I want the California Legislature to sponsor a proposition to rewrite the California Constitution and replace the word marriage with Civil Unions. In a preamble, it can say that the state is giving the word marriage to the various churches and religions and they can use it as they wish. It is not the role of the state to choose sides in religious disputes, which is exactly what the struggle for the word marriage is. My church says marriage is obligatory between committed couples, even same sex ones. The Mormon cult believes only a man and an indeterminate number of women can be "Married." The state needs to get itself out of the enforcement of religious disputes.
It is my understanding that some churches have already stopped performing the civil ceremonies commonly referred to as marriages. For the purpose of the state contract, couples are sent to the civil authorities to sign the appropriate state-mandated contracts, and return to the church for a religious celebration of their union. This is an humble and righteous response to civil law that discriminates against same-sex couples. The church should not partner with the state in a system that denies benefits to a class of citizens who are members of the human family.
And since churches can make their own rules about marriage, Mormon cultists could take as many wives as they desire, but would be limited to only one civil partner. I believe that is exactly what many of them do now.
Agreed! In Holland it's done this way. The church doesn't recognize the civil ceremony, the state doesn't recognize the church one. The churches shouldn't be allowed to dictate the law.
Posted by: brenda | November 12, 2008 at 04:47 PM
You work for the California judicial system. By the California Laws of Evidence (and every other state I believe), a marriage recorded in a family bible will hold up in court as well as a marriage license.
From the California Laws of Evidence:
You might also be interested in these articles (typepad totally screws up links these days but I'll try anyway):
Taking Marriage Private: http://nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License:
http://mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm
Posted by: Kathy | November 13, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Interesting articles. I wouldn't try to go into probate court with a Bible these days. It's like taking a knife to a gun fight. While the validity of marriage may be assumed by a court, it is rebuttable. Also, California no longer recognizes common law marriages.
Posted by: Houston | November 13, 2008 at 03:23 PM
As usual, sugah, you have an uncommon brand of common sense. I love this idea. It eliminates the issue entirely, has historical precedent, and observes the church and state delineation perfectly.
Because it is so workable and logical, no legistlature will ever enact it. But we can dream ...
Posted by: fragile industries | November 14, 2008 at 09:56 AM