Why is there such a thing as civil marriage anyways? - Page 2

Rence · #16 Feb 17, '12, 2:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacoG

I don't know where you live but religious marriages are recognized by the state.

Maybe in Mexico and some other countries, people have to go through parallel state and church ceremonies. However, in all states in the United States, religious marriages are recognized.

I live in the US. In the Catholic Church, Sacramental marriage is completely different and separate from civil marriage. The Church does not recognize civil marriage for Catholic couples. The State does NOT recognize the Sacrament of Marriage. Ask your priest. The priest acts as a JOP by signing the marriage license as a courtesy for the couple, but it is NOT part of the Sacrament. The Church requires that a couple be married first civily (or actually have the marriage certificate in tow so he can sign it). Therefore Catholics who get married are married twice, once civily when the priest signs the marriage certificate AFTER he marries the Sacramentally. The only time the State recognizes a religious marriage is when a marriage license is signed by the pastor/priest in his function of JOP. If the pastor does not also act as JOP and sign the marriage license, and only does the relgious part, the State does not recognize that couple as legally married.

exnihilo · #17 Feb 18, '12, 9:01 am

I dont know why there are civil marriages. This wikipedia article on civil marriages explains a bit about the history of marriage. In English law countries it might have something to do with having an official state church. It might have to do with clarifying inheritance and property rights.

But we need to clear up what I think is some misinformation others have posted in this thread. And I should make it clear I am not a lawyer. At least in my state marriage is entirely controlled by the state. There are laws that prohibit the solemnization of a marriage by a 'minister' to anyone who does not have a marriage license from the state. As far as I know for a minister to marry anyone they need the states blessing. A minister who does not have a marriage license is committing a crime if he marries two people. Therefore in my state it must be said that marriage is controlled by the state and only secondarily a religious act. The state has far more power than we typically realize and we would do well to take it back.

maryjk · #18 Feb 18, '12, 9:30 am

I was married civilly 20 years ago. Eleven years later, I wanted to be married in the Catholic Church. I had to present my marriage certificate, from my civil marriage before they would proceed with the Convalidation.

jc-servant · #19 Feb 20, '12, 5:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

I live in the US. In the Catholic Church, Sacramental marriage is completely different and separate from civil marriage. The Church does not recognize civil marriage for Catholic couples. The State does NOT recognize the Sacrament of Marriage. Ask your priest. The priest acts as a JOP by signing the marriage license as a courtesy for the couple, but it is NOT part of the Sacrament. The Church requires that a couple be married first civily (or actually have the marriage certificate in tow so he can sign it). Therefore Catholics who get married are married twice, once civily when the priest signs the marriage certificate AFTER he marries the Sacramentally. The only time the State recognizes a religious marriage is when a marriage license is signed by the pastor/priest in his function of JOP. If the pastor does not also act as JOP and sign the marriage license, and only does the relgious part, the State does not recognize that couple as legally married.

This is a good bullet of how the "dual" system works. I would like to piggyback a little. Historically, there were civil and church/equity courts in countries where church and "state" were woven together. This why we hear "attorney at law" in the US. It let's us know those people are authorized to practice law in courts of the secular government. Historically, church courts handled things we think of now as family law and probate/estates. Civil courts did things like contract disputes. We never had a state religion in the US and carefully set out our national constitution to separate out some of the lingering historical ties to state religious law that we inherited along with our common law system from England. Marriage is a contract that our government recognizes and our church does as well with the signing of the papers. For Catholics, we are additionally making a religious relationship that we call a Sacrament at the same time. It may look like one "marriage" but in fact it is two things happening at once.

In a country that is not run by one religion or intertwined with a religion being imposed by a monarch, then absolutely the contract that is the secular part of any "marriage" can be defined by and changed by the civil, secular government. It is a "render unto Caeser" moment on the secular side of marriages IMO. We don't have to like it, but if a change does not fit our religious definition of marriage it does not mean the government has overreached or that they are redefining what makes a sacramental marriage. I think a lot of people don't understand why these things are separate and have an emotional instead of rational reaction to civil change. Personally, I don't want a government trying to match the civil contract of marriage to any religious rules because they may not be from my religion! Would any of us want to live under sharia law as Catholics?

sw85 · #20 Feb 20, '12, 6:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

I think it's an intrusion into the lives and practices of the religious for governments to assume the authority to marry people. In many faiths, marriage is a sacred celebration. I almost think it is just plain sacrilegious for secular institutions to assume the capacity to marry citizens.

If governments were not allowed to marry people, gay marriage would not be an issue. But since marriage in government has no religious basis, and thus no ethical or spiritual basis, mark my words, we WILL see gay marriage legalized in all parts of this country by the time I die.

If governments want the power to unite two people for the sake of civil discourse, call it something else, but don't call it the same thing as my marriage.

Marriage serves a vital public interest, namely in attaching legal impetus to those relationships which tend to produce children -- the care of children, naturally, being a matter of compelling public interest.