![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because I keep saying that I need to start saving my stock rants. So this shall be Stock Rant #1. I should pull out the 'lifestyle' one too and post that for safekeeping.
Originally posted at http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1160574569.shtml:
Here in Massachusetts, marriage was established in the laws of the Commonwealth as a civil institution by those notorious liberal atheists, the Puritans.
I am extremely devout in a religion that does not have marriage as a sacrament in the first place; I am still married, and I reject absolutely the notion that majority religions own the concept.
If the religious-sacrament-inclined want a super-special word for their sacrament, they have it: matrimony. "Marriage" has never been the exclusive property of religion in general or a specific religion. It's always been a human concept; it belongs to humans.
In the abstract, I would love to see marriage return to "Or even simply by people themselves", according to what they and their families think is necessary, including religious practice for those so inclined. In practical terms, however, I fear that such a system would lead to even more "You aren't really married, I am not going to treat your partnership as legitimate" than already exists, and completely undermine both the concept of marriage and respectful society. Because of this, I accept the concept of governmental intrusion into marriage as the least of evils, when weighed against either disrespect for marriage itself and the attempts to limit it to only a few faith traditions.
(And in response to 'you can't legislate respect':)
Enh; I can see that argument, though I don't entirely agree with it.
I'm married: I have certain responsibilities to my spouse that are enforced, if one goes back far enough, with law. Certain things (such as distribution of property in the case of my intestate death) are also covered. That is within the legitimate concern of the government.
In a more uniform society, the standards for a marriage are known and broadly shared. If someone claims a marriage, it is known what that entails, what is agreed to, and what the responsibilities are. In a pluralistic society, that isn't the case, and that's why it gets argued about.
The thing matters -- if it didn't, there wouldn't be the fighting. Civil marriage is in theory a lowest-common-denominator structure, to which people can add things like sacramental marriage if they are so inclined. What a socially unified society used to provide with shared ethos can only be managed in a pluralistic one with shared legal documents.
Originally posted at http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1160574569.shtml:
Here in Massachusetts, marriage was established in the laws of the Commonwealth as a civil institution by those notorious liberal atheists, the Puritans.
I am extremely devout in a religion that does not have marriage as a sacrament in the first place; I am still married, and I reject absolutely the notion that majority religions own the concept.
If the religious-sacrament-inclined want a super-special word for their sacrament, they have it: matrimony. "Marriage" has never been the exclusive property of religion in general or a specific religion. It's always been a human concept; it belongs to humans.
In the abstract, I would love to see marriage return to "Or even simply by people themselves", according to what they and their families think is necessary, including religious practice for those so inclined. In practical terms, however, I fear that such a system would lead to even more "You aren't really married, I am not going to treat your partnership as legitimate" than already exists, and completely undermine both the concept of marriage and respectful society. Because of this, I accept the concept of governmental intrusion into marriage as the least of evils, when weighed against either disrespect for marriage itself and the attempts to limit it to only a few faith traditions.
(And in response to 'you can't legislate respect':)
Enh; I can see that argument, though I don't entirely agree with it.
I'm married: I have certain responsibilities to my spouse that are enforced, if one goes back far enough, with law. Certain things (such as distribution of property in the case of my intestate death) are also covered. That is within the legitimate concern of the government.
In a more uniform society, the standards for a marriage are known and broadly shared. If someone claims a marriage, it is known what that entails, what is agreed to, and what the responsibilities are. In a pluralistic society, that isn't the case, and that's why it gets argued about.
The thing matters -- if it didn't, there wouldn't be the fighting. Civil marriage is in theory a lowest-common-denominator structure, to which people can add things like sacramental marriage if they are so inclined. What a socially unified society used to provide with shared ethos can only be managed in a pluralistic one with shared legal documents.
Tags: