Separation of Church & State

[HawaiianBurger]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN

My inquiry concerns the separation of church and state with regard to marriage law. Why, might I ask, is marriage not a SOCAS violation? To augment this, politicians will, when confronted with the question of the legalization of homosexual marriage, argue that marriage is defined within the religion. This may be true, and that is good. However, why will the state then embrace this (give preference to the church) and develop law governing such contracts if they really do feel government has no place in religion?

 

[justalayman]

there are two marriages in most marriages;

the religious marriage

the legal marriage

Neither one controls the other. The laws concerning the legal marriage are under the control of the government. The rules controlling the religious aspect are under the control of the involved church.

a church can bless any marriage they want be it a hetero couple, homo couple, or marriage with an animal. While that couple is married in the eyes of the church, it has no legal meaning.

the laws controlling marriage are based on community standards. If/when our society becomes a secular majority, you might find marriages of all flavors allowed.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

Hmm. It still seems odd, however, that the answer we receive from officials on the reason why the legal definition cannot be changed is grounded in religion (marriage should be defined by religion). Or do politicians really just not care at this point that their argument is clear violation of SOCAS because the majority agrees with them?

 

[mistoffolees]

there are two marriages in most marriages;

the religious marriage

the legal marriage

Neither one controls the other. The laws concerning the legal marriage are under the control of the government. The rules controlling the religious aspect are under the control of the involved church.

a church can bless any marriage they want be it a hetero couple, homo couple, or marriage with an animal. While that couple is married in the eyes of the church, it has no legal meaning.

the laws controlling marriage are based on community standards. If/when our society becomes a secular majority, you might find marriages of all flavors allowed.

The classic example is the Catholic church and its unwillingness to accept divorce. If a Catholic couple gets a legal divorce, they are still married in the eyes of the Church. They need to get an annulment - when it would certainly not be possible to get a legal annulment in most cases. OT, but I've never figured out why it's more morally acceptable to say that a marriage never existed when the couple was living together for 25 years, had 5 kids, sex every night than to say "they used to be married, but they're not any more".

Hmm. It still seems odd, however, that the answer we receive from officials on the reason why the legal definition cannot be changed is grounded in religion (marriage should be defined by religion). Or do politicians really just not care at this point that their argument is clear violation of SOCAS because the majority agrees with them?

When have politicians EVER taken reasonable stands on anything?

 

[antrc170]

Hmm. It still seems odd, however, that the answer we receive from officials on the reason why the legal definition cannot be changed is grounded in religion (marriage should be defined by religion). Or do politicians really just not care at this point that their argument is clear violation of SOCAS because the majority agrees with them?

The answer is yes the politicians care more about the majority of voters than the legal definition. As for seperation of church and state, it doesn't exist. The government is forbidden from forming, or institutionalizing a religion. However, there is nothing that forbids the government from making decisions based on religious values or norms.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

We haven't matured too much since Monkey-Scopes, have we...

 

[tranquility]

You are aware the Bible commands we don't murder. Is is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state to make murder illegal?

Look to the first amendment which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". Hmm...there must be something more.

Modernly the way to determine if a law violated the establishment clause is the Lemon test. Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971)

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

 

[justalayman]

E=mistoffolees;2653121]The classic example is the Catholic church and its unwillingness to accept divorce. If a Catholic couple gets a legal divorce, they are still married in the eyes of the Church. They need to get an annulment - when it would certainly not be possible to get a legal annulment in most cases. OT, but I've never figured out why it's more morally acceptable to say that a marriage never existed when the couple was living together for 25 years, had 5 kids, sex every night than to say "they used to be married, but they're not any more".

because marriage is a sacrament of the Church and cannot simply be "undone" while living together without the marriage is merely a sin.

It isn't morally acceptable to live together without marriage. It is forgivable though.

 

[nextwife]

You are aware the Bible commands we don't murder. Is is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state to make murder illegal?

Look to the first amendment which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". Hmm...there must be something more.

Modernly the way to determine if a law violated the establishment clause is the Lemon test. Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971)

Murder is hurtful and interferes with another persons right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I have yet to see how allowing my neighbor the right to enter into a legally committed relationship, to marry and make a life with the person they love if these two people happen to be homosexual, in any way interferes with MY right as a heterosexual to do the same! How does the gay couple in the house down the block getting to formalize their marriage STOP heterosexual couples from marrying? How does that do anything NEGATIVE to my marriage?

It seems to me that all those carrying on about the "preservation of marriage" should be talking to all the heterosexual couples reproducing willy nilly, and living together without benefit of marriage. THEY certainly are not preserving marriage nor recognizing it's "sanctity" And they have the legal ability to marry! It appears that a huge percentage of heterosexuals could give a darn about the sanctity of marriage, becaese, if they really did, they wouldn't be so cavalier about procreating and cohabitating without committed relationships.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

You are aware the Bible commands we don't murder. Is is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state to make murder illegal?

The question now becomes the motive. Nearly everyone, if not absolutely all people, share the common interest of surviving. Therefore if the law is questioned, it's not necessary to cite scripture for it's purpose - everyone (perhaps minus a few) understands why they would like to stay alive at the moment.

However we are directed to scripture when the morality of marriage law is called into question. The government would like to follow religion's guidelines for its definition, and create laws separate from those for non married couples. They then argue they have no place in redefining marriage, even though they are okay with carrying out the wishes of the religion though law. Kind of a catch-22 - "I made this, and I can change it, but I'm not gonna, because I don't wanna".

 

[HawaiianBurger]

Murder is hurtful and interferes with another persons right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Good point. This is better a better reason than mine above. (No negative consequences)

 

[justalayman]

Murder is hurtful and interferes with another persons right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
.

but so can marriage

 

[RRevak]

Murder is hurtful and interferes with another persons right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I have yet to see how allowing my neighbor the right to enter into a legally committed relationship, to marry and make a life with the person they love if these two people happen to be homosexual, in any way interferes with MY right as a heterosexual to do the same! How does the gay couple in the house down the block getting to formalize their marriage STOP heterosexual couples from marrying? How does that do anything NEGATIVE to my marriage?

It seems to me that all those carrying on about the "preservation of marriage" should be talking to all the heterosexual couples reproducing willy nilly, and living together without benefit of marriage. THEY certainly are not preserving marriage nor recognizing it's "sanctity" And they have the legal ability to marry! It appears that a huge percentage of heterosexuals could give a darn about the sanctity of marriage, becaese, if they really did, they wouldn't be so cavalier about procreating and cohabitating without committed relationships.

What about the people who divorce after a year or so because they "fell out of love" or had "differences" and then remarry only to do it all over again the next time? How much "preservation of marriage" is going on there? I know of many MANY couples who's "living together without benefit of marriage" relationships have far far outlasted those benefit of marriage ones.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

but so can marriage

and child-bearing...

can we make that illegal too?

 

[RRevak]

and child-bearing...

can we make that illegal too?

ABSOLUTELY!!! My pursuit of happiness to type on this forum is being infringed upon as we speak by my 7yr old as she is nagging me about going to the barn!!