06-20-2003, 02:06 AM
Hi,
You touch upon the problem, but you miss the main point.
Yes, I agree. The issue of religious and moral freedom at some point intersects the state in enforcing laws meant to protect some, and to clarify legal responsibilities in others.
Starting about sixteen centuries ago, the morals of the Catholic Church and the laws of the European states became deeply intertwined. This is displayed by the adoption of the seven day week (a Judeo-Christian artifact unknown to the Greeks and Romans). It is displayed by many other customs such as the burial of the dead. One of the places this shows up the most is in the laws concerning marriage. The prejudices and superstitions of the Christians became the secular laws.
Indeed, modern marriage is a complex affair, having legal, social, and religious ramifications. The most important concept of marriage as a stable organization for the protection and well being of children has almost totally gone by the board. The number of divorces, the number of single parent "families" attest to that. Meanwhile, marriage is a tax factor, a benefits factor and pretty damned near everything else.
The rules, laws, customs that worked in the past do not and cannot work now. The religious aspects to marriage need to be whatever the individuals involved desire them to be as long as no outside party is harmed and no one is forced. The social aspects of "marriage" will continue to be what they have always been, namely that in private life people associate with the people they want to associate with and exclude those they wish to exclude.
It is the legal aspect of "marriage" that needs to be reexamined. Marriage should be a contract between the people involved with rights and responsibilities set out not by the state but by the parties in the marriage. The state's only involvement should be the same as in any other contract, the arbitrator of disputes.
This would open a whole can of worms on issues like child support, like health care benefits, and so on. That would mean new customs, new contracts between employers and employees, etc. That is the price that will have to be payed to eliminate the prejudice of one sect from the laws that need to govern all. The morals of a village are, maybe and with some suffering and ostracism, adequate for that village. They can't be, and shouldn't be, made to apply to the whole world.
--Pete
You touch upon the problem, but you miss the main point.
Yes, I agree. The issue of religious and moral freedom at some point intersects the state in enforcing laws meant to protect some, and to clarify legal responsibilities in others.
Starting about sixteen centuries ago, the morals of the Catholic Church and the laws of the European states became deeply intertwined. This is displayed by the adoption of the seven day week (a Judeo-Christian artifact unknown to the Greeks and Romans). It is displayed by many other customs such as the burial of the dead. One of the places this shows up the most is in the laws concerning marriage. The prejudices and superstitions of the Christians became the secular laws.
Indeed, modern marriage is a complex affair, having legal, social, and religious ramifications. The most important concept of marriage as a stable organization for the protection and well being of children has almost totally gone by the board. The number of divorces, the number of single parent "families" attest to that. Meanwhile, marriage is a tax factor, a benefits factor and pretty damned near everything else.
The rules, laws, customs that worked in the past do not and cannot work now. The religious aspects to marriage need to be whatever the individuals involved desire them to be as long as no outside party is harmed and no one is forced. The social aspects of "marriage" will continue to be what they have always been, namely that in private life people associate with the people they want to associate with and exclude those they wish to exclude.
It is the legal aspect of "marriage" that needs to be reexamined. Marriage should be a contract between the people involved with rights and responsibilities set out not by the state but by the parties in the marriage. The state's only involvement should be the same as in any other contract, the arbitrator of disputes.
This would open a whole can of worms on issues like child support, like health care benefits, and so on. That would mean new customs, new contracts between employers and employees, etc. That is the price that will have to be payed to eliminate the prejudice of one sect from the laws that need to govern all. The morals of a village are, maybe and with some suffering and ostracism, adequate for that village. They can't be, and shouldn't be, made to apply to the whole world.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?