tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post2332170589308306016..comments2024-03-27T14:45:28.176-05:00Comments on Adventus: What rough, rude beast....Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-8256685039757165952015-04-07T09:18:58.818-05:002015-04-07T09:18:58.818-05:00The problem is really our language, we use marriag...The problem is really our language, we use marriage to both represent both the state sanctioned civil union and the religiously recognized union. As part of our pre-marriage counseling by the minister we had officiate (Unitarian by the way), he made clear we were getting married twice, once in the eyes of the state, once in the eyes of god. We could pick, one, the other or both (and if we didn't want the god one, we could go to the court house). It's our mixing the two up that causes all the consternation. Out of confusion or deliberate slight of hand certain religious groups take the civil recognition of a union as representing a religious recognition of a union. Delineating the two makes the equal protection argument for recognizing same sex civil unions straight forward. Denominations will make their own determinations if they are marriages under their own religious requirements (hey, freedom of religion!). Later when we joined a UCC congregation, the minister pointed out as you have that marriage isn't a sacrament. What makes marriage is the commitment to each other before god. He went on to say that the minister isn't even really necessary. His view was that if you pushed my most ministers with the hypothetical of two people on a sinking ship committing to each other before god, that the ministers would be hard pressed to say the couple isn't married. My own view has flowed from that. It is the commitment to each other before god that matters, not the state, not who officiates, not man and women, etc. If two people commit before god, then they are married.rustypickuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17861692872132066016noreply@blogger.com