Besides, in most European countries, getting married is an administrative act which might optionally included a religious ceremony. However, the latter itself does not grant you any tax benefits.
Printable View
Ok, rephrasing:
Historical fact on many to most (to all?) religions: The institutions of Religion took care of administrative acts or even superseded, i.e. controlled public authorities. Thus Religion and its institutions together with public authority/ The State were and in many areas of the world still are ONE ENTITY. (the church in the medieval times, even the Roman Empire in the Old Ages, today to some (all?) degree the Jews and to 100% the Muslims/ Islam) That's why I feel hard pressed to support the idea that The State or The Public Authority is very well in the position to rule and regulate Marriage. Secularization is not an argument for having public authorities to stay away from marriage. Else you would have to raise exactly the same question for things like schools or education and treatment of and care for children.
Besides this I consider the social development in especially the Western World, in which many homo- and heterosexual people live almost like within a marriage, but they have not married so far or do not intent to marry soon. Thus the insitute of marriage might become outdated anyway. But this is (very probably) highly arguable.
SPOILER
Ok, maybe this was a little too much. BUT not this: I think during the last chapter of WA it became crystal clear that WA does not experiment so much on social and/ or ideological perspectives on family, marriage and stuff; instead the script provides - I think it is safe to state it that way - a lot for the very classic and very average relation between people. And although there is no 100% family-tie in it, we almost have a very "The Waltons"-like situation*, which is anything but near homo-sexual-relations ... If you don't know, what I mean, check the last 10 minutes of chapter #36 ...
My 2c.
All the best!
Liam
* We have Grandma and - very much caring - Grandpa, we have Mom and Dad, we have the still unborn child; then we have the other couple; and we have the pater putativus and 'his' adopted daughter; and around them many very good friends. Harmony 100%.
It depends. If you refer to the marriage with HIS blessings, there won't be a marriage, 'cause there is no Priest or Reverend available. If *spoilered name* the highest ranked public authority in the group may perform the public authorization, then maybe, imho very unlikely, though, 'cause Marriage has nothing to do with Survival ... Besides, the latter wouldn't have your blessing according to your original posting ...
As for "gay marriage" - I prefer the term of "same-sex marraige" or "same-sex union", I simply give you the advice to read and learn. As a spoiler ahead:
Same-sex marriage is not only a matter of The State/ public authorities interfering with religion, but especially a question of religion itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Enjoy!
All the best!
Liam
SPOILER
the government is involved because there are legal repercussions to being married, you die your spouse takes control of your belongings, but a girlfriend wouldn't, see what i'm saying? there are certain legal benefits to being married. here's another "for instance," if i was married, my wife could be on my insurance, but i'm only engaged, so my fiance can't. it sounds less like your question is on gay marriage, and more on governments role in marriage.
Attachment 2363
Meaning: Full acknowledgement. You nailed it!
Do NOT mention a character in the story in regards to this conversation without using spoiler tags. If this problem continues after being explicitly pointed out as the first response to the OP, this thread will deleted.
I think you hit on the crux of the matter, reaper. Ordinary12's original post speaks of the religious institution of marriage vs the legal institution of marriage. The government (federal and state) guarantees and/or grants certain benefits to married (legal) couples that unmarried (legal) couples do not have. The government is under no obligation to recognize anything having to do with the religious institution of marriage. The government also has no role in forcing/requiring any religious organization to perform or allow certain marriage rituals, etc.
That being said, the big debate in the US is over an equal protection of rights and equal extension of benefits to homosexual citizens (on the pro-"gay marriage" side) vs the protection of a particular moral code in the institution of marriage at the legal level (on the anti-"gay marriage" side). So, not the government messing with religion but religious influence/doctrine in the government.
I am a Christian and that provides a particular set of values and moral code. I am also an American which also brings in a particular set of values but maybe not much of a moral code anymore. Many times these values line up just fine and many times they do not. On the issue of same sex marriage, there is dissonance.
But, that doesn't mean that I have the right to abridge the rights of people because of my religious beliefs. In fact, as a Christian, I'm not even supposed to hold non-Christians to the moral standard/values of Christianity. I'm supposed to show love and grace to my fellow humans, not judgement and condemnation.
It's a hard line to balance on sometimes but my personal take on this (not speaking for anyone else, much less all Christians here) is that the government in the US (both federal and state) was built on freedom and equality and it is not right to restrict the rights of a certain sector of the citizenry in the legal institution of marriage.
Coming back to WA here, I don't think we're going to see anything regarding this in the story because a) I'm not sure how it works to further develop the story arcs of any of the characters and b) it runs the risk of alienating a large group of people who are/could be listeners of WA.
wow dude, way to do exactly what you accused him of. did you actually read the op?
his exact views on gay marriage are highlighted above. notice a distinct lack of "religious nonsense," just a personal view which he is distinctly unwilling to push or force on anyone else. now while we may assume it is based on religious values based on his understanding of the religious institution of marriage, he doesn't come close to throwing around scripture. the entire rest of the post has nothing to do with gay marriage, and is entirely based on, what looks to me like, a misunderstanding on the difference between the legal institution of marriage and the religious one. what i see in your post is an attack on someone who used a hot button topic to pose a question, not a debate on the topic itself. what i see in your response is that you essentially accuse him of being un-civil, and ignorant.