particularly because of what relates behind the scenes.
<
p>Think of it like church law and government law in crime. Someone breaking an R.C. “law”, a sinner, may be subject to damnation depending on the level of sin. Getting square with the church may mean a combination of confession and penance.
<
p>Yet, that may be for the same offense that violates criminal code, the government laws. Whether the criminal gets caught is not a church matter. Likewise, any punishment for criminal codes does not relate to atoning for sins in the church’s eyes. Getting punished for one does not give you a pass for the other.
<
p>So, when a legislature as a body debates and passes laws to make civil contract marriage conform to their religious beliefs, that does neither the church nor the government nor citizens any favors. Keeping same-sex couples from the same civil contract different-sex ones get is at best mixing watermelons and pumpkins.
<
p>Sure a cleric can perform the church’s ritual, providing the nifty religious paper at the end, and right after sign the government issued marriage license. When the license is filed with the town clerk, the marriage is legal. That there was also a church ritual has nothing to do with it. In that sense, couples married in the eyes of their church as well as under the legal license of the government can be said, in a folksy way, to be married two ways. The ritual one though is not street legal and has no force of law.