4 ms·
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 ins
by 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 agoI 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 agoYou're right; I misunderstood the original question.
- OJFord 11y agoWell 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 agosince 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.
- vasilipupkin 11y agothat is what "married" means. Two people who have entered into a legal contract to spend their lives together and bear certain responsibilities with respect to each other and those in their custody. The religious interpretation of what it means is irrelevant for legal purposes in the US