Marriage or Civil Partnership

[darkeyes]

As you may know the luffly Kate an I got hitched a few weeks ago.. marriage we call it.. legally its not but in reality it is.. Civil Partnership its called cos we are a same sex couple.. but marriage in reality is what it is.. in the UK str8 couples cannot enter into a Civil Union or partnership.. they can in France, an luffin the place we seriously considered doin it there, but logistics. expense and lots of other things came into play so we did it here.

Now we believe in equality of opportunity do we not irrespective of gender.. we argue for marriage for same sex couples.. therefore should not str8 couples be allowed to enter into Civil Unions also? They can in France, and do in some numbers.. nothing compared to the numbers who enter into marriage but something like 1 in 20 civil unions involve heterosexual couples and the numbers are increasing..

I havent thought deeply about this and am unsure of whether str8 couples being allowed to enter civil unions is a good or bad thing.. as long as its on the statute book then do we have the right to discriminate against them by denying them the right to a civil ceremony which is not legally "marriage", even if to all intents and purposes that is exactly what it is.. would by so allowing them be a step back and possibly hinder the fight to have same sex couples given the right to marry... an interesting lil conundrum which so far the jury is out vis a vis France..

Now we have a case in the UK of a str8 couple who are prepared to challenge legislation which denies them the right to a civil partnership because they do not wish to enter into a marriage... interesting is it not? Gonna havta get me thinkin cap on an ponder this 1 a lil more!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

[DuckiesDarling]

Duck and I will enter into a civil partnership not because he's bisexual but because to us it's more than the religious experience. A civil partnership will enable us to also do the handbinding as we want. In NZ, the civil union is identical to marriage without the religious aspects. Not sure how it is in the UK but from that article it appears that the couple would not consider themselves legally joined and in need of a divorce to separate as they would a "marriage"

Civil Union was a way to get around the religious idiots who claimed that only a man and a woman may marry. Here in the states, people can be "married" by a Justice of the Peace, what most would term a civil union elsewhere.

The benefits are exactly the same and tax breaks are the same and it's only when people start screaming we want everything equal even when it is, just not to their terms.

[darkeyes]

Anyone who thinks they can enter a civil union and walk away without legal ramifications are daft.. there is a form of divorce, and about the only legal right deprived civil partners is the legal right to call it a marriage.. we do but in law we are not married.. in reality in law, and in our own minds we are exactly that.. and many other same sex legally joined partners think and feel the same..

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/docs/Divorce_Dissolution_Guidance_leaflet_2.pdf

http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/

[MarieDelta]

I dont care what you call it as long as it grants the same rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States) as a Heterosexual couple.

Problem is in so many places it doesnt, and cant under the law.

And then there are situations like this (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100818-understanding-transgender-marriage-in-texas-law) or this (http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/news/national-news/847-spurned-by-nevada-transgender-woman-to-wed-in-calif.html)
or this (http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009/05/same-sex-partner-excluded-from-visitation-rights/).

So yeah :/

[darkeyes]

I dont care what you call it as long as it grants the same rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States) as a Heterosexual couple.

Problem is in so many places it doesnt, and cant under the law.

And then there are situations like this (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100818-understanding-transgender-marriage-in-texas-law) or this (http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/news/national-news/847-spurned-by-nevada-transgender-woman-to-wed-in-calif.html)
or this (http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009/05/same-sex-partner-excluded-from-visitation-rights/).

So yeah :/

No Marie me luffly.. sadly we live in a very imperfect world... but if and when we get same sex marriage laws sorted, then such things as you outline will become things of the past.. what you demonstrate, is that there remain areas where even with civil union legislation, in certain countries, my own for instance, does not yet recognise the fully the rights and status of the transgendered.. and where marriage and civil unions do co-exist.. the rights of the transgendered to be recognised for what they are remains diminished and their rights to marriage also much reduced..

[IanBorthwick]

I care what they call it, and I want it to be called MARRIAGE. After the Jim Crow laws, I know the "Separate But Equal" game is nothing of the kind. So long as they have the ability to do that they can enforce different kinds of rules on each side and cut it down to nothing....no, it's time we made them make it marriage.

[darkeyes]

I care what they call it, and I want it to be called MARRIAGE. After the Jim Crow laws, I know the "Separate But Equal" game is nothing of the kind. So long as they have the ability to do that they can enforce different kinds of rules on each side and cut it down to nothing....no, it's time we made them make it marriage.

.. patience, luffly 1.. they will..:)

[Falke]

I would prefer a civil union for EVERYTHING with the same rights that marriage has now. Let the religions sort out what marriages each one and it's sub-sects want.

[innaminka]

C**** and I have known each other in the Biblical sense for just over a year now - so we're still very much in the lust phase of our relationship.
The thought of some form of union has not really entered our minds.
She still has 1 to finish school - my littlest cherub finishes this year, so there hasn't even been a serious discussion about co-habitation.

But on a theoretical level, if we were to get to that level of commitment, I think we would both want some form of legal "thingymabob."

That GLT people are forbidden by law to have some form of equitable position re marriage is so Dickensian. - But we have Queensland and West Aust: sort of the redneck/bible belt part of OZ.

Obviously there will never be a church service involving GLT marriage, but surely in this day and age, something has got happen to give us (I can say "us" now - I'm one!!!) legal equality.

[tenni]

Countries that have same sex marrriage are: Canada, Sweden, Iceland, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, and Argentina. I know that same sex marriage in Canada is intended to be equal in all aspects as opposite sex and that includes divorce.

Add to this the "common law marriage" and it can get interesting. Many rights of marriage apply to common law marriage in Canada. Each province determines the length of time of the union before common law marriage comes into effect. The gender of the people in commmon law marriage is not a factor in Canada.

The province of Saskatchewan does allow married persons to have at the same time multiple spouses when one conjugal union is a civil marriage and the other conjugal union is a common law marriage (at the same time). Although Saskatchewan's Marriage Act does not stipulate whether a person must have no existing marriage to be eligible to marry, common law marriages may occur even while one or more civil marriages exist amongst the common law couple. In Saskatchewan ,at present, it is not known whether civilly married persons may also civilly marry other persons, however, it is quite probable that since married persons are entitled to create simultaneous common law partners, so would civilly married persons be entitled to have multiple civilly married partners. Poly common law marriages (either mixture of gender) in Saskatchewan seem to be legal but has not been tested in the courts at this time. Think about the possibility for bisexuals.

[Canticle]

Well, as far as I am concerned, all legal joinings between two people, whatever their sexuality, should be civil unions. Call them marriage, if you wish, but I think that there should be a difference between what is called a marriage, in the eyes of God and a legal union.

Too often, a straight couple, who have never, ever attended church, will use the church, so, that they can have a wedding there and wear the meringue and have pretty pictures taken and not even understand what hypocrisy that is.

I was a Christian when I married, but never a church goer, despising organised religion.....but I respected the institutions enough, not to make use of them and be a hypocrite.

So my husband and I has a civil ceremony which took place at a Registry Office and is officiated by the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths. It takes place in a pleasant room with seating for relatives and friends. The couple sit at a desk. with two witnesses. take vows, much the same, as said in a church, but without anything religious. At one time, civil ceremonies only tool place in a Register Office, but now a Registrar will officiate marriages that take place in hotels, country houses and many other places.

My neighbours attended church for a short while before their wedding (and this a a village church, some 900 years old), then did not attend again, until just before they wanted their first child christened. They have three children now and don't attend church at all. To my way of thinking....that is wrong...to use the church.

My children were not christened and very deliberately so. To have done so, their father and I, would have needed to attend an institution we do not agree with. It would have been wrong.

My daughter marries next year and the wedding...or civil union...as I consider it, will take place in a very nice hotel, officiated by a person from the offices of the local Registrar. The hotel it wil have been decorated to her liking, her father, wearing a penguin suit, will walk her down ''the aisle,'' she will have four bridesmaids and two flower girls (one my grandaughter), her elder brother will be the photographer and her younger older brother, will be there with her future sister in law.

She will wear the wedding dress, which she has already purchased, she will look beautiful and the ceremony will be just as meaningful as a church wedding, if not more so and just like Fran and Kate did, she and her fiancee, will have made a commitment to one another, in front of friends and family.

It's the commitment which is all important and it has to be remembered that...at least. in the UK, a church has to be licensed to be able to perform marriages. Many people who are divorced, then re-marry, will then go on to have a church blessing. Separating the spiritual from the temporal...is the way I feel marriage/civil union, should be conducted.

Of course...then there are the many other religions to consider and their practises. Also people with no belief system, who might still like some kind of ceremony, to mark the day. There is a lot to be considered.

What really needs to be remembered, is that a marriage, is far more than a piece of paper and a legal joining. Maybe the legal joining should be made more difficult to obtain, but the ending of it far more easy.

[Gay2Bi]

I would prefer a civil union for EVERYTHING with the same rights that marriage has now. Let the religions sort out what marriages each one and it's sub-sects want.

Ditto. Right now, there are too many church-state issues with marriage as it's practiced in the US, i.e. a church can't perform a religious ceremony to marry two people without a license from the state, the state grants rights based on the performance of a religious ritual, etc. If the rights were tied to a civil union, those 1st Amendment problems would go away. So would a lot of the objections to "gay marriage": It's not that people in American don't think that same-sex couples should have rights (most Americans do according to the polls), it's just that the word "marriage" has too many religious connotations and the dominant religions in America are also the ones most opposed to same-sex couples.

The way it would work is that people would enter into a civil union to get the rights, and then they could have their union solemnized by a religious official if they choose. They could also have their union solemnized by a religious official before getting the civil union, but they wouldn't get the rights until after the civil union. Religious officials would be free to choose which unions they recognize and which ones they don't.

[MarieDelta]

In the US all marriages are licensed by the state, while the actual ceremony may -or may not- be performed by a religious authority. Civil partnership, in some states, is supposed to be a way to placate the needs of same sex couples while still maintaining a seperate (but supposedly equal) entity of marriage.

There are groups who opposed even allowing same sex partners to have civil partnerships, and groups that oppose marriage altogether.

[darkeyes]

Peeps get het up about attaching the word "marriage" to a same sex legal union. Dunno why, cos its the reality of what it is. Do religious bodies own the word lock stock and barrel? Why do we have civil marriage? Some gay people dont want the word marriage attached to their right to legal union and thats fine as far as it goes.. but by denying same sex unions the right to be a "marriage", when it so patently is just that, we accept that what we have is a second class. slightly tarnished form of legal union for those of us who are not "normal". Is a civil marriage second rate? No it bloody isnt.. many civil weddings nowadays have as much pomp and circumstance and are as beautiful ceremonies as any religious wedding, and civil unions are fast moving in that direction, my own being a case in point.

Churches and other religious institutions do not own the word marriage... my partner and I are married.. when we exchanged our vows we emphasised that point.. the word marriage was contained within them.. I dont give two hoots what churches, bigots or the law says.. we had a civil wedding, a civil marriage, and it is only a matter of time before that simple fact is accepted in law.

[darkeyes]

This is the vow we exchanged...

I, Frances/Katherine take you Katherine/Frances as my world
To care for and love throughout our lives
To be as one, a marriage of two free spirits
Never to injure or cause pain
Always to share our fears
and our joys
To love and to hold dear
To you Katherine/Frances
I give my heart and my life

It may sound mushy to some, but tell me who isnt mushy on their wedding day.. on the day they get married?

[Canticle]

Fran...beautiful words and sentiments....simple...nothing fussy...but expressing what you both wanted. You made an excellent choice. I know that my daughter and her fiancee, have already been given all the info, on what kind of words they can choose. A friend of my daughter, is also going to read a tasteful and humorous poem, religious pieces not being allowed at a civil ceremony. Hotel is booked...I think we might get the menu before Christmas....roll on September 2011....the poor girl will be exhausted.

And your first post. Too true....you and Kate did marry, when you had your civil ceremony. Reckon a lot of people don't realise, that the legal stuff is just that...legal and a marriage is more than a piece of paper. When the marriage dies and becomes hell for both parties, then all that is left, is a piece of paper and a legal problem, which seems to have so many hurdles, put in the way of a free run.

I am sure that both you and Kate, will live up to the words you chose and be very happy.

[Gay2Bi]

Peeps get het up about attaching the word "marriage" to a same sex legal union. Dunno why, cos its the reality of what it is. Do religious bodies own the word lock stock and barrel? Why do we have civil marriage? Some gay people dont want the word marriage attached to their right to legal union and thats fine as far as it goes.. but by denying same sex unions the right to be a "marriage", when it so patently is just that, we accept that what we have is a second class. slightly tarnished form of legal union for those of us who are not "normal". Is a civil marriage second rate? No it bloody isnt.. many civil weddings nowadays have as much pomp and circumstance and are as beautiful ceremonies as any religious wedding, and civil unions are fast moving in that direction, my own being a case in point.

Churches and other religious institutions do not own the word marriage... my partner and I are married.. when we exchanged our vows we emphasised that point.. the word marriage was contained within them.. I dont give two hoots what churches, bigots or the law says.. we had a civil wedding, a civil marriage, and it is only a matter of time before that simple fact is accepted in law.

I agree that you and Kate and married (and a belated congratulations, btw). I also agree that the word "marriage" isn't owned by any group, religious or otherwise. The problem, at least here in the US, is that the people who are opposed to same-sex unions rail on about the "traditional" (i.e. religious) definition of marriage and how because it's "traditional," it's the only valid form there is (never mind that some religions permit polygamy, polyandry, or, if you're Mosuo, "multi-male, multi-female" arrangements). My argument was that if we (here in the US) removed the word "marriage" from the equation for everyone - same-sex or opposite-sex - their arguments would collapse because they wouldn't be able to use the "traditional marriage" defense since it wouldn't be "marriage" anymore. I never intended to say that same-sex partners should "settle" for second-class status and I apologize if you took it to mean that I think your marriage should be "downgraded" in anyway.

As Marie pointed out - which wasn't clear in my post (blame it on extreme stress and extreme lack of sleep) - here in the US, all marriages are licensed by the state but the ceremony might or might not be performed by a religious official. My comments regarding the 1st amendment issues apply only to those marriages where a religious official officiates; civil marriages don't raise those issues because there is no mixing of church and state (which is the primary argument for the switch to civil marriages).

That's the problem with forums (fora?); you can mean one thing, but it's very easy to say another. :)

[Canticle]

I had a revealing conversation with someone, a few weeks ago. I haunt the charity shops of my local town, looking for brand/virtually new designer clothes and have become quite adept at this. The shops are staffed by volunteers and they tend to move from shop to shop.

One gets to know the staff and I am on first name terms with many of them. One lady, very well spoken, comes from a family with plenty of money, rides, sings in the choir, etc, has watched my daughter (now 21), grow up and go through the pink, goth etc stages.

I told her that my daughter was to be married next year and that it would be a civil ceremony, in a nice hotel and basically what I have said in posts on this thread. She looked horrified. She wondered if the vows would mean the same, as they were not being taken, in the eyes of God. I explained that this would be hypocritical, seeing as we have never attended church and none of my children had been christened. It was the ''even so,'' that had me shaking my head, as I headed for the door.

Obviously, as a devoted church goer, she must think that anyone, who identifies as ''basically Christian,'' should be married in church, or it means nothing at all. I can just imagine what her views upon same sex civil unions must be.

Sighs......but that's her problem.

[elian]

Although the "Married" title would be nice I'll settle for anything that gives me the same legal rights as a 100% straight person.

[darkeyes]

I had a revealing conversation with someone, a few weeks ago. I haunt the charity shops of my local town, looking for brand/virtually new designer clothes and have become quite adept at this. The shops are staffed by volunteers and they tend to move from shop to shop.

One gets to know the staff and I am on first name terms with many of them. One lady, very well spoken, comes from a family with plenty of money, rides, sings in the choir, etc, has watched my daughter (now 21), grow up and go through the pink, goth etc stages.

I told her that my daughter was to be married next year and that it would be a civil ceremony, in a nice hotel and basically what I have said in posts on this thread. She looked horrified. She wondered if the vows would mean the same, as they were not being taken, in the eyes of God. I explained that this would be hypocritical, seeing as we have never attended church and none of my children had been christened. It was the ''even so,'' that had me shaking my head, as I headed for the door.

Obviously, as a devoted church goer, she must think that anyone, who identifies as ''basically Christian,'' should be married in church, or it means nothing at all. I can just imagine what her views upon same sex civil unions must be.

Sighs......but that's her problem.

As I understand it, certainly north of the border, all weddings are conducted under civil law and are therefore civil weddings.. ministers, rabbais, priests and Imams etc act as registrars for the purpose of a religious ceremony, but legally it is not a religious wedding but a civil wedding conducted in a religious institution with religious frippery.. the civil law takes precedence over religious law when it comes to marriage.. in law, without the vicar, imam or whoever having the legal power of registrar, the wedding is not a marriage.. it may be in the eyes of "God" and the church or whoever.. but not of the law...

[xxxbicuriouswoman]

As I understand it, certainly north of the border, all weddings are conducted under civil law and are therefore civil weddings.. ministers, rabbais, priests and Imams etc act as registrars for the purpose of a religious ceremony, but legally it is not a religious wedding but a civil wedding conducted in a religious institution with religious frippery.. the civil law takes precedence over religious law when it comes to marriage.. in law, without the vicar, imam or whoever having the legal power of registrar, the wedding is not a marriage.. it may be in the eyes of "God" and the church or whoever.. but not of the law...

you are quite right darkeyes. It is the law here that all marriages be licensed. Where they are officiated is of no concern to the government, so long as they get their 125 bucks for the license. It is a personal decision if one wishes to be married by clergy or by justice of the peace (what we call em here) And here, thankfully, 2 people can be married no matter what the sex, though unfortunately, alot of reglions do not do this, but again, times are changing and hopefully the churches of the world will follow the change.:2cents:

[tenni]

you are quite right darkeyes. It is the law here that all marriages be licensed. Where they are officiated is of no concern to the government, so long as they get their 125 bucks for the license. It is a personal decision if one wishes to be married by clergy or by justice of the peace (what we call em here) And here, thankfully, 2 people can be married no matter what the sex, though unfortunately, alot of reglions do not do this, but again, times are changing and hopefully the churches of the world will follow the change.:2cents:

I would add to this that unlike what some others have stated, that marriage is deemed a legal matter for the state and not the churches in Canada. Only those who are licensed by the state may perform these marriages. Priest, ministers, rabbis etc. are licensed by the state to perform marriages and not a god. Marriage was never intended to be a religious ceremony. It was established as a legal matter.

You do not need to be a priest, etc. to perform a marriage in Canada, but you must be licensed by the state. Marriage is not a religious event as its main component. Priests, ministers etc. may not dissolve a marriage. Only the state may do that legally. Priests, ministers etc. do have the right to decide who they will marry though. Should the particular minister not wish to marry anyone they will not be fined. However, same sex couples must have avenues to marry in Canada. They may not have a Catholic priest to marry them but someone must agree to marry them...and it is done. People are deemed equal in the eyes of the state and free to marry either gender in Canada. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) as Civil Partnership as all marriage are a civil act. All are equal as deemed by the Canadian Constitution regardless of gender.

[xxxbicuriouswoman]

I would add to this that unlike what some others have stated, that marriage is deemed a legal matter for the state and not the churches in Canada. Only those who are licensed by the state may perform these marriages. Priest, ministers, rabbis etc. are licensed by the state to perform marriages and not a god. Marriage was never intended to be a religious ceremony. It was established as a legal matter.

You do not need to be a priest, etc. to perform a marriage in Canada, but you must be licensed by the state. Marriage is not a religious event as its main component. Priests, ministers etc. may not dissolve a marriage. Only the state may do that legally. Priests, ministers etc. do have the right to decide who they will marry though. Should the particular minister not wish to marry anyone they will not be fined. However, same sex couples must have avenues to marry in Canada. They may not have a Catholic priest to marry them but someone must agree to marry them...and it is done. People are deemed equal in the eyes of the state and free to marry either gender in Canada. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) as Civil Partnership as all marriage are a civil act. All are equal as deemed by the Canadian Constitution regardless of gender.



Makes me very proud to be Canadian!:bigrin:

[Canticle]

As I understand it, certainly north of the border, all weddings are conducted under civil law and are therefore civil weddings.. ministers, rabbais, priests and Imams etc act as registrars for the purpose of a religious ceremony, but legally it is not a religious wedding but a civil wedding conducted in a religious institution with religious frippery.. the civil law takes precedence over religious law when it comes to marriage.. in law, without the vicar, imam or whoever having the legal power of registrar, the wedding is not a marriage.. it may be in the eyes of "God" and the church or whoever.. but not of the law...


Totally correct Fran, the religious institution has no rights to marry two people, without being licensed by the State. I'm not sure about Imams, in England. Got a feeling, that at one time, a civil ceremony, in a registrar's office, had to take place first and the religious ceremony was considered separate. That may have changed.

Ron, the Minister of the Christian Spiritualist Church, which I sort of belong to, is licensed to perform marriages. Ron, a lovely man, in his 70s now and an Ordained Minister of the Christian Spiritualist Church, actually founded the church, himself. It it had not been for him buying the building, and all that goes inside it, there would be no church. It's a trust now and belongs to the congregation who raise money to keep it going. It being far more than a church. Our monthly fish and chip suppers are great fun and people who don't attend the church come, in their droves.

Ron was a miner, before being made redundant from that work, and he ploughed the money back into something rather special, to all who attend the church (even a few atheists).

However, if Ron was not licensed to perform marriages, any ceremony would be a blessing. Much the same way, other churches will bless the union of people re-marrying, after separate divorces. I was chairing the Sunday Service, one evening, when two very lovely people in our congregation, had their rings blessed by Ron, after having been joined as a couple through the civil union ceremony, for same sex couples. Two delightful young women, devoted to one another.

Would my church marry same sex couples, should the laws of the land, put same sex civil union, on a level pegging as straight marriage.....I don't know. My thinking is that Yes, it would, but I strongly believe that the regular congregation would be consulted....but as a person's sexuality, or belief/disbelief system, does not really become that important to the Spiritualist Church, but who the individual is, spiritually, I reckon everyone would see the move, as a good one.

But..then....I think all unions should be civil and the spiritual kept separate from the temporal, and as far as I am concerned, the young ladies at my church, you and Kate, or my daughter and her young man, wil all be joined, in what I consider to something fairly equal...and therefore, a marriage. And there is far more than a piece of paper and a legal joining, to a marriage....far more.

[void()]

My wife is heterosexual and I'm bisexual.

That meant nothing to us getting married. Oh, it mattered in a private sense between us, alone. On larger scale however it didn't matter.

What mattered was respecting ourselves and our families. So, we had a balancing act of a marriage ceremony. It was held in a church where her sister had gotten married.

We opted to use our own vows and a judge. There was no mention of any gods, goddesses or mystic purple invisible unicorns. Ours was in affect a civil service.

Still after a decade of love and devotion we remain married. As far as I know legally it's not caused any problems. Cost me a job once due to an ignorant arse having objections and designs on my wife, which she in no way entertained reciprocation. I tried politely & diplomatically explaining she was in fact my wife despite it not being up to his standards.

Apparently, my explaining got twisted as told to a supervisor. I was let go for intimidating the poor lad or some atrocious claptrap. Figures, what with America being 98% brand X and royalist prudes. Oh well, it was only a dish washing job at any given. Besides, got a little evening of the score with this bloke later on.

Sad that, him arrested for having those drugs.

[MarieDelta]

Interesting items-

When my current partner (Rock) and I get married, and then I have my paperwork changed it will be in effect a same sex marriage, condoned and made legal by the state. Nor will it be a "civil partnership."

I know of other couples who have traveled this route.

Also I know of couples of transwomen who've wed after one of them changed paperwork and then the other completed the legal transition. Again all completely legal within the guidelines of the state.

What I am saying it is completely ridiculous for the state to try to govern against same gender marriage. The state cant even completely define what a "man" is or what a "woman" is.

Consider the bill that was brought before the WA state gov't awhile back that would have required each marriage to be certifiably fertile prior to the states approval. Does that necessarily negate marriage between a heterosexual couple who are infertile? What about a couple that becomes infertile after the marriage?

[darkeyes]

Totally correct Fran, the religious institution has no rights to marry two people, without being licensed by the State. I'm not sure about Imams, in England. Got a feeling, that at one time, a civil ceremony, in a registrar's office, had to take place first and the religious ceremony was considered separate. That may have changed.



I dont know aboout Englland.. but I dont think that was ever case up here that seperate ceremonies should be held, one civil and one religious... the religious ceremony is in law a civil wedding ceremony, as are all weddings in Scotland with the minister, priest or whatever presiding over the union of two people. In law, it is merely one of a number of forms of civl marriage admittedly in part taking account of the religious history and culture of our country. It may have been different in England at one time I cant say, but my grandparents were married in a church in Manchester and no seperate ceremony was held for them..

In France however the actual marriage is not held in a church but in front of a local official licensed for the purpose. Church or other religious cermemonies are but the icing on the cake for believers... without the civil ceremony, no church wedding is recognised as a legal union.

[Canticle]

I dont know aboout Englland.. but I dont think that was ever case up here that seperate ceremonies should be held, one civil and one religious... the religious ceremony is in law a civil wedding ceremony, as are all weddings in Scotland with the minister, priest or whatever presiding over the union of two people. In law, it is merely one of a number of forms of civl marriage admittedly in part taking account of the religious history and culture of our country. It may have been different in England at one time I cant say, but my grandparents were married in a church in Manchester and no seperate ceremony was held for them..

In France however the actual marriage is not held in a church but in front of a local official licensed for the purpose. Church or other religious cermemonies are but the icing on the cake for believers... without the civil ceremony, no church wedding is recognised as a legal union.

You're quite right, people married in churches, be they C of E, RC, the non conformist churches, are all licensed by the state, to carry out marriages. So they take the place of the Registrar in that respect, and then pass the paperwork on to the office of the Registrar. I guess that it would be before 1837, when official records began to be kept, that marriages were recorded, solely in parish records and in the centuries before that, not even those records were kept, in some areas.

You sort of find things like that when you do a bit of genealogical research....which I have been up to lately....though have given it a rest at the moment.....too many darn names to write down. Mind you, I did find out that my great grandmother was a fallen woman :bigrin: She was born in 1836 and had an illegitemate child, which died, in 1860. The father was apparently my great grand father, but they didn't marry for another six years, and the following year, had my grand father. Long age gaps in my family tree. Virile middleaged men siring children...:bigrin:

I don't honestly think the laws have really differed all that much.....one i not sure about is Imams being licensed. I'll have to Google that. Another thing...what about Humanists. Are they licensed to perform marriages. My mother had a Humanist guy officiate at her funeral...mainly because my brother refused to organise a religious one. Not that she would have wanted it, but he didn't even want the Chaplin attached to the Crematorium, officiating.

Hmm...lots of things to think about.....

[Hephaestion]

In England, all marriages unions need to be announced to the Registrar. This is similar to the reading of the reading of the banns. Once done, unions, taking place under the patronge of the Curch of England are automatically recognised by the State. A register is signed at the end and the deed is done.

All other religious ceremonies of union need a civil process as an extra.

However, a bluring of requirement or privilege must exist for Roman Catholic unions in that the register can be signed at the end of the ceremony and all is complete. Maybe there is a Registrar's deputy lurking in the shadows or the priest is deputised for the day?

As the Registrar's register is the one that counts then one would assume that Church registers must be adequate for the State in both the CoE and (some?) RC procedures and so the data is transcribed and recorded accordingly - the actual mechanics of the process are guessed at.

In reality, marriages / unions are legal contracts of obligation. Therefore under State requirements these must be monogamous. At one time they were exclusively heterosexual in nature. Nowadays, they can be for same sex.

Marriage / legal Union is currently falling out of favour. Perhaps the withdrawal of most financial advantage together with the penalties on divorce are influential. The fluid morality in parts of society doesn't help. Marriage could be replaced by a business contract. The gradual acceptance of pre-nuptial agreements is steering things that way.

The one single advantage that seems to remain in (heterosexual?) marriage / union is that of inheritance taxes waiver for the existing partner. This alone undermines the concept that marriage / union isn't about a bit of paper.

.

[Canticle]

In England, all marriages unions need to be announced to the Registrar. This is similar to the reading of the reading of the banns. Once done, unions, taking place under the patronge of the Curch of England are automatically recognised by the State. A register is signed at the end and the deed is done.

All other religious ceremonies of union need a civil process as an extra.

However, a bluring of requirement or privilege must exist for Roman Catholic unions in that the register can be signed at the end of the ceremony and all is complete. Maybe there is a Registrar's deputy lurking in the shadows or the priest is deputised for the day?

As the Registrar's register is the one that counts then one would assume that Church registers must be adequate for the State in both the CoE and (some?) RC procedures and so the data is transcribed and recorded accordingly - the actual mechanics of the process are guessed at.

In reality, marriages / unions are legal contracts of obligation. Therefore under State requirements these must be monogamous. At one time they were exclusively heterosexual in nature. Nowadays, they can be for same sex.

Marriage / legal Union is currently falling out of favour. Perhaps the withdrawal of most financial advantage together with the penalties on divorce are influential. The fluid morality in parts of society doesn't help. Marriage could be replaced by a business contract. The gradual acceptance of pre-nuptial agreements is steering things that way.

The one single advantage that seems to remain in (heterosexual?) marriage / union is that of inheritance taxes waiver for the existing partner. This alone undermines the concept that marriage / union isn't about a bit of paper.

.

Hmmm...''falling out of favour''? Can't say as I have noticed the numbers of first time, younger people, dropping drastically, Heph. maybe some people are living together for longer, getting a career sorted out and a house etc, before making that legal commitment.

I know that when my daughter first moved in with her fiancee, she was all for getting married at 19 and having babies....right away. I even had 'phone call after 'phone cal, where i would be told she had been looking at hotels, or she had a list of 7 bridesmaids and who bought the dresses and did the married couple buy the bridesmaids a present.

Took me a lot of repeating ''You're only 19. you're only 19 and you need some qualifications, in a career.'' before the penny dropped and a house became more important and the career was seen as something, she could always return to, if she had a family.

As it is, she'll marry at 22. I just hope she doesn't start thinking ''making babies,'' as soon as the ring is on her finger. My younger son is in a totally different situation. he and his girlfriend know they are going to marry...it's obvious....but at 22, with a PhD to obtain, it will be at least another three years, before they marry. My son will be over 30 and that will probably be just the right time for him.

Certainly don't agree that marriage is not as in favour as it once was. Though i do think that there are many people, who will go into a marriage, thinking that, if it doesn't work out, ''We can always divorce.'' That's why maybe a marriage should be more difficult to get into. Perhaps people need to pass a theory test, before being issued with a licence to marry. It might make some thinl a littlr more deeply.

Interesting...what you say about the priest maybe deputising for a registrar in a RC marriage. It would make sense for them to be given the same privileges where the marrying and recording of details is concerned. The amount of marriages that take place, registrars and their deputies would be all over the show, costing the tax payer, a lot of money. Same with the Non-Conformist Protestant Churches.

My own church's Minister is licensed to marry people. He has his certificate, to prove this, framed and placed for all to see. He can officiate at marriages and of course funerals and christenings....but he needs the licence to officiate at weddings. Does he also need someone from the Registrar's office, to be in attendance. I don't know about that one.

''The one single advantage that seems to remain in (heterosexual?) marriage / union is that of inheritance taxes waiver for the existing partner. This alone undermines the concept that marriage / union isn't about a bit of paper.''

Sorry Heph, can't agree with you here. A marriage/civil union is about far more than a piece of paper. It is making a legal commitment, in front of friends and relatives and the registrar, or religious official, to be joined in one union. A marriage is far more than a piece of paper, though the piece of paper and the legal processes needed to end a union, are obviously there to protect children, as well as wives and husbands. A marriage takes hard work, a partnership, both striving for the same goal, to be successful. A vow is taken. Break that vow and the marriage is rendered null and void and only a piece of paper and a legal problem, remain. And it ain't fun.

[Canticle]

I found this. Thought it might be useful.

http://www.weddingguideuk.com/articles/legal/englandwales.asp

[Hephaestion]

Canticle

The number of Christian marriages in England and Wales has been declining. This is the accepted trend. Although they have been declining in occurence, where they occur, there is favour for the white wedding in church.

As far as mutual dedication goes, one does not need any form of legal recognition for this.

Legal recognition is purely for the contractual obligations towards dependants and inheritance nowadays. Mrs McCartney II exploited this to the tune of 35 million UKP.

What would be good would be a recognition of default common law partners based on something like financial involvement, procreation, and duration of relationship. The difficulties in establshing these criteria are appreciated.

[Canticle]

''The number of Christian marriages in England and Wales has been declining. This is the accepted trend. Although they have been declining in occurence, where they occur, there is favour for the white wedding in church.''

Most so called Christian weddings, have never been truly Christian, just people christened C of E etc, deciding to use the church for a white wedding and all the pretty pictures. Some vicars have been known to refuse to marry such people and rightly so. The hypocritical use of a place of worship, is an insult to the congregations and devoted members of those religious organisations. Churches not having been built for the greater glory of white weddings. I could never have used the church, in such a manner.

It has always been perfectly possible to have a white wedding with a civil ceremony, the more so since the law changed, to allow weddings to take place in hotels, country houses and other places, which are not an office of the registrar, but licensed for such marriages to take place.

Thus my daughter will have a ''white'' wedding, bridesmaids, flowergirls, some of the men in penguin suits, herself in the meringue she has longed for (and she will look beautiful...not my thing...but I shall be a proud mother), and it will be a civil ceremony. Probably with far more meaning than if she and her fiancee had been hypocrites and got married in a church, when they have no certain religious belief and are not members of the church.

Brides belonging to the Jewish faith, also wear white and other cultures, the colours which are traditional with them.

''As far as mutual dedication goes, one does not need any form of legal recognition for this.

Legal recognition is purely for the contractual obligations towards dependants and inheritance nowadays. Mrs McCartney II exploited this to the tune of 35 million UKP.''

True, mutual dedication does not need any form of legal recognition....and the legal side of the contract is more to protect those within the marriage and later, family. Yet, in almost every culture, one will find that there is some form of formal recognition of the coming together of two people. Two people being joined together in a union and in front of friends, relatives, tribal members...whatever.

Lady Heather McCartney was entitled to alimony, or a settlement, as with any other woman in a divorce....plus she and Sir Paul had a child. Whether or not she is a gold digger, which she is, in the eyes of some, is pretty irrelevant. The amount of money does seem obscene, but one has to remember how wealth Sir Paul is and maybe put it on a scale...that amounts awarded to the female...or male spouse, will depend upon how wealthy someone is, or how much they earn.

''What would be good would be a recognition of default common law partners based on something like financial involvement, procreation, and duration of relationship. The difficulties in establshing these criteria are appreciated.''

And that...I guess...is why it is thought...by so many cultures...that a legal joining, is so important.

[NotLostJustWandering]

In Saskatchewan ,at present, it is not known whether civilly married persons may also civilly marry other persons, however, it is quite probable that since married persons are entitled to create simultaneous common law partners, so would civilly married persons be entitled to have multiple civilly married partners. Poly common law marriages (either mixture of gender) in Saskatchewan seem to be legal but has not been tested in the courts at this time. Think about the possibility for bisexuals.

VERY interesting. As I want to make this bond with two people, my biggest problem with the prevailing marriage construct is that it allows only two people. So this common-law polygamy idea is promising, but it still doesn't make it easier to imagine many people accepting a wedding of three.

[NotLostJustWandering]

My neighbours attended church for a short while before their wedding (and this a a village church, some 900 years old), then did not attend again, until just before they wanted their first child christened. They have three children now and don't attend church at all. To my way of thinking....that is wrong...to use the church.

I see your point, but have mixed feelings about it. It may seem hypocritical and exploitive of the church, but look at it this way: many believers are disenchanted with their congregations, and rarely if ever turn to a religious leader for guidance in the course of their lives. Such is life; we are typically too busy and distracted to mind matters of the spirit, we can't begin to even think of the questions to ask our spiritual leaders, let alone seek their guidance, prayer often seems futile and nothing turns our stomachs about our religion so much as congregations of our fellows. Yet at key times in our lives such as marriages, funerals or children's coming of age we want a ceremony conducted in the name of God to sanctify the occasion. For many, the only suitable place for the ritual is a house of worship. Personally, I am more likely to feel the Divine Presence in nature than any mosque, and if I am ever married I think I would want to have the ceremony on a beach. But that's me.

[NotLostJustWandering]

Ditto. Right now, there are too many church-state issues with marriage as it's practiced in the US, i.e. a church can't perform a religious ceremony to marry two people without a license from the state, the state grants rights based on the performance of a religious ritual, etc. If the rights were tied to a civil union, those 1st Amendment problems would go away. So would a lot of the objections to "gay marriage": It's not that people in American don't think that same-sex couples should have rights (most Americans do according to the polls), it's just that the word "marriage" has too many religious connotations and the dominant religions in America are also the ones most opposed to same-sex couples.

Thanks. I finally understand the point of all this civil union vs. marriage argument. Up to now it's seemed a purely semantical dodge for people who want to get married but don't like the word "marriage."


The way it would work is that people would enter into a civil union to get the rights, and then they could have their union solemnized by a religious official if they choose. They could also have their union solemnized by a religious official before getting the civil union, but they wouldn't get the rights until after the civil union. Religious officials would be free to choose which unions they recognize and which ones they don't.

For me the sacred and the legal are so opposite that I only believe in weddings as rituals conducted to publicly announce the union of families, and to do so in the name of God if the participants are believers. The whole interloping of the State into the matter offends my anarchist sensibilities. Seems to me if we took the law out of the picture altogether, or only allowed the law to recognize de facto common law arrangements regardless of marriage contract, all of this controversy about who may and may not marry would go away.

Abolishing the personal income tax would take away a lot of the ulterior motivation that gets into this, too.

[NotLostJustWandering]

This is the vow we exchanged...

I, Frances/Katherine take you Katherine/Frances as my world
To care for and love throughout our lives
To be as one, a marriage of two free spirits
Never to injure or cause pain
Always to share our fears
and our joys
To love and to hold dear
To you Katherine/Frances
I give my heart and my life

It may sound mushy to some

Not at all. It's clear, unpretentious, and uniquely personal. Beautiful. Congratulations on doing it your way.

[NotLostJustWandering]

What I am saying it is completely ridiculous for the state to try to govern against same gender marriage. The state cant even completely define what a "man" is or what a "woman" is.

Exactly. I say, if the state needs to know about our family structures, than we have the right to define them in any way we see them. It's not just that I have the right to take a husband, a wife, or both: my real family is something greater than my blood family, and for many people the family they discover in the course of life is often far more supportive, nurturing and reliable than the family they were born into.

I saw this all very clearly early this summer. My bipolar, recently dumped ex-bf was in manic, delusional state. We managed to get him on a plane back to his home country, but while waiting for his connecting flight in a third country managed to get himself arrested and institutionalized. In the weeks that followed, I was the one ringing up the mental ward and doing my best to find out what was going on with him, while his mother remained passive and defeatist. Naturally the ward was able to deny me information because I was not a family member. It seemed to me that in fact I was being more of a brother than any he had, but no government in the world could recognize it.

So I say we should be able to tell the state "this man is my brother, these people are my parents, these are my children," etc. and have whatever we say (and the parties agree to) without question of gender, number or whatever. Make this the cause rather than something narrower such as gay marriage, and it ceases to be about any particular group's desires or needs. So much controversy can evaporate, we put the state back in its proper place in relation to the people, and everybody can go back to minding their own business.

[NotLostJustWandering]

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

--- Matthew 12:46-50

[darkeyes]

Not at all. It's clear, unpretentious, and uniquely personal. Beautiful. Congratulations on doing it your way.

Ty.. I am gobby, pretentious, immodest an mouthy... 'bout many things.. but 'bout the girl I love and share my life with... none of the above apply..:)

[NotLostJustWandering]

(never mind that some religions permit polygamy, polyandry, or, if you're Mosuo, "multi-male, multi-female" arrangements).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo


...Every relationship in Mosuo culture is called a walking marriage. These bonds are "based on mutual affection"[6]. Traditionally, a Mosuo woman or male will initiate interest in a potential partner. If the companion expresses interest, the woman gives the man permission to visit her. Such pairings are generally conducted secretly, so the man walks to her house after dark, spends the night with her, and returns home early the next morning. Mosuo women and men can engage in sexual relations with as many partners they desire.

Even though a pairing may be long term, the man never lives with the woman's family, and vice versa. Mosuo men continue to live with and be responsible to their own families; Mosuo women continue to live with and be responsible to their own families. There is no sharing of property...

Wow. I'd never heard of them. Thanks for sharing.

[Hephaestion]

[B]

"....Most so called Christian weddings, have never been truly Christian, just people christened C of E etc, deciding to use the church for a white wedding and all the pretty pictures. Some vicars have been known to refuse to marry such people and rightly so......."

Pretty pictures without religious interest - agreed. However, the priest may see this as an investment in flock


"....Yet, in almost every culture, one will find that there is some form of formal recognition of the coming together of two people...."

Not unexpected when there are community interdependacies at tribal level, but in modern western society people just move in.


"...Lady Heather McCartney was entitled to alimony, or a settlement, as with any other woman in a divorce....plus she and Sir Paul had a child. Whether or not she is a gold digger, which she is, in the eyes of some, is pretty irrelevant. The amount of money does seem obscene, but one has to remember how wealth Sir Paul is and maybe put it on a scale...that amounts awarded to the female...or male spouse, will depend upon how wealthy someone is, or how much they earn..."

It is possible to raise all sorts of arguments against this 'entitlement'. Whilst I subscribe to this myself with passion, it could be argued that one should leave a union with what one put into it in terms of resources although Children and their future should be catered for. Pre-nuptial agreements are gaining credibility on this to prevent gold digging.


''..... And that...I guess...is why it is thought...by so many cultures...that a legal joining, is so important.......

as reply to

"...What would be good would be a recognition of default common law partners based on something like financial involvement, procreation, and duration of relationship. The difficulties in establshing these criteria are appreciated....."

The important word is "default" - union recognised as an actuality rather than a preconsidered public declaration. So the partner isn't left behind with debts and children because the other one left or was causing problems. Hopefully, this might upset a few of the "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee" brigade or any other polygamous group who might flit.

[Hephaestion]

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

--- Matthew 12:46-50

At which point his mother burst in upon the scene, grabbed her son Jesus by the ear and said as she pulled him away

"He's a very naughty boy!"

[Canticle]

"....Most so called Christian weddings, have never been truly Christian, just people christened C of E etc, deciding to use the church for a white wedding and all the pretty pictures. Some vicars have been known to refuse to marry such people and rightly so......."

Pretty pictures without religious interest - agreed. However, the priest may see this as an investment in flock


"....Yet, in almost every culture, one will find that there is some form of formal recognition of the coming together of two people...."

Not unexpected when there are community interdependacies at tribal level, but in modern western society people just move in.


"...Lady Heather McCartney was entitled to alimony, or a settlement, as with any other woman in a divorce....plus she and Sir Paul had a child. Whether or not she is a gold digger, which she is, in the eyes of some, is pretty irrelevant. The amount of money does seem obscene, but one has to remember how wealth Sir Paul is and maybe put it on a scale...that amounts awarded to the female...or male spouse, will depend upon how wealthy someone is, or how much they earn..."

It is possible to raise all sorts of arguments against this 'entitlement'. Whilst I subscribe to this myself with passion, it could be argued that one should leave a union with what one put into it in terms of resources although Children and their future should be catered for. Pre-nuptial agreements are gaining credibility on this to prevent gold digging.


''..... And that...I guess...is why it is thought...by so many cultures...that a legal joining, is so important.......

as reply to

"...What would be good would be a recognition of default common law partners based on something like financial involvement, procreation, and duration of relationship. The difficulties in establshing these criteria are appreciated....."

The important word is "default" - union recognised as an actuality rather than a preconsidered public declaration. So the partner isn't left behind with debts and children because the other one left or was causing problems. Hopefully, this might upset a few of the "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee" brigade or any other polygamous group who might flit.

Heph. are you a Virgo, by some chance? :rolleyes:

Gee....I don't know what else to say to say to thee. So many different cultural beliefs, religions, hierarchical communities....all over the world....whether these societies believe in monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, or the widow of a tribal member, marrying his brother, yet any children being considered the children of the dead husband......etc, etc, etc.

Whatever.....most cultures and I don't consider the west, anymore civilised than other cultures.....most will have some kind of joining ceremony..to mark the union of two people, two families, two tribes...whatever.

Just moving in with one another is not quite the same....except to the couple involved and most, are thinking of marriage...in the long term. Not all...but most. My daughter lives with her fiancee. They have the house, the car, the dog, the decorating their house, the planting things in the garden. They don't have to marry...but, as with most engaged couples...who ''shack up together,'' they are thinking of marriage and a long term commitment.

To them and to many other people, just living together isn't enough. It's not commitment enough. Some might say...and my daughter would (you wouldn't need to ask, she'd be in there with her opinion), that saying ''Come live with me, but not marry and if anything goes wrong, we'll just split,'' is not the same as ''Come live with me as my wife/husband and let us show our commitment to one another, in front of loved ones and friends, in a legal binding and let us know that we have made this commitment, a permanent and legal one, because a marriage has to be worked at, and the highs or lows encountered, we will try to conquer them all, and not just walk away from one another''

Maybe too many young people go into marriage, thinking that it is exactly like moving in with one another. They get carried away with the excitement and the planning and are so euphoric, that they forget that it is a serious, legal contract, which they are signing and sometimes, damned hard to get out of.

[Canticle]

I see your point, but have mixed feelings about it. It may seem hypocritical and exploitive of the church, but look at it this way: many believers are disenchanted with their congregations, and rarely if ever turn to a religious leader for guidance in the course of their lives. Such is life; we are typically too busy and distracted to mind matters of the spirit, we can't begin to even think of the questions to ask our spiritual leaders, let alone seek their guidance, prayer often seems futile and nothing turns our stomachs about our religion so much as congregations of our fellows. Yet at key times in our lives such as marriages, funerals or children's coming of age we want a ceremony conducted in the name of God to sanctify the occasion. For many, the only suitable place for the ritual is a house of worship. Personally, I am more likely to feel the Divine Presence in nature than any mosque, and if I am ever married I think I would want to have the ceremony on a beach. But that's me.

I see the hypocrites, as being those people, who will culturally and nationality-wise claim to be Christian (or whatever), and make use of the church (temple, synagogue, mosque etc), when they have little, or no belief and do not and have never attended church, unless it was when their parents did the same hypocrital thing...and had them christened, or if they have attended weddings, christenings or funerals.

These people aren't thinking of any higher being, any deity, when they make use of the church, only of the spectacle. They are not thinking of any deep spiritual meaning, to the words said........not unless these people are true members of a church, attend regularly and are involved in church life and activities. It's no more than a handsome building, which will look good on the photos. That hypocrisy annoys me intensely and also annoys many in the different Christian denominations.

I'm a Spiritualist, so although my church, which is the only church I have belonged to, is a Christian Spiritualist Church, we are far more interested in spirituality and deeper thoughts in that direction.

True, at times, many will need to seek out the spiritual help, which can be found, with the help of like minded people. Unfortunately, most Janets and Johns, who decide to get engaged and then arrange their marriage, are not thinking of sharing something spiritual, with loved ones and friends......not at any church.....it's arrive in the car, say the words, bride looking a million dollars and the groom etc dressed up, then without a thought for any religious significance, outside for pictures, off to the reception to eat, drink and be merry.

That is hypocrisy. If one is an active church goer and believer, then it is not.

Funerals are something else entirely, but I must say that all of the funerals I have attended, over the years, have been appropriate, for the beliefs of the individual. Cremations and a short address for non church attending folk and people of no belief (my mother had a Humanist funeral), and in my village, those people who have had a funeral service in the village church and were then laid to rest, within the churchyard, have all been regular church goers.

As you well know, being a very spiritual person, spirituality and faith, are not the same as an organised religion. A ceremony on the beach, would be just as meaningful as that which takes place within a building. My late mother had a neighbour, who's daughter and her fiancee, had a civil ceremony, but planned a joyous ceremony in a wood, guests seated around them and words of their own choice, spoken. This was their ''ceremony''.....and my mother, at first sceptical, thought it one of the most beautiful and meaningful wedding ceremonies, she had ever attended.

If it is not right to mis-use another individual for person gain, then it is also wrong to mis-use a religious organisation, in the same manner.

[void()]

Sorry to cut in again.

"If it is not right to mis-use another individual for person gain, then it is also wrong to mis-use a religious organisation, in the same manner."

You've me confused. I read an if, then statement. Is the else, that you (as in you in the general sense, not you specifically) consider it correct to use other people for personal gain?

Not tempting a stir, merely grasping what you're saying better. These wits are getting likened to the body, riddled with arthritis, worn. Sometimes I can understand people in purest clarity, others ... rather see it all through mud.

Again, excuse light treading.

[Canticle]

Sorry to cut in again.

"If it is not right to mis-use another individual for person gain, then it is also wrong to mis-use a religious organisation, in the same manner."

You've me confused. I read an if, then statement. Is the else, that you (as in you in the general sense, not you specifically) consider it correct to use other people for personal gain?

Not tempting a stir, merely grasping what you're saying better. These wits are getting likened to the body, riddled with arthritis, worn. Sometimes I can understand people in purest clarity, others ... rather see it all through mud.

Again, excuse light treading.


Yeah well.....not writing so clearly these days.......no chocolate at hand!

No, I was not referring to me, in any shape or form, dear Void. To use another person is wrong.....and to do so knowing that you do is, nasty, bad, deceitful, hurtful, not too honest......long list there.......add your own definitions to the list. If that is wrong, then in my opinion (never humble, of course ;)), it is also wrong to make use of a religious building (which will have a regular congregation of believers..and for whom, those beliefs and the building will be sacred and special), if a person or people have no religious belief, do not attend that church (or other religious body), and have absolutely no intention of becoming a regular church (or other) goer. A church was built for the worship and greater glory of God (if you believe in it), not for the greater glory of young women in meringues, men in penguin suits, flash photography and two mothers, trying to outshine one another in hideously elaborate outfits. Am I making myself clear...now?

Did you guess......I don't like weddings????

[Hephaestion]

Heph. are you a Virgo, by some chance? :rolleyes:

Gee....I don't know what else to say to say to thee. So many different cultural beliefs, religions, hierarchical communities....all over the world....whether these societies believe in monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, or the widow of a tribal member, marrying his brother, yet any children being considered the children of the dead husband......etc, etc, etc.

Whatever.....most cultures and I don't consider the west, anymore civilised than other cultures.....most will have some kind of joining ceremony..to mark the union of two people, two families, two tribes...whatever.

Just moving in with one another is not quite the same....except to the couple involved and most, are thinking of marriage...in the long term. Not all...but most. My daughter lives with her fiancee. They have the house, the car, the dog, the decorating their house, the planting things in the garden. They don't have to marry...but, as with most engaged couples...who ''shack up together,'' they are thinking of marriage and a long term commitment.

To them and to many other people, just living together isn't enough. It's not commitment enough. Some might say...and my daughter would (you wouldn't need to ask, she'd be in there with her opinion), that saying ''Come live with me, but not marry and if anything goes wrong, we'll just split,'' is not the same as ''Come live with me as my wife/husband and let us show our commitment to one another, in front of loved ones and friends, in a legal binding and let us know that we have made this commitment, a permanent and legal one, because a marriage has to be worked at, and the highs or lows encountered, we will try to conquer them all, and not just walk away from one another''

Maybe too many young people go into marriage, thinking that it is exactly like moving in with one another. They get carried away with the excitement and the planning and are so euphoric, that they forget that it is a serious, legal contract, which they are signing and sometimes, damned hard to get out of.

Good luck to your children.

The 'modern west' refers to the present day western society and its organisation and personal liberties widely emulated and aspired to in the world and not to any degree of social superiority although the water closet and its origins do shout loudly.

Almost certainly there are people in the world who insist on parading the young in groups and choose mates based on wealth prospects and sireability. In Africa there may be adornament in dyes and mud thatchd hair. In the UK there may be coiffeured hair, jewel(le)ry and historical lineage i.e. debutants balls.

I stopped being a virgo in my teens

[Canticle]

Good luck to your children.

The 'modern west' refers to the present day western society and its organisation and personal liberties widely emulated and aspired to in the world and not to any degree of social superiority although the water closet and its origins do shout loudly.

Almost certainly there are people in the world who insist on parading the young in groups and choose mates based on wealth prospects and sireability. In Africa there may be adornament in dyes and mud thatchd hair. In the UK there may be coiffeured hair, jewel(le)ry and historical lineage i.e. debutants balls.

I stopped being a virgo in my teens


Hmmm....really....hmmmm.

Thank you for your good wishes. One of them has already been married for five years and with his wife, for 11 years, in total and they have a young daughter(first girlfriend too). Little bro has found his wife to be.....but she has a PhD to get, before marriage will be on the agenda. Now the daughter (first boyfriend for her and vice versa)......11 months until blast off......will we all make it...without the nervous breakdown....well...I will...I'm just gonna turn up on the day....cos she has it all organised. Bliss.

[darkeyes]

I stopped being a virgo in my teens

..an sum peeps Heph, me luffly, wer born a virgin an will die a virgin... nowt we can do bout it..;)

[jjinmd]

As you may know here in the US some states have civil unions and others have marriage for same sex couples. Each only provides little, state rights to a same sex couple because the federal government does not acknowledge same sex unions of any type, and illegally the federal govenment does not enact the constitutional aspects and permit one state to acknowledge the laws of another state...this is called the full faith and clause act. there is presently a case before a federal court challenging a states right to take away same sex couples right to marry...the ruling of this court will certainly take the case before the US Supreme court...
I dont have much knowledge about british law; but I hope when our laws are challenged in the US Supreme Court nothing less tham full marriage equality will result.
for now regardless of what your country calls it congrats to you and your spouse for being able to live in a free society and have your government acknowledge your choice.

[void()]

"Yeah well.....not writing so clearly these days.......no chocolate at hand!"

Bother. May have to see to that. ;)

"No, I was not referring to me, in any shape or form, dear Void."

Yes, I understood that.

"Am I making myself clear...now?"

Oi, can you put the record on 'gin. You know the one what that Lennon bloke rants 'bout Imagining things, quite the notion there.

You do make yourself clear. I was probably thinking like a computer again, got a fuse out of line. Saw you write 'if,then' and was lost because of expecting an 'else', and there is none needed in this case. Often get myself lost in such fashion, Flatland was involved once, nay been the same cuddly insane boy since. T'is a wretch to have wasted cells and knowingly try forgoing chochy.

[darkeyes]

for now regardless of what your country calls it congrats to you and your spouse for being able to live in a free society and have your government acknowledge your choice.

ty for that JJ.. while bein legally hitched 2 our partners, same sex couples have 1 huge drawback wich affects every marriage no matter the sex of the partners.. the tax credit system is a bloody mess.. 3 times in 3 weeks we get a notice tellin us how much we are gonna get, each with a different credit amount, screeds of it.. a veritable forest.. sent seperately to each partner... the same stuff... an then as often as not the week before it is all due start we get another notice changin it all an revertin 2 the original amount they said we were gonna get.. all very nice.. we get lotsa cash back from the state cos we work.. then of course as happened this year 2 me mate an 'er wife.. they tell them they have been overpaid by 700 quid and havta pay it back by the end of this tax year.. so they get nice tax credits an then from those tax credits get a loada dosh lumped off so the state can have its pinta blood cos of their cock up(s).. an for the privilege of that peeps get 3 more notices tellin them of different amounts they have 2 pay back an a few notices tellin them how much they are gonna get this year.. 3 more veritable forests... God knows what me m8 an we will find next year.. maybe even this cos knowin the Inland Revenue its not beyond the realms of possibility they still havent got it right and so yet another forest will be lost..

So same sex couple legally married entitled 2 all the "benefits" which being married entitles us to.. and it costs the environment umpteen forests and God knows how much energy in producing screeds of paper which an annual rerun of a new Encyclopaedia Brittanica would cost cos the Revenue hasnt a clue wtf it is doing.. or if it does.. it hides the fact very well.. maybe an exaggeration.. but not much of one...

Innit it luffly bein married??:tong:

[Canticle]

''Oi, can you put the record on 'gin. You know the one what that Lennon bloke rants 'bout Imagining things, quite the notion there.''

I sort of like Lennon.....................a lot :cool: