5 ms·

France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have

by giaour 11y ago

France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.

carlob 11y ago
But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.
leejoramo 11y ago
This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue. There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states. In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves. In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gpvos 11y ago
  That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separation of church and state, the official marriage cannot be done as part of a religious service, only in a civil ceremony (which can be very minimal).
  - dublinben 11y ago
    That isn't very different at all. The religious wedding ceremony is not legally binding in any way. You must file for a marriage license in your local jurisdiction, and have it completed by your officiant, whoever that may be.
    - gpvos 11y ago
      Largely, the same goals are served, but the symbolism is a little different. In the US, the moment when the marriage becomes official can be during a religious service; in the Netherlands, it can't.
      - x0054 11y ago
        That sounds like discrimination in the other direction to me. In US you are given a license and you can choose who officiates that license. If you are not religious, you can have a Judge or a government official officiate your wadding. If you are religious, you are free to use a minister of your choice. This way neither side is discriminated against. From what you are describing, in EU you HAVE to be married by a government official even if you are religious. That's the wrong attitude to take. To each their own, let the people choose. From bureaucratic perspective the important part is that the state is aware of the "social contract" two people made between each other and there is a witness who witnessed the "execution" of that contract. That's all. Who that witness is, as long as they are trustworthy, shouldn't matter.
        kiiski 11y ago
        In a civil ceremony you're married in the eyes of your state, and religious communities don't have to recognize it. In a religious ceremony you're married in the eyes of your god, and states don't have to recognize it. They serve a different purpose, and it makes no sense for a social contract in one community to carry weight in the other.
        bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        You talk about the EU as if it is one legal jurisdiction. We in fact have 28. In Sweden you can get married either by a government official or by a vicar in the church (but only apparently a vicar of the Church of Sweden).
mdpm 11y ago
Thanks for the information.
olalonde 11y ago
What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fineman 11y ago
  I see it more as either end (no government involvement, marriage is religious only or no church involvement, marriage is civil only) would satisfy the OP. The middle-ground is the actual opposite to both ends, in that marriage isn't secular or optional. I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.
- giaour 11y ago
  You're right; I misunderstood the original question.
- OJFord 11y ago
  Well the point is that the state has to do _something_ since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries. The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity. Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.
  - cbr 11y ago
    since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries The idea here is that you get rid of those "many purposes" and treat a married couple like any other people who have decided to spend their lives together.
    - 11y ago

by giaour 11y ago

carlob 11y ago

But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.

leejoramo 11y ago

This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue. There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states. In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves. In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gpvos 11y ago
That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separation of church and state, the official marriage cannot be done as part of a religious service, only in a civil ceremony (which can be very minimal).
- dublinben 11y ago
  That isn't very different at all. The religious wedding ceremony is not legally binding in any way. You must file for a marriage license in your local jurisdiction, and have it completed by your officiant, whoever that may be.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    Largely, the same goals are served, but the symbolism is a little different. In the US, the moment when the marriage becomes official can be during a religious service; in the Netherlands, it can't.
    - x0054 11y ago
      That sounds like discrimination in the other direction to me. In US you are given a license and you can choose who officiates that license. If you are not religious, you can have a Judge or a government official officiate your wadding. If you are religious, you are free to use a minister of your choice. This way neither side is discriminated against. From what you are describing, in EU you HAVE to be married by a government official even if you are religious. That's the wrong attitude to take. To each their own, let the people choose. From bureaucratic perspective the important part is that the state is aware of the "social contract" two people made between each other and there is a witness who witnessed the "execution" of that contract. That's all. Who that witness is, as long as they are trustworthy, shouldn't matter.
      - kiiski 11y ago
        In a civil ceremony you're married in the eyes of your state, and religious communities don't have to recognize it. In a religious ceremony you're married in the eyes of your god, and states don't have to recognize it. They serve a different purpose, and it makes no sense for a social contract in one community to carry weight in the other.
      - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        You talk about the EU as if it is one legal jurisdiction. We in fact have 28. In Sweden you can get married either by a government official or by a vicar in the church (but only apparently a vicar of the Church of Sweden).

mdpm 11y ago

Thanks for the information.

olalonde 11y ago

What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fineman 11y ago
I see it more as either end (no government involvement, marriage is religious only or no church involvement, marriage is civil only) would satisfy the OP. The middle-ground is the actual opposite to both ends, in that marriage isn't secular or optional. I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.
giaour 11y ago
You're right; I misunderstood the original question.
OJFord 11y ago
Well the point is that the state has to do _something_ since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries. The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity. Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.
- cbr 11y ago
  since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries The idea here is that you get rid of those "many purposes" and treat a married couple like any other people who have decided to spend their lives together.
  - 11y ago