In which ariyanakylstram makes an excellent point

[unixronin]

As ariyanakylstram pointed out about California Proposition 8,

If marriage is so damned sacred, get rid of divorce, not the right to marry.

Ah, but that would impact those who think they have a god-given right to say who may and may not marry and divorce as they please, wouldn't it?  Whereas banning gay marriage only impacts, you know, them.

Look, folks, it's this simple:  If you disapprove of gays marrying, DON'T MARRY ONE.  If your marriage is in such jeopardy that two people marrying several states away can put it at risk, maybe you should be paying more attention to your own marriage instead of worrying about who else is doing it.

You know, mote, eye, beam, all that jazz?  . . . You did actually read that book, right?

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. And, outside of the church/religion/sect in which it is performed, a religious marriage ceremony should carry no civil weight whatsoever.
"You want to keep this to yourself? Fine, but it'll become a purely religious act that does not convey any secular benefits or privileges, because you do not have the requisite authority to grant them."

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Total agreement!

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

But that is basically what we have now. Marriages must be registered by the state, for a fee, and can only be performed by authorities licensed by the state. Often the authority is religious, but the civil part of the marriage comes from state regulation.

Are you saying that religious authorities should no longer be able to gain state licenses to perform marriages?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, they can perform all the marriages they want. Just if they insist on restricting their ceremony to members in good standing of their particular faith and deny it to others, then they cannot demand that it carry any secular weight outside of their faith. If the State accepts their private, restricted ceremony as having special meaning, granting a special privilege that the state must recognize, then the establishment clause comes into play. While if they offer it freely to anyone who asks for it, then they are not demanding any special privilege, and instead become simply an agent of the state in that regard.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The ability to perform marriages is licensed by the state. Any registered clergy can perform any marriage for anybody that the state allows to marry. A couple that wants to marry must but a license, and may then go to anyone the state has granted authority to perform the ceremony. That signature and two witnesses and it is done. It sounds like you are saying that the state should no longer authorize clergy to act on behalf of the state to perform marriages. Why? It will just increase the cost to the couple getting married as they then need two services instead of one. In general, people do not go to a person they do not like to ask them to perform the marriage. You are saying that because people can't do what they generally won't do anyway, that an entire class of people should be denied the right to perform marriages. I am losing the reason behind the proposed restriction.