https://fguide.org/?p=122 News, outrage, euphoria, etc from the Center for Popular Economics Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:42:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-6423 Joe K Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:27:59 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-6423 Amen! The legal issue (well one of many I suppose), is that the (let's call it) religious term "marriage" has been adopted in many Federal and State Statutes. For example in the tax code. It seems to me, simply replacing, through an act of congress (which of course might require an act of God!!), this term marriage with "Civil Union" and requiring all civil unions to be legalised, (2 consenting adults and a form filed at City Halls), coulld move us a lot closer to a church/state separation in this area. Amen! The legal issue (well one of many I suppose), is that the (let’s call it) religious term “marriage” has been adopted in many Federal and State Statutes. For example in the tax code. It seems to me, simply replacing, through an act of congress (which of course might require an act of God!!), this term marriage with “Civil Union” and requiring all civil unions to be legalised, (2 consenting adults and a form filed at City Halls), coulld move us a lot closer to a church/state separation in this area.

]]> https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-7086 Stargaazer Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-7086 Let religions do whatever they want -- marriage is fundamentally a legal state. No need to replace it in laws. Maybe religions can make up their own words (I suggest "holy matrimony"). Let religions do whatever they want — marriage is fundamentally a legal state. No need to replace it in laws. Maybe religions can make up their own words (I suggest “holy matrimony”).

]]> https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-7087 Stargaazer Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:31:32 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-7087 Oh and if you don't agree that marriage is a legal status -- try getting a divorce without going to court. Oh and if you don’t agree that marriage is a legal status — try getting a divorce without going to court.

]]> https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-7305 Jonathan Teller-Elsberg Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:44:41 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=122#comment-7305 Stargaazer, the point is that there is a kind of joining together of people that the government oversees/authorizes, and a different kind of joining together that is overseen/authorized by religious institutions. Unfortunately, in the current state of affairs the two kinds are mixed together and mingled. They overlap, and the word "marriage" is one aspect of that overlap; and the overlap (not only of the word "marriage" but of other aspects as well) is a situation of church and state being too intertwined. To separate church and state as should be the case under our Constitution, the kind of joining that the government does should be made fully distinct from the kind that the religious institutions do. My suggestion is that, among other fixes, the word "marriage" be dropped by the government and left for use by religious institutions. Of course marriage is currently a legal status--and that's exactly part of the problem. Stargaazer, the point is that there is a kind of joining together of people that the government oversees/authorizes, and a different kind of joining together that is overseen/authorized by religious institutions. Unfortunately, in the current state of affairs the two kinds are mixed together and mingled. They overlap, and the word “marriage” is one aspect of that overlap; and the overlap (not only of the word “marriage” but of other aspects as well) is a situation of church and state being too intertwined. To separate church and state as should be the case under our Constitution, the kind of joining that the government does should be made fully distinct from the kind that the religious institutions do. My suggestion is that, among other fixes, the word “marriage” be dropped by the government and left for use by religious institutions. Of course marriage is currently a legal status–and that’s exactly part of the problem.

]]>