9 ms·
Marriage has always been a government institution. Religion co-opted it for themselves at a later time. This "leave marriage to the churches where they belong"
by drcube 11y ago
Marriage has always been a government institution. Religion co-opted it for themselves at a later time. This "leave marriage to the churches where they belong" cry is disingenuous. Marriage is about a contract between individuals. It provides government granted privileges in regards to taxes, healthcare, inheritance, court testimony and child custody. It has nothing to do with religion. If you want to have a religious ceremony to celebrate and "sanctify" your government granted marriage, so be it. But don't pretend this is a religious tradition meddled with by government. It is a government institution that has been meddled with by religion since before religion and government were separate.
- edko 11y agoThere was almost no difference between government and religion when marriage originated, so it makes little sense to argue who invented it. Was Moses a political or religious leader? Were pharaohs political rulers or gods? Etc. What is very clear is that, in our society, civil and religious marriage are two different things that share a common name, and that one should have no influence over the other.
- drcube 11y agoIt doesn't matter who invented it. It matters what it is. And marriage is fundamentally a government institution. It concerns laws and legally granted privileges. If there's a sacred component, let the churches keep that part, but that's not what the SCOTUS ruled on, and it's not what millions across the country have been demanding for decades.
- humanrebar 11y ago> And marriage is fundamentally a government institution. That's nonsense. I'd stay married to my wife even if it were illegal.
- imaginenore 11y agoNot legally you won't. Your "marriage" will be equivalent to "monogamous relationship", that's about it. No visitation rights. No tax breaks. No inheritance rights. No pension rights.
- donatj 11y agotheres really nothing to it that couldn't be replaced by a contract.
- cbr 11y agoCurrently marriage involves third parties treating couples differently because they're married. That requires a standardized status and seems tricky to do with contract. For example: different taxation, different financial aid, etc. You could get rid of all these, but that is a big change.
- wj 11y agoThat might be very clear to you and I but I'm hearing a lot today about religious liberty being trampled. So I suspect it isn't as clear to a lot of people.
- baddox 11y ago> Marriage has always been a government institution. Religion co-opted it for themselves at a later time. I don't think that's the full story. I suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states and most of the current legal distinctions associated with marriage.
- trhway 11y ago>I don't think that's the full story. I suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states and most of the current legal distinctions associated with marriage. I suspect that marriage - a man/wife pairing (or 1-to-N grouping) recognized by the tribe/village with respect to all those legal distinctions related to property, children, etc... - existed long before the religion.
- andrewmcwatters 11y agoWhat a joke of a comment.
- rustynails 11y ago"Marriage is about a contract between individuals" Interestingly, I view it as the exact opposite. My wife and I knew of our bond together. I got married only because it was a public recognition of that bond. It was to share that bond with friends and family. It did not change our relationship or commitment at all. As to the legal situation many have mentioned, that could have easily been covered by a will for us. It may vary by country, but a will and defacto status offer the same protection in some parts of the world. I sought legal advice when I considered my options of marriage because marriage means little to me. I think its significance to a couple's commitment is highly over rated.