bank secrets

[--Pete]

Hi,

My solution would be to disallow the state from performing marriages, and leave that entirely to the church.

In the seventies, I realized there are (at least) three aspects to 'marriage'. There is the religious aspect, the civil aspect, and the social aspect. This can be seen from the fact that ordained religious leaders can perform marriages, as can justices, and as can the principals themselves simply by cohabiting (at least where common law marriages are recognized). The fact that these three aspects are intertwined is what causes a lot of the problems today. The first true step in resolving the 'marriage issue' is to disentangle those aspects.

The religious aspect I gladly leave to the religions. However, in strict accordance with the separation principle, I think the religious aspect should have no bearing nor significance in any civil matter. It should be like baptism, first communion, confirmation, circumcision, bar mitzvah, or any other religious observance or sacrament, none of which are given any civil recognition nor incur any civil obligation. Thus, a person 'married' only in a religious ceremony would not, for instance, be able to sue for alimony in a civil court because, as far as the state is concerned, there was no contract. I would extend this to all non-religious matters, even those not directly involving the state. So that people married only in religion would not qualify for health insurance benefits provided through a spouse's employment, etc.

Of course, there would be and should be nothing to prevent people married in religion to also be 'married' in a civil contract. Whether such a union should be called a 'marriage' I leave for others to debate. For now, call it a civil union and leave it at that. These civil unions should be contracts between two or more people in which the rights, responsibilities, duties, and expectations are agreed to. Legal status and benefits or burdens should be based solely on these contracts. A 'standard' contract for the traditional marriage could well be used by those who so desire, but options should be unlimited.

And, as to the common law marriage, I have no bias against what consenting adults do. However, if they are not willing to provide for themselves, then I think they should not expect anything. I do not think that the concept of common law marriage should exist legally nor go beyond the social aspect of 'so-and-so are a couple'.

It is interesting how things have changed. My study of my Swedish heritage has shown me just how intertwined Church and State can be.

Throughout most of history and, I suspect, pre-history, there was no division between church and state. In most early civilizations, the secular ruler was at least a priest if not a god. A separation between the strictures of the religion and the laws of the state was very unusual. In the Western world, even as late as the middle ages there was a strong interrelationship between the two, with the church often (always?) being involved with the crowning and anointing of the kings and the kings often having the power to appoint religious leaders. Indeed most of the discord during the reformation is due to disagreements of who had what power and not about matters of creed.

You might marvel at how much has changed. I am equally amazed at how much has not. At how much power a totally useless construct still wields. But that's another show.;)

--Pete