Is marriage for religious purposes only?

Rights in property.

Power of ritual.

Legal benefits.

It's fun. :-)

- signed, agnostic who married an agnostic in a non-religious ceremony.

I have looked into it, some, but haven't found a solid answer. Does anyone know whether marriage began as a religious contract or as a legal agreement with the state?

I would assume marriage began for exchange of property and wealth. Now, because it's "tradition". And because we still exchange property and wealth. And because we like it.

Could be wrong here. Just guessing.

I gotta chime in on the legal issues as well.

There is no REAL reason to get married.
There is nothing that happens when you are married that doesnt happen in every day life except a legal claim to someones property, name, and money.

http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

Interesting article - related to your question.

Hey, thanks for the link, baddog.

In response to your question I have to agree with sozobe. . . Power of ritual.

Re: Is marriage for religious purposes only?


LOL! Good Question, why do you all still get married? Why do you still wear clothes in public? Why do you still have toilets for relieving yourselves? Why do you still bathe? Why do you still jail "criminals?" Why do you still punish murderers? Why do you still keep any commitments? Why do you still have rules and guidelines?

Why not do as the dogs and other animals? Why not just go from animal to animal? Why not parade in the nude and hop on each other all day long? Why not urinate at hydrates and trees? Why not let everyone do what they feel is riiiiiiiiiiiiight? Why not get rid of all rules and guidelines? What are you all still doing with them?

Mindonfire, I see your point because a month or so ago I might have actually agreed with you to a certain extent. However, beside the legalities involved in being married there really is no point except the ritual side of it. But really even that doesn't equal up to two cents if the people making the vows have no intentions on following through. So... again... no point. :wink:

I've been with my girlfriend for 8 years now. We've lived together for 7 years, we've bought 2 different houses, and we've moved across country together. We are completly happy not being married and if it wasn't for people who couldn't mind their own business the topic would never come up. We are faithful and commited to each other and we love each other very much.

I see no point in getting married. We've covered all the legal bases already with living wills and such. We are probably about a year away from trying to have our first child (also out of wedlock).

Marriage is a religious ritual that has no bearing or influence on my life today. Religion can bite my ass.

Every culture has its rites of passage. For the baby, it is his birthday, which is the only milestone that he has already accomplished. It is celebrated by a party. Then religion sets in. Confirmation, first communion, bar-mitzvah etc. mark the movement of a person from one stage of life to another.

Various levels of graduation from school is another rite of passage. So are sweet 16 parties, and debutante balls, for some. Marriage, the legal joining of two people, is another rite, fueled with both religious and legal tradition.

Society has developed these rites, which go throughout life, until the final rite, the funeral and/or memorial service for a person who has made his human journey, and is now deceased. It seems that people have a need to place "markers", separating one phase of life from another. These traditions, although the specifics are different from one culture to another, are ubiquitous in humankind.

Are these rituals passe, as many people believe, especially the rite of marriage? I think that it is for each individual to decide for him/herself.[/b]

Completely agree.

Myself, the idea of marriage still appeals to me. Not for religious purposes, or legal, either.

It appeals to me because it is a formal declaration of intent, in front of friends family community.

With so few of such formal markers in my own life - being raised somewhat between 2 cultures, and not identifying strongly with either of them, more of a mish mash - I crave formality and clarity.

Perhaps this is true of many others, growing in multi-ethic and multi-cultural worlds, where oftentimes the 'markers' are unclear or missing altogether from one's life.
(one example I think of is the passage to adulthood. )

Flushd- I think that you have hit on an important point. Personally, I believe that "marriage" should be in the purview of religion. As far as the state is concerned, a civil union IMO, could be the contract that would bind a couple legally as far as the state is concerned, endowing the pair with legal benefits.

I do think though, some sort of a celebration is in order, so that the two people may be introduced to the community as a couple. I think that the trend of individualizing what are now marriage ceremonies is a step in the right direction. Many couples have eschewed the traditional "'till death do us part", in favor of a more personal declaration. [/b]

Hmm. Maybe I am confused.

Are you saying that 'marriage' means there is religion involved? Being a bit technical with the wording, but you made me think.

Would the wording then change, to 'union' to denote a joining of two people in a non-religious (justice of peace, civil union) commitment?

Ahh, this is where it gets complicated for me. When I think marriage, I think '2 people, standing before the community, with religious figure or other important figure of the community, making a commitment to a life together'.

I hope you don't mind me asking, Phoenix, I'm just curious, was your marriage one without the religious connotations - or was that option for a civil union even available to you?

flushd- You may certainly be confused, because what I am proposing is an idea of mine. It all came about when the issue of gay marriage came up on A2K. I began to think about it, and realized that many people were stuck on the word, "marriage". There were many people who thought that gays should have "civil unions", but did not want to disturb the concept of a marriage being between a man and a woman.

I thought about it and then realized that what the government was offering to a couple was a contract, a legal union of two people. This contract conferred certain governmental rights to the couple. One got a license to join together as a couple from the state. The union was then finalized by a ceremony, either by the clergy, or a judge or justice of the peace.

I thought to myself that it would be practical if the government provided the contract that would entitle a couple to their legal rights as a couple. They then , if they wished, could have their marriage solemnized by the clergy. So, in other words, every couple who applied, would be granted a civil union, and those who wanted to get "married" would do so, but marriage and civil union would be two separate issues, one personal, the other official.

As for me, I have been married twice. The first time (I was only 19) I had a wedding with a religious ceremony. I was not particularly religious at the time, but it was "the thing to do", and it made my parents happy. It lasted 4 1/2 years.

My second marriage was conducted by a judge, with just the immediate family present. I will celebrate my 40th anniversary next year. [/b]

Thanks for the clarification, Phoenix. I understand your idea now. It makes a lot of sense.

I apologize: being eager to get my own thoughts across, I didn't absorb what you said properly.

Yes, I remember hearing you had been married twice. I was thinking of your second marriage. To tell the truth, I don't know at what period of time your state allowed civil unions or if it has been available your entire lifetime?
yeah, I'm ignorant about a lot beyond my own country.

Congrats on year 39, btw. That makes me smile.

A few years back this list was printed in my voters pamphlet. I thought that it was very enlighting:

1. No automatic right to make health care decisions for partner

2. No automatic right to visit partner in the hospital

3. No right to sue for wrongful death if partner negligently killed

4. No right to consent or refuse consent to an autopsy of partner's body

5. No vested right to be buried in cemetery plot with partner

6. No automatic right to inherit cemetery plot

7. No automatic right to make arrangements for funeral or dispose of deceased partner's body

8. No right to donate partner's body or organs after death

9. No automatic right to inherit deceased partner's estate

10. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when caring only for partner's children

11. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when caring only for partner's children

12. A prior will is not automatically revoked when the relationship ends

13. No right to be notified in a public notice before partner's will is destroyed by an attorney

14. No preference to be appointed personal representative of deceased partner's estate

15. No right to continue to live in the deceased partner's home for one year after partner's death

16. No automatic right to notice in matters involving deceased partner's estate

17. No right to support from deceased partner's estate

18. No right to demand one-quarter share of partner's estate if will leaves less than that

19. No automatic right to notice that a conservatorship or guardianship is being filed against partner unless currently living together

20. May not get highest preference by court to be appointed as guardian or conservator for incapacitated partner



21 No right to obtain life insurance on partner

22 No uninsured motorist insurance coverage for partner

23 No right to spousal cash surrender valuation of term life insurance on partner

24 No right to coverage under deceased partner's group health insurance plan.

25 No protection for partner's home in bankruptcy

26 Private conversations with partner are not protected in court

27 Conversations with a marriage counselor are not protected in court

28 No automatic education on fetal alcohol syndrome

29 No court-ordered counseling upon divorce

30 No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims' compensation fund if partner is a victim of international terrorism

31 Partner not responsible for family expenses

32 No automatic paternity for children

33 Must testify against partner in a court case

34 Must surrender home to satisfy lien for partner's unpaid medical treatment in long-term care facility

35 No right to sue long-term care facility that fails to discharge lien in a timely manner once overdue charges for partner are paid

36 No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment to partner without disqualification

37 No right to avoid court appointment of a property manager during foreclosure of partner's home

38 No right to maintain a dwelling on EFU (exclusive farm use) property even if occupied by farm operator's partner

39 No right to maintain a dwelling in a farm or forest zone even if lawfully created or acquired by the owner's partner

40 No right as a partner to a landowner to obtain a "landowner preference tag" for hunting from the Fish & Wildlife Commission

41 No right to private visits in long-term care facility

42 No right to receive personal effects from deceased partner's body

43 No access to partner's death record

44 No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real property

45 No right to loss of support payments from the state crime victims' compensation fund if partner killed in a crime

46 No right to family therapy from state crime victims' compensation fund in case of child sexual abuse

47 No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims' compensation fund if partner is a victim of international terrorism

48 No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence based on partner's ownership

49 No court-ordered life insurance upon divorce

50 No right to deduct partner's medical expenses on income tax return

51 No right to receive deceased partner's wages

52 No right to deceased partner's wage claim against non-paying employer

53 No right to work on partner's farm for less than minimum wage

54 No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed on the job

55 No right to sue for partner's death that was a result of an unsafe workplace

56 No right to workers' compensation benefits if partner disabled or killed on the job

57 No right to opt out of workers' compensation insurance as a family business

58 No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner on the job

59 No right to continue workers' compensation benefits until remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job

60 No right to examine or get copy of autopsy report of deceased partner



61. No right to receive personal effects from deceased partner's body

62. No access to partner's death record

63. No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real property

64. No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment to partner without disqualification

65. No right to loss of support payments from the state crime victims' compensation fund if partner killed in a crime

66. No right to family therapy from state crime victims' compensation fund in case of child sexual abuse

67. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for partner

68. No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence based on partner's ownership

69. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for partner

70. No right to deduct partner's medical expenses on income tax return

71. No right to receive deceased partner's wages

72. No right to deceased partner's wage claim against non-paying employer

73. No right to work on partner's farm for less than minimum wage

74. No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed on the job

75. No right to sue for partner's death that was a result of an unsafe workplace

76. No right to workers' compensation benefits if partner disabled or killed on the job

77. No right to opt out of workers' compensation insurance as a family business

78. No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner on the job

79. No right to continue workers' compensation benefits until remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job

80. A prior will is not automatically revoked when entering a new relationship


81. No automatic right to special retirement benefit after death of partner who was a police officer or a firefighter

82. No right as unmarried couple with children to be treated as married for workers' compensation rights and benefits

83. No automatic right to partner's group insurance provided by public retirement system.

84. No right to opt out of unemployment insurance as a family business

85. No right to receive deceased partner's unemployment benefits

86. Required to comply with farm labor contractor regulations when working only with partner

87. Subjected to employment discrimination laws when hiring partner in family business

88. Employer can refuse to hire or discharge employee because it employs or has employed partner

89. No protection through emergency court orders in case of divorce

90. No tax exemption for dividing property upon divorce

91. No dividing retirement plans upon divorce

92. No automatic right to receive partner's judicial retirement pension

93. No automatic right to make retirement selection from deceased partner's public employee retirement benefit

94. No automatic right to partner's pre-Medicare insurance benefit provided by public retirement system

95. No automatic right to partner's Medicare supplemental insurance paid for by public retirement system

96. No automatic right to approve partner's public employee retirement choices

97. No automatic right to special pre-retirement public employee retirement benefit after death of partner who was a judge

98. No right for partner of disabled or killed public safety officer to Public Safety Memorial Fund benefits

99. No automatic right to receive partner's public employment benefits

100. No right to retired partner's health insurance offered by local government employers

flushd- What we have here in the US, is marriage. The first step in the process is to get a marriage license. Then, in most states, but I don't think all, there is a waiting period, that is usually only a few days. After the waiting period, the "deal" (I don't know what the hell to call it) is completed, either by the clergy, or certain persons who are permitted to marry people, such as judges, justices of the peace, etc.

Even though a couple is legally joined by a civil officer, it is still, legally,a "marriage". I do believe that some states have passed civil unions for gays, but I don't know too much about the intricacies of that.

boomer- Great information. I think that unmarried couples do not realize the potential difficulties that they might have to go through just because they did not get married. A lot of the difficulties of being unmarried could be overcome through a contract, wills, etc., but if two people are going to go through the bother anyway, I don't see why they just don't get married.
No matter what an unmarried couple does contractually, they are not entitled to any marital tax or social security benefits that are given to a spouse.

flushd- As you will see, the laws concerning marriage vary from state to state. As far as I know, people were always able to be married by a civil authority. What about in Canada?
[/b]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

I don't think my relationship would have surived as long it has if we hadn't been married....if we hadn't formally promised each other ( in front of everyone we knew and loved ) that we would stick by each other, in good times and bad.