A Simple Solution To Marriage

[JCady]

There is a very simple, easy, and entirely democratic solution to the conflict between equal marriage rights for all and freedom of religion for bigots: permanently sever the link between the religious institution of marriage and the secular benefits currently attached to it. Let the religious have their ceremonies in private and include or exclude anyone they please. The government should not honor, recognize, or provide any special benefits to anyone's religious ceremonies. If the religious want secular benefits, they can do the same thing everyone else does: go to a county clerk's office and file the paperwork for a legal marriage. They should not get a "free" legal marriage attached to their religious ceremony when no one else gets that perk.

I don't see how this is a solution, since this is the status quo. Religious marriage ceremonies carry no more weight in law than mere cohabitation (which is considered "common-law marriage"); legal marriage is determined by getting the legal marriage license and signing the legal marriage contract.

The current status in the United States is that you are issued a marriage license by the government, but you're not actually married until you have a wedding ceremony and the person who conducted the ceremony (who must be an ordained minister, a judge, or a ship captain at sea) files a marriage certificate for you. Thus, the role of the wedding ceremony is not ceremonial. My proposal is that they issue the marriage certificate up front instead of the marriage license (which is merely permission to hold a wedding ceremony).

[Darth Wong]

Why would that change anything? If a judge can marry you, then it's obviously not a religious event as it stands right now. The fact that people refuse to accept that won't change if you make this alteration to the law.

[Vendetta]

The current status in the United States is that you are issued a marriage license by the government, but you're not actually married until you have a wedding ceremony and the person who conducted the ceremony (who must be an ordained minister, a judge, or a ship captain at sea) files a marriage certificate for you. Thus, the role of the wedding ceremony is not ceremonial. My proposal is that they issue the marriage certificate up front instead of the marriage license (which is merely permission to hold a wedding ceremony).

No, the role of the wedding "ceremony" is legal, to ensure that the marriage contract, under which the government has obligations, is witnessed by the government in the role of one of their appointed agents, in the case of the US, that means a judge. (In the UK it's handled by the registry office).

That means, if you want to have your ceremony in a place of personal significance, you have to arrange for those appointed agents to turn up for it.

[Beowulf]

Couples themselves may solemnize their own marriage (C.R.S. 14-2-109). Marriages can also be solemnized by judges, retired judges, magistrates, public officials authorized to perform marriages, or in accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by a religious denomination or Indian Tribe or Nation. Not anyone can solemnize a marriage. Although the couple may solemnize their own marriage, that does not mean a friend or relative, who is not otherwise authorized to perform marriages, can also solemnize their marriage. Clergy from out-of-state need not be registered in Colorado.

Not all states require an ordained minister or judge to marry someone. If the state permits a subset of couples to self-solemnize (due to their religion not having ordained ministers, et al (Quaker and Baha'i are two religions that don't)), said state is required under the Establishment Clause to allow it for all couples. Which is why my marriage certificate says 8 January, and my wedding took place in July (in a completely different state). Colorado also has not made a statue against common law marriage. In at least one state in the nation, the wedding ceremony is entirely ceremonial. There's probably others out there.

Of course, Colorado is also home of Focus on the Family, and other religious wackos, who managed to get a state constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yeah, I never got the reason why Churches shoudl even administer marriage.

I seem to recall that one reason churches became so heavily involved was that at one point it was the nobility that was being heavy handed about who could marry who, and the Church was more liberal on the matter.

The current status in the United States is that you are issued a marriage license by the government, but you're not actually married until you have a wedding ceremony and the person who conducted the ceremony (who must be an ordained minister, a judge, or a ship captain at sea)

Nitpick; Captains can't actually marry people ( barring a few recent exceptions ); that's a myth. Although it's widely enough believed that both the US and Russian navies felt it necessary to specifically forbid it in their regulations, lest some captain think he's authorized. A link to a story on the subject I googled up.