On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 05:56 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote: > James Griffin wrote: > > > Warning: Discussion of religious viewpoints here. If such is > > unpleasant, don't read further > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > Divorce is IMHO, much more deserving of condemnation than homosexuality > is, and abandonment even more. But I do believe that churches should > be in charge of marriage, not the state. With palimony and child > support not depending upon marriage, the only reason the state is > concerned with marriage is to decide who gets insurance benefits. But > why should I have to screw someone for them to get my social security? > Why can't I have my brother, mother, or neighbor as my beneficiary? It's very ironic that authoritarian China has a better separation of church and state, in at least this one respect, than the United States. There, civil and religious/traditional aspects are almost entirely divorced from one another. The civil bit is just registration and getting the appropriate stamp(s) from the appropriate bureaucrac(y|ies), while the religious/traditional one is the one that really "counts," culturally. My wife and I were legally married three days after she arrived in the US, but as far as she was concerned we weren't _really_ married until we had the ceremony. Said ceremony had no legal status whatsoever, but it's still the date we celebrate as our anniversary. So as far as I'm concerned, yes, the civil and legal bits are a necessary part of combining two lives, for the simple reason that there are side effects to that combination that have legal ramifications, _particularly_ if the two lives become uncombined at some point. This has happened to me twice, so I know whereof I speak. On the other hand, any religious or cultural aspect of marriage ought to be entirely separate from those civil and legal considerations. And in fact it _is_ separate, except insofar as the officiant acts as an agent of the State. Which in our case was not at all, but in most cases in the US is at least to the extent of providing the legal sanction to and recognition of the union. (This is also one reason that I believe the whole brouhaha about "gay marriage" is so utterly stupid, at least as far as concerns those who are terrified that such will lead to "the destruction of marriage." Idiots.) -- Frank Mayhar frank at exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/