こんにちは、舞浜です。
ブログがんばってくださいね。

Very interesting, Pam. Thanks for publishing it.  this is going to set the cat among the pigeons.

aimai

In many Latin America countries, civil and religious marriage is separate. The state does civil marriage. People can then approach their particular religious leaders to do a religious marriage. Sometimes a church wedding will take place years after the legal marriage. But while many people have only civil marriages, it is illegal for a religious official to marry someone who is not already civilly married.

It’s interesting, because Latin America is more conservative than the U.S. in many ways, but there also is a strong anti-clerical tradition that goes back to the church’s political support for the crown. That let to the church being stripped of many of its privileges during the independence era or in the late 19th century.

A friend of mine recently got married, and had another friend perform the ceremony. In order make the right to perform the marriage easier, my friend was made a “minister” of the Universal Light church, which is a bit of a joke. That’s disturbing—it’s easier to get a license to perform a marriage if you’re a minister of an internet church than if you have no affiliation at all.

Depends on your state.  In California, all you have to do is pony up $35 and go to the swearing-in ceremony and you can be a Deputy Commissioner For A Day to perform your friend’s marriage.

(Looks like some counties are more expensive, but the LA fee was $35.)

A lot of people are too cheap to do even that so they go the free Universal Life route, but there usually are secular alternatives.

This is the first I’ve heard of Universal Light. For my new year’s resolution, as I live in CT, I’m going to get affiliated, become an ally, and perform marriages for same sex couples.

If anyone has any info that would be useful in helping me do what I need to do for this, it would be pretty cool to have. This is a social good I am capable of enacting.

Also I can’t help it, I really want to preview my posts but hitting blaspheme is too much fun…

Exciting news—I especially like the use of “theologically based bigotry.”

As of this moment, the html in the first three paragraphs of the post is kinda whack—could that be my browser?

“This resolution, in no way, disallows clerical participation in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.  It will not stop the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from being an integral part of the church’s life; however, it will require couples to arrange for the secular contract to be performed by someone who is not an ordain cleric in this diocese.  The civil contract may be entered into on the same day and at the same place of The Blessing or on a separate day at another place.”

Go to hell.

Verrry interesting! He’s got some interesting points, the biggest being that participating in sanctioning legal marriage while there are prohibitions against it for some is thereby, supporting that prohibition.

However, dude needs to not cite Wikipedia on this stuff.

I’ve long argued with friends that US laws incorrectly blur the line between “marriage” as a legal union recognized by the state and “marriage” as a cultural/religious rite.

As citizens, we belong only to civil unions, properly speaking. 

As members of Mosque W, Church X, Temple Y, Coven Z, Mousey-disco Q, Spaghetti Monster Cave 4, or whatever, we get married in whatever way our chosen creed or anti-creed conceives.

So this proposal sounds pretty cool to me.

Make that “as citizens, we SHOULD belong only to civil unions….”

One of the 3 priests, Jim Prevatt, is my uncle.  And I’m proud to say this is exactly the sort of rabble-rousing he’s always been engaged in.  He’s one of the many reasons I’m always amused by people claiming all Christians are conservative jerks trying to bring about theocracy—my uncle, the Episcopal priest, is probably the most liberal person I know.

I propose that from this point forward (or as soon as we can get a law passed) the only legally recognized marriages in the US are civil marriages, ones which are also available to all consenting adults.

Take the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., OUT of the business of solemnizing marriages as legal representatives of the state. Period.

If religious institutions want to bless, or not, whomever - great, they can perform all the weddings, covenant marriages, whatever they want, to their hearts’ content. But the religious leaders should in no way be legal representatives of the state in marriage solemnization functions.

That ends the specious argument that helped pass Prop 8, that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples. Once they CAN’T legally marry anyone, the wind goes out of their sails about that particular issue.

Depends on your state.  In California, all you have to do is pony up $35 and go to the swearing-in ceremony and you can be a Deputy Commissioner For A Day to perform your friend’s marriage.

Which is why we would never see civil and religious ceremonies split in the USA. The thing is that anyone can serve as an officiant for a wedding, if you submit the paperwork. Putting the authority to legally solemnize marriage in the hands of a few civil servants would make it an annoyance not only for those seeking a religious wedding but also an annoyance for secular couples who want a friend or family member to officiate. It would be like saying that only judges can serve as Notaries Public.

In a purely economic sense, it reduces income to churches by reducing the number of church weddings.

Huh? Church weddings are not currently required at all. Anyone can get a civil ceremony at any time. In fact, getting a Justice of the Peace to serve as an officiant at a wedding is probably easier to do on short notice than getting a member of the clergy to do it. The reason people have religious weddings is not because civil marriage isn’t an option—it’s because they want religious weddings. It’s not clear how requiring the filing of paperwork at city hall before a JoP would cause the number of religious weddings to fall.

It’s not just latin america that has the civil/religious marriage divide. Lots of european countries as well. After all, it’s only the Church of England that has the direct line to the state. Other places know the long ugly history of doctrinal differences become political conflicts.

In either case, the results are bad: it puts couples in the position of living in sin as far as the church is concerned even though legally married,

Yah, so? People who really care about “living in sin” will go to the extra effort of being married in the church. If they don’t care about it—what’s the problem?

or couples married in a church being legally unmarried.

This is currently the case for the many religious organizations which recognize and perform same-sex marriages. It’s already happening. And the way to prevent this problem, which seems to disturb you, is for states (and the federal gov’t) to recognize same-sex marriages.

Just got back from church meself, in the Canadian branch of the Anglican Church (Episcopalean south of the border)... our local bishop got in trouble a few years back about this issue. He wanted the church to start blessing same sex marriages, but sadly nothing changed.

With my own wedding, I found out that the Anglican Church won’t do weddings outdoors; they’re not allowed. So we had a secular wedding ceremony followed by my father’s cousin (an Anglican priest) blessing our wedding. So we had both. The secular ceremony was the legal portion. I wasn’t even wanting the involvement of clergy, but my wife (the non-religious member of our household) insisted. She’s insane, I think. But the point is, you can already get around it anyway. If I had gotten married to a guy, things would have been different. But there are still ways around church rules.

I’m hoping against hope that this resolution goes forward; one mor step in the right direction for my church if it does.

Moreover, it is meaningless as far as whether or not an Episcopal priest could perform a same-sex wedding if he wished to do so.  If the state does not allow such, the priest could still perform the ceremony; it’s just that there would be no state-issued marriage license for him to sign afterward.

It is not meaningless.  This measure will make utterly clear that that same-sex wedding is a wedding.  Not a “commitment ceremony,” not an “affirmation,” not a “civil union,” but a wedding on the exact. same. order. as any opposite-sex wedding.  It brings the authority of the church to the fight for marriage equality in a legal and ethical fashion, much in the manner that the Catholic Church declines to recognize divorces, without legislating them away in the secular world—-so now the Episcopal church WILL, if this resolution passes, recognize same-sex marriages, and not provide support to, agreement with or recognition of any civic authority’s favorable treatment of opposite-sex couples. 

There is little that could be more meaningful.

I always thought that the European habit of requiring a civil ceremony appeared like a petty insult to the church, as if to say, “you’re not really married until one of our government employees performs the ceremony, no matter what your church says.”

I understand why these Episcopal priests submitted this resolution,—to make the same-sex marriage issue a matter of principle—but I don’t admire the “only civil marriages count” laws in other countries at all. It’s a testimony to our comparatively civilized society when it comes to our history of religious freedom that we don’t put lots of restrictions on our churches and its clergy, and we don’t need a bunch of laws to “put them in their place.”

Anon, we actually call ourselves Universal Life. That should let you find the site.

I understand why these Episcopal priests submitted this resolution,—to make the same-sex marriage issue a matter of principle—but I don’t admire the “only civil marriages count” laws in other countries at all.

Good news: those laws aren’t what you think they are.  Only civil marriages count in either regime.  In the U.S., a civil marriage can be accomplished by going to the justice of the peace, or to a religious official, but either way, you only get a civil marriage from the government.  Whether one gets a religious marriage or not is completely irrelevant to the civil marriage both in the U.S. and in the countries that don’t allow religious leaders to officiate these civil marriages.  The religious official doesn’t have any authority independent of the state to perform a civil marriage in the U.S; states just recognizes religious ceremonies as adequate evidence of an intent to marry to establish a civil marriage.  It’s still the state, not the minister, that grants the civil marriage.

Which is a long way of saying that I support the gesture of the Episcopal church, but they’re mistaking (and overstating) the sort of civil authority they had in the first place.

Thom, maybe I should have rephrased that to say, “only the civil ceremony counts,” because obviously the point I was making was misunderstood.

Ah, well that would be different then—and, for what it’s worth, I think that you’re right to prefer the U.S. system over one that ignores the significance of a cultural ceremony in order to make clear that the clergy isn’t in charge. Though there’s something to be said for that regime, particularly where, as with same sex marriage, the clergy believe their rites define our rights.  I jumped on the distinction between a marriage and a ceremony only because it’s so significant in the distinction between religious and civil marriage. (both are marriages, both are ceremonies, but one is *only* a ceremony while the other is also legal relationship).

Pam,

This certainly does put the cat among the pigeons. I’m fortunate (and somewhat unusual) in being a cradle Episcopalian (long time since the cradle, alas): this proposal is one that a number of Episcopalians have been arguing for quite some time now. While most problems have solutions that are simple and wrong, this appears to be one that is simple and right: completely cut the cord between civil and religious marriages. One is a legal, civil right; the other is up to the individual parties and their faith (or not).

One slight correction to the comment about weddings being money raisers for churches: for Episcopalians (and Roman Catholics, as my ex was), the church/parish usual doesn’t get anything for the wedding (or to be more precise, they only charge for expenses actually incurred, like a custodian to clean up afterwards). The priest/minister and the organist set their rates and are paid directly by the couple—it doesn’t pass through the parish at all. Which is why those branches maintain the tradition that the local clergy and organist must be asked to participate (hopefully they have enough sense and taste to say “no” if someone’s aunt or uncle is a priest or musician!) As a once and current church organist, I’m quite sure this isn’t universal knowledge: unfortunately I have had to be the one to say, “Actually, uh, no the parish doesn’t pay me for this, uhhhh, you do. And the same for the priest.”

Boy is that awkward….

Can’t wait ‘til we get to this point out here in the desert

The Illogical Planner

Now: let us see if this gets the same sort of obsessive coverage from the NYT as do the endless threats of 1 to 3 percent of the Episcopal Church USA to secede (or similarly hold their breath till they turn blue and even more irrelevant) over the ordination of an openly gay bishop. (usually the NYT articles bury the actual and minsicule #s of seceders in an effort to make them seem more relevant)

This is a case of priests on the right side of history.

Tyro:

It’s either “only the civil ceremony counts” or wade ankle-deep through blood in the streets to decide which religious ceremony counts. In catholic countries it used to be you couldn’t legally be married by a protestant minister, in protestant ones getting a catholic marriage might be signing your death warrant. And allow real property to be transferred as the result of a marriage officiated by a rabbi —heaven forfend! The depth of feeling has changed over the centuries, but the lesson was learned.

In the US, we’ve gone the other way, and almost anyone claiming to be the representative of a religion can officiate, but they’re still officiating at a civil ceremony.

oh, *CHEERS!*
this is EXACTLY what i have been saying should happen for YEARS!

if only i wasn’t pagan, i would be Episcopalian!

Tyro, think about what they say at the end of a wedding in the U.S.:  by the power vested in me by the state of _________ I now pronounced you man and wife. The civil part of the wedding is making sure you have the license and signing it afterwards. If you don’t do those things - those things dictated by bureaucrats - you’re not legally married, no matter how special your ceremony was to you. It’s not really that different.

In the Latin American countries I am personally familiar with, the priests aren’t legally allowed to marry people who aren’t civilly married, so there is not really an issue of people having a religious ceremony and then having to take additional steps. I will say, though, that one American woman I know who was marrying a Paraguayan had a hard time finding a JP down there who would let them have a ceremony with the wedding. As in, the first three JPs they talked to actually refused to allow them to exchange rings or kiss as part of a ceremony conducted by a JP because that stuff was religious tradition. It’s not actually illegal to do it at a civil wedding, though. The JPs were just being petty tyrants and finally they found one who wasn’t who would go along with whatever they wanted.

I attended a standard civil wedding in Paraguay, and it was pretty funny. “Do you agree to abide by title 3, subsection a, part I of the civil code, which states that the husband and wife are equal partners in the marriage and will support each other in good times and bad? Do you agree to abide by title 3, subsection a, part II of the civil code, which states that you will forsake all others and cleave only unto each other?” And so on.

FWIW, I doubt we’ll ever go this route here because we’re too vested in our system that people would interpret a change as an attack on religion. And really, it probably would be because the countries that separated it did so as part of a larger anti-clerical attack on the privileges of the church.

But if we were to go to a system like this or already had one, I think it would make the whole issue of gay marriage a lot less fraught. You would still have opponents, but a whole line of argument against it just wouldn’t be there.

I’m not convinced, chingona. The opponents of same sex marriage really, truly, want to preserve the superiority of heterosexuality.  That same sex couples could be married by state officials, that objecting religious groups need never recognize the religious legitimacy of such unions, that the ceremonial rites of religions are irrelevant to the legal arrangement of marriage haven’t led opponents to relent.  I suspect the religion is called in largely because the religion itself demands heteronormativity, not because of an unfortunate equivocation that could be erased by a clear distinction of civil and religious ceremonies.

Maybe I should say “a little less fraught” instead of “a lot less.” I don’t think the primary objection is religious, but it seems that during the Prop 8 campaign in California, proponents made in-roads with voters that could have been persuaded to vote no by arguing that gay marriage sanctioned by the state would impinge on freedom of religion. I agree these arguments were bullshit, but based on the polling, which went from a majority planning to vote no to the thing passing, something got to those voters who switched over. I guess that’s what I’m getting at.

This is *fascinating*. I will be watching to see how this plays at General Convention.

My (straight) parents actually had two weddings—the legal and the church ceremony—in Canada thirty years ago. The man they wanted to perform their wedding was a pastor in their church but not licensed by the state of Ontario to perform weddings, so they drove over to the JP and got married two days before the church ceremony. (They now have to remember which date someone means when they’re asked for their wedding date: the government needs the legal date, but their “real” (to them) anniversary is two days later.)

I think, though I’m not sure, that the reason their pastor wasn’t licensed by the state to perform civil weddings was that he didn’t want to be tied into “the system” like that; similar to what the Episcopal priests here are doing, I think. The only downside I can think of is a little more running around for the couple getting married; annoying, yes, but for a very good cause and principle, and I’m sure if it became common, people would find lots of ways to streamline the process.

This seems like a very Episcopal way of doing things, by the way—find the small technical detail that makes the BIG difference, and then change things there, at that fulcrum point. Sigh, I love them with a geeky love, sometimes. )

Assuming it really would be inconvenient to deny clergy civil power, it seems that some of us are willing to tolerate big holes in the Wall of Separation for the sake of CONVENIENCE.

That’s great.

Nenya,
Our (Episcos) weird tendency to concentrate on seemingly technical details for major social issues is a function of our history. Our tradition has always been against major conclusive statements of faith and theology (with very limited, extremely general exceptions like the Creeds). Common worship is the theme, so changing a religious service IS the same thing as making some dogmatic dicta as far as we are concerned. Mind you there are many reactionaries in the global Communion these days who want to change that but they seem to have pull some miscalculations lately that have weakened them a bit. Still far too much power, but less than even three years ago.

If this is seriously debated at Convention it’s going to be competing with the clergy equality resolutions (full inclusion of LGBT for bishops as well as deacons and priests) that many of us have been pushing. Those have a pretty big groundswell already, starting almost immediately after the last Convention. My guess is that the civil marriage resolution won’t go far this time, but if full clerical inclusion is passed it will be the next big issue for church progressives.

Several of my (straight) friends who are in the military had the challenge of scheduling weddings around deployment, and the general approach was to have a quick JOP wedding first and then a traditional religious wedding when there was more time to plan. More than one couple had trouble finding a cleric who would perform the ceremony if they were already technically married. One couple had an uncle do it, one couple had a vow-renewal ceremony with white dress and the whole deal, and one managed to find an understanding chaplain who was willing to look the other way. How much easier would it have been for them if the dual ceremonies had been the rule rather than the exception?

I’ve been in a debate with a friend where I’ve suggested basically the same concept: Have the state offer nothing but civil unions to all comers, gay or straight, and leave the sanctifying of the marriage to whatever church will be up for it. He still seems to think that it’d redefine marriage - which I guess it will; we just disagree on whether that’d be a bad thing.

I think the “Let’s just have civil unions!” is pretty fucking insulting, in the same way disbanding all the extracurricular activities once a gay-straight alliance forms is insulting.  No one had a problem with the government performing marriages and calling them such until they had to confront the equality of same sex couples.

Also, it’s not practical.  The right to marriage is protected by the 14th amendment after Loving v. Virginia.  You’d need a constitutional amendment.

Thom -
i can see how you (and probably many others) can see it as insulting. viewed that way, it IS insulting.

but… i am one of those people who has been saying for years that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institute, and that government should not be involved at ALL.

This warms my Episco-geek (thanks, Nenya!) heart—it is technical, it’s unlikely to pass, but it will spur serious and thoughtful discussion.  I’m so happy to live in the NC Diocese! 

Coincidentally, I stumbled across this (http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/12/15/opinion/1194835653812/bloggingheads-ban-marriage.html) blogging heads post at the New York Times in a similar discussion. 

I won’t repeat the many good points, except to say that for a long time I was anti-marriage because I thought it was inappropriate that the state has the right to sanction our personal relationships.  On the other hand, I do feel it’s important that any couple get to stand up in front of their community, whatever it may be (in front of God and everybody, as it were), and pledge their own communion.  If that’s a religious community, great; if that’s just the sun, and a few friends, fine.  But what’s the state doing there?

but… i am one of those people who has been saying for years that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institute, and that government should not be involved at ALL.

But no matter how many times you say it, you’re still wrong.  Religious ceremonies are one thing; legal divisions of property are another thing.  Both go by the name marriage, but neither needs the other to exist. Add on to this that the particular legal arrangements of modern civil marriage are a very recent vintage (as in, the last 30 years in some states) and there’s no call to bring religion into it at all.

I’ve no patience for calls to give up legal rights because people with religious objections are confused by a homonym.