Minister seeks to separate church, state aspects of marriage

[Maine-ah]

AUGUSTA (Feb 25): A Portland legislator has filed a bill on behalf of a Congregational minister that would change the law so clergy could no longer legally bind people in marriage, but instead be in charge of just the religious part of the ceremony.

I don’t want to be an agent for the state of Maine,” said the Rev. Mark Rustin of the North Deering Congregational Church in Portland.

Rustin asked his neighbor, Rep. Boyd Marley, to introduce a bill that would essentially separate church and state when it comes to marriage ceremonies. He wants clergy to perform the religious part, and lawyers, justices, judges or notaries to be in charge of the legal contract.

(snip)...
Asked if his proposal would have an impact on the debate over gay marriage, Rustin said that was not his intention, but it could if his congregation or others wanted to allow gay unions even though they are not recognized under state law.

http://knox.villagesoup.com/Government/story.cfm?storyID=87358

[hippiechick]

1. ... as it should be !

:applause:

[izzie]

3. I thought the state gave the church the right to do the service.

To get married one needs permit from the state. Why would he wish to change it? It is a contract between two people and the state. Some people like to add a religious frame to it. That is fine with me as long as I was not forced to do it their way. The word is forced.

[jwirr]

6. Yes, that is the way it is done here in MN. The couple have a choice

of who does the ceremony: justice of peace, ministers of a church, leader of native tribal ceremonies. I think we also have what is called common law marriages which consider persons living together as being married after a given number of years. The government already holds the power of marriage.

[izzie]

8. and under our constitutions each state goes with the other states.

Sort of a cross over. If I am wed in Ca. I am wed in NH. I see no reason for it to change as it seems to work well.

[hobbit709]

2. That's the way it works in Europe

The only legal marriage is the one performed by a civil magistrate. You can have a church wedding afterwards but the minister cannot sign the marriage certificate. I see marriage as a civil issue-after all, you get the license from the government and if you divorce, you go to a civil court. As far as I'm concerned any church should keep their noses out of it.

[MindMatter]

4. The other way 'round, I think

"Asked if his proposal would have an impact on the debate over gay marriage, Rustin said that was not his intention, but it could if his congregation or others wanted to allow gay unions even though they are not recognized under state law."

The state should grant legal marriages (or whatever the state wants to call them), to couples that make the commitments that go along with that legal status. This is all about housing rights, employment benefits, taxation and other legal issues and really has nothing to do with sex.

If churches don't want to confer holy blessings on some of these couples, who cares?

Gays in this country are fighting for the wrong things, it seems to me. Why does anybody care what Pat Robertson and his flock of wackos think? Forget about "marriage", the religious ceremony. Let churches perform "marriages" all they want. Push for the government being limited to granting civil unions, which confer all the legal and financial rights that are within the aegis of the state. In other words, states should not be involved in "marriage" at all, only the recognition of legal/financial status.

[many a good man]

5. Actually, "marriage" is the legal act

The religious ceremony is "holy matrimony" or simply "wedding." The term civil union was dreamed up to distinguish from people's incorrect connotation that marriage is religious.

Your point is spot on, though.

[MindMatter]

7. I'm suggesting that the term "marriage"

be ceded to the churches to do with as they wish. We should petition our government to not be involved in "marriage" per se, but to simply lay out the legal and financial rights/privileges/obligations that citizens have in the secular part of our lives. In other words, the government should ONLY be involved in sanctioning civil unions, regardless of the gender of the parties involved. The churches can do marriages if they like, and are free to discriminate just as much as the spirit move them to. Government should never have been involved in marriage as a religious institution in the first place.