Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael Williams <michael AT metalab.unc.edu>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:49:01 -0500 (EST)


On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Tanner Lovelace wrote:

> What is the best way to combine (or separate) these two things?

(I should apologize pre-emptively if I sound huffy at any point. It's not
that you said anything to tick me off, it's that I get huffy about the
issue, no matter with whom I'm speaking. :) )

The best thing to do is what we already have halfway in theoretical place:
the separation of church and state. Paula hit the nail on the head, this
is the "colored fountain" of our era, from where I'm mincing, and if
churches don't want to marry me to my boyfriend then that's fine, they're
a church, they don't have to marry anyone if they don't feel like it. As
it stands now in our society, as Paula said, if someone wants to get
married in church, they can. If they want to get married at the
courthouse, they can. Extending the option of the courthouse (or of the
church if a church sees fit) wouldn't deny any male/female couple the
rights they currently enjoy, it wouldn't require a church to perform a
ceremony to which they object on religious grounds and it wouldn't take
away anything from anyone.

The rules would work no differently for same-sex couples than it works
for opp-sex couples: you get married where and by whom you wish and if a
particular minister doesn't want to officiate because s/he doesn't
believe in gay marriage then you don't get that minister to do it. If
you still want a marriage license, the state is there, theoretically
impartial and irreligious, ready to do so without passing judgement. I
don't want a law that requires any minister to do my bidding, but I do
demand that the law give me and/or my minister the /option/.

What seems to escape the discussion every time I see it is that no laws
today require that every church agree to wed every couple that comes to
them for that privilege. Rabbis are not required by law to officiate for
Christian ceremonies; Protestant ministers are not required by law to
officiate for neopagans who want them to draw a circle and call on the
four winds to witness. I would bet that, sad as it is, there are plenty
of backwater stump preachers who would sooner be shot than marry an
inter-racial couple, and as much as such racism offends me, they have the
right to determine what to do /in their own church/.

Legalizing the issuance of a marriage license to two men or two women
would not change the religious dynamic of the marriage ritual. It would
change the legal dynamic. If churches chose to change with the law, more
power to them, but I for one would no sooner demand to be wedded in a
church that already dislikes me, where my wedding would offend their
beliefs and their beliefs offend me, than demand a bar mitzvah decades
late just because I felt like it.

The example you gave is of lag time between a religious ritual and the
signing of a legal document. I would expect that the legal document would
be the standard for when they were "really" married, were the issue to
come up in a court of law. If they feel that the church is the "real"
marriage then that should be the standard within their home and their
relationship.

--
http://www.compoundx.org "Can you
Michael Williams unzip my
http://www.ibiblio.org/michael monkey?"
michael AT ibiblio.org --Corwin





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page