legally vs. religiously married

[DrPizza]

AFAIK, you can be legally married, if you're married by a mayor or judge or something, but you're not married in the eyes of the church... thus, as far as many religions are concerned, you're not married.

Is it possible to be religiously married, without being legally married? That is, have a church wedding, satisfy all the relatives present, satisfy God or whatever you believe in, but not be legally married??

The only reason I'm asking, is I was thinking about the "marriage penalty." If there was some loophole in the system, you could get married, without having to file taxes as "married."

 

[conjur]

Not that I'm aware of. And who cares if the "church" doesn't recognize a wedding.

In this country, marriage is a legal institution no matter what anyone says.

 

[notfred]

Is it possible to be religiously married, without being legally married? That is, have a church wedding, satisfy all the relatives present, satisfy God or whatever you believe in, but not be legally married??

See: Polygamy in the Mormon religion.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: notfred

Is it possible to be religiously married, without being legally married? That is, have a church wedding, satisfy all the relatives present, satisfy God or whatever you believe in, but not be legally married??

See: Polygamy in the Mormon religion.

right. and many gay couples are married by their (progressive, obviously) churches even if the state won't recognize it.

 

[StageLeft]

Land of the free, and freedom of expression - unless you don't agree with it. How this country can be a supposedly proponent of separation of church and state on the one hand, and deny the benefits of gay marriage in the other is beyond me. But, sorry for that, since your thread isn't about that...though somebody will surely start into it. Oops, it was me

 

[ScottyB]

I think they should get rid of marriage all together and make it just a church thing. Then they should make civil unions legal for everyone. Then no one would be legally married and the people against gay marriage can quit bitching.

 

[Atrail]

nm

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: conjur
Not that I'm aware of. And who cares if the "church" doesn't recognize a wedding.

In this country, marriage is a legal institution no matter what anyone says.

It may be now and it probably has been for a couple of hundred years or more, but it hasn't always been that way. The origins of marriage are not a legal institution, no matter what anyone says.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: conjur
Not that I'm aware of. And who cares if the "church" doesn't recognize a wedding.

In this country, marriage is a legal institution no matter what anyone says.

It may be now and it probably has been for a couple of hundred years or more, but it hasn't always been that way. The origins of marriage are not a legal institution, no matter what anyone says.

The ancient Egyptians were the first with marriage laws and those laws were not religious in nature.

The Christian church did not get involved in the marriage ceremony until 1563.

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: conjur
Not that I'm aware of. And who cares if the "church" doesn't recognize a wedding.

In this country, marriage is a legal institution no matter what anyone says.

It may be now and it probably has been for a couple of hundred years or more, but it hasn't always been that way. The origins of marriage are not a legal institution, no matter what anyone says.

The ancient Egyptians were the first with marriage laws and those laws were not religious in nature.

The Christian church did not get involved in the marriage ceremony until 1563.

I think you are confusing the council of trent, where marriage was recognized as a sacrament. Christian marriages (not necessarily catholic) are documented as having started to take place as early as 160 AD.

 

[prvteye2003]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
AFAIK, you can be legally married, if you're married by a mayor or judge or something, but you're not married in the eyes of the church... thus, as far as many religions are concerned, you're not married.

Is it possible to be religiously married, without being legally married? That is, have a church wedding, satisfy all the relatives present, satisfy God or whatever you believe in, but not be legally married??

The only reason I'm asking, is I was thinking about the "marriage penalty." If there was some loophole in the system, you could get married, without having to file taxes as "married."

Not sure I understand what you're asking but I'll take a crack at it. One, you have to get a marriage license from the county you live in for it to be "legal" afaik. And two, I'm not sure who has the power to enter two people into marriage or what kind of oath/training if any that person has to undergo to get that power. Now, you mention mayor or judge. I was married by a pastor of a church but without the "marriage license" that I had to get, it wouldn't have been a legal marriage otherwise. The person doing the marrying (ie. pastor, jp, mayor, judge, etc.) and the license itself is I believe what makes it 'legal.'

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: conjur
Not that I'm aware of. And who cares if the "church" doesn't recognize a wedding.

In this country, marriage is a legal institution no matter what anyone says.

It may be now and it probably has been for a couple of hundred years or more, but it hasn't always been that way. The origins of marriage are not a legal institution, no matter what anyone says.

The ancient Egyptians were the first with marriage laws and those laws were not religious in nature.

The Christian church did not get involved in the marriage ceremony until 1563.

I think you are confusing the council of trent, where marriage was recognized as a sacrament. Christian marriages (not necessarily catholic) are documented as having started to take place as early as 160 AD.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Many non Christian religions and cultures have a religious ceremony that is the equivalent to a wedding.
In the eyes of the community, the people are wed. There may not be any legal documents created for the government, but the culture treats them as a couple to be responsible for each other.

 

[ohtwell]

I don't think you can be married in a church without being married legally. I don't really know though!


: ) Amanda

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I think they should get rid of marriage all together and make it just a church thing. Then they should make civil unions legal for everyone. Then no one would be legally married and the people against gay marriage can quit bitching.

/agreed

 

[sweettart]

I know my parents got married on New Year's eve because of some tax reason but the benefits reaped from that were only for the one time. However, in the eyes of the church (catholic), my mom had a friend that was married for several decades and has 3 children grown up, and when they got divorced, the church anulled the wedding and said that it never happened and after all these years the children are considered "bastards". I think you are best off with the legal way.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I don't think you can be married in a church without being married legally. I don't really know though!


: ) Amanda

Most churches I have ever been to, and the weddings I have attended required a marriage license before marrying
the two parties.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Conjur, this just means that they set up a proceedure for it.....

Boggsie said:

I think you are confusing the council of trent, where marriage was recognized as a sacrament. Christian marriages (not necessarily catholic) are documented as having started to take place as early as 160 AD.

which goes back to this:

In this country, marriage is a legal institution no matter what anyone says.

To which boggsie replied:

It may be now and it probably has been for a couple of hundred years or more, but it hasn't always been that way. The origins of marriage are not a legal institution, no matter what anyone says.

So basically you are backing up his claim....your statement of:

The ancient Egyptians were the first with marriage laws and those laws were not religious in nature.

has absolutely no relevance in this debate at all as we are talking about two totally seperate cultures, beliefs and histories...

Personally I agree with Scotty when he says:

I think they should get rid of marriage all together and make it just a church thing. Then they should make civil unions legal for everyone. Then no one would be legally married and the people against gay marriage can quit bitching.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
AFAIK, you can be legally married, if you're married by a mayor or judge or something, but you're not married in the eyes of the church... thus, as far as many religions are concerned, you're not married.

Is it possible to be religiously married, without being legally married? That is, have a church wedding, satisfy all the relatives present, satisfy God or whatever you believe in, but not be legally married??

The only reason I'm asking, is I was thinking about the "marriage penalty." If there was some loophole in the system, you could get married, without having to file taxes as "married."

Sorry, forgot to answer this...really it depends on the Church and the religion but in most cases no, you need the marriage certificate for the ceremony to take place...just as you currently need to be married before benefits and such become joined...I think once they effectively seperate the two we will see more honest marriages with more meaning, and more people who are likely to get divorced just living together and sharing benefits....

insurance companies will hate this though as it means they will have to cover people who before had to pay their own way.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack


So basically you are backing up his claim....your statement of:

The ancient Egyptians were the first with marriage laws and those laws were not religious in nature.

has absolutely no relevance in this debate at all as we are talking about two totally seperate cultures, beliefs and histories...

Of course it has relevance. Every thread on subject gets into pre-USA, pre-Christian and eventually on into the Bible. Well, the Bible is not the beginning of marriage law.

Personally I agree with Scotty when he says:

I think they should get rid of marriage all together and make it just a church thing. Then they should make civil unions legal for everyone. Then no one would be legally married and the people against gay marriage can quit bitching.

I totally disagree.

Too many people up here seem to have a hang up with the word "marriage" and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I don't think you can be married in a church without being married legally. I don't really know though!


: ) Amanda

Most churches I have ever been to, and the weddings I have attended required a marriage license before marrying
the two parties.

Many churches will marry you without a marriage license.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Of course it has relevance. Every thread on subject gets into pre-USA, pre-Christian and eventually on into the Bible. Well, the Bible is not the beginning of marriage law.

Just because every thread on this subject goes a certain way does not make this info valid, Egyptian marriage laws/rights really have nothing to do with the current, or even past systems being talked about, your right when you say the "bible" isn't the beginning of marriage law and no one is claiming that it is, rather the bible or christian/catholic religion is what marriage laws of today are based off of in this country which is what is relevant...not some ancient egyptian rituals/ceremonies and such

I totally disagree.

Too many people up here seem to have a hang up with the word "marriage" and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

Why would you *totally* disagree?? honestly you complain about the word marriage carrying so much weight with others yet you wouldn't be open to a change of the legal definition of everyone to "union", if you truly didn't care about the verbage then you would have no problem with annuling all *legal* aspects of the term marriage and having it replaced with *union* for everyone so you yourself admit to having a *hang up* with the connotation.

I am in favor of changing the terminology as it will further seperate state and religion, there is no denying that the term marriage was first indoctrined by religious entities so if anything they have claim/stake to the word thus using the term union for everyone is a very good compromise IMHO and different enough so the two will not be confused.

 

[conjur]

Look up marriage in Merriam-Webster.

See any reference to religion?

Didn't think so.