No doubt this goes without saying here, but I like to remind folks once in awhile.

[Pacifist Patriot]

Marriage has been governed by civil law in this country since 1787. In other words, it has always been a matter of civil law.

So I don't give a rat's ass what someone's religion tells them defines the "sanctity of marriage." If you want a Baptist wedding, go have one. If you want a Catholic wedding, go have one. If you want a Jewish, Muslim, Pastafarian wedding, go have one.

You're still only married if the state says you are.

As for the sanctity of marriage? Love one another, treat each other with respect, have realistic expectations, learn how to communicate your needs and how to gracefully resolve conflict. Sanctify your own marriage before sticking your sanctimonious nose in someone else's.

Sorry, as you can tell, someone just set me off.

[bluestateguy]

1. Agreed

I will actually defend the right of any church to refuse to recognize a gay marriage.

No church is required to recognize any marriage that it does not want to. That is not what this debate is about.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Just the way the Catholic church treats divorce.

You don't get it officially annulled, you cannot re-marry within the church - doesn't mean they can keep you from re-marrying in a different faith, or no faith at all. The state does not base its divorce laws on what one church says - neither should it base its marriage laws on any, or even many, church laws.

[dmallind]

3. Makes sense to me.

I have no interest in attempting to make every troop of snake-handling hallelujah merchants celebrate marriages between same sex couples. There is no need to get religions involved in the process or have them change whatever silly rules they want about who gets the secret handshake. As long as the legal rights and protections are there, there is no need to even consider religion in the idea of marriage, gay or otherwise.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Technically, not until 1791

That was when the Bill of Rights was ratified and with it, the First Amendment's constitutional guarantee that government would neither interfere with personal beliefs nor impose state sponsored beliefs on the nation.

When people say that "marriage is a religious institution," I like to ask about the legal benefits that come with baptism, how much of a tax write-off can I get for being bar mitzvahed and all the social security benefits I can get by becoming ordained clergy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. The First Amendment is not what rendered marriage a civil contract.

Actually, marriage isn't mentioned in the U.S. Constitution at all. The United States became a country in 1787 and marriage was a civil contract in all thirteen states at the time of the founding of our country. Constitutionally, it fell (still does) under contract law that the federal government left to state legislatures to decide. So it has been a civil contract since 1787.

Phhhfftt! I have to be right all the time. Just ask my husband. ;)

Oh yes, all those social security benefits I get. And the tax exemption. And a whole host of other government benefits a bunch of nitwits think I got when I was ordained. Oi!

Great examples, do you mind if I steal them?

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. It is what guaranteed that legal marriage could never be a religious institution

Before then, there was nothing to stop Congress from instituting a national church and holding that only marriages done in accordance with the rituals of that national church would be legally recognized.

Arguably, it was not until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 that states were prohibited from creating a state church. The First Amendment applies only to Congress and it was not until the 14th Amendment that guarantee of Constitutional rights became a matter for the states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But I will concede the point. Your statement was that "marriage has been governed by civil law in this country." That much is correct, although there was no guarantee that Congress could not impose religious law until the First Amendment was ratified, and no guarantee that the states could not impose religious law until the 14th Amendment was ratified. However, your dating is still incorrect. English law has always seen marriage as a civil contract, which is why American law has done the same. While some of the early colonies broke with English law, by the early 1700s all of the colonies recognized and practiced civil marriage along side religious marriage, meaning that civil marriage in the US has exited since before the United States as such existed.

[elshiva]

5. Marriage existed long before Christianity or Judaism or any other

living religion. It wasn't a sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church until 1215 because theologians seriously debated whether it should be a sacrament, just for that reason.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. And the Reformation had the protestants pushing it right back onto civil authorities...

because they didn't want the mess either. Funny how their philosophical and theological descendents want it back now.

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[nichomachus]

10. "Marriage is a civil contract" --Brigham Young. Why have Mormons redefined marraiage?

[bluedawg12]

11. Exactly. K&R n/t

[LostinVA]

12. I can't get that people don't get this

But every time this comes up, people on here start crowing about wedding/civil unions myths.