We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD, as the sentence I have underlined shows, I have never suggested that the religious and civil haven't gone hand in hand.  What I have said is that the religious aspect took precedence until very recently - in historical terms - in the west and often retains its primacy in other parts of the world.

But that is simply non-sense seeing as there is no doubt that marriage in ancient Rome and Greece were primarily civil, although might have had secondary religious elements akin to the current blessing of a civil wedding.

The distinction today of course is that most marriages have no religious element - not just a secondary religious element. They are entirely civil. You nave failed to provide any evidence for the reverse equivalent - i.e. marriage that is entirely religious with no civil element.

[Outrider]

I don't deny that, but then that was a development that wasn't originally within Christianity, suggesting that (as we see in a number of other areas, sadly) the church wasn't exempt from making mistakes.

Yes, but seeing as how marriage itself wasn't a development within the original church, why should you get some sort of proprietary say in where it goes?

The church wasn't exempt from making mistakes, you say - fine, but appreciate that in fifty years or so people are going to look back at the arguments against gay marriage whilst the plural marriage debate goes on and say 'well, sure, we got that one wrong, but this is different'.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but seeing as how marriage itself wasn't a development within the original church, why should you get some sort of proprietary say in where it goes?

Marriage has always been 'owned' by society. Often religion has also played a role, particularly where a society is heavily influenced by religion, but that doesn't the fundamental point that marriage is a societal institution - it always was and still is.

[Bubbles]

But that is simply non-sense seeing as there is no doubt that marriage in ancient Rome and Greece were primarily civil, although might have had secondary religious elements akin to the current blessing of a civil wedding.

The distinction today of course is that most marriages have no religious element - not just a secondary religious element. They are entirely civil. You nave failed to provide any evidence for the reverse equivalent - i.e. marriage that is entirely religious with no civil element.

The only reason you need a civil element is because the state needs to know about it, to cover it ( or recognise it ) by law.

I have seen some articles ( Islam) questioning whether it is worth bothering getting the civil aspect as some Muslims felt being married in Gods sight was enough.

One example of a religious marriage where the civil element is missing is where Muslims have more than one wife.

The second wife, is married in religious terms only.  The civil aspect is missing.

If they had a civil aspect they would be known as bigomy.

Civil law in theory only recognises such a thing because it happens ........ And it only accepts it because it is allowed for in the Islamic religion.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uk-legally-recognises-multiple-islamic-wives-121789.html

In the UK only the first wife gets the recognition under UK law, which is the civil aspect.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf

The law is slightly different in Scotland

http://www.cflp.co.uk/islamic-marriage-and-divorce/

It's gets complicated because some religious marriages are recognised and others arn't.......

This also has a knock on effect as to whether divorces are valid or not.......

 

It's a bit " messy"

In some cases religious only marriages are accepted, if the people come from a country that does them without  a need for a civil version in the same way.

[Outrider]

Marriage has always been 'owned' by society. Often religion has also played a role, particularly where a society is heavily influenced by religion, but that doesn't the fundamental point that marriage is a societal institution - it always was and still is.

It's difficult, because if you go back far enough there isn't much distinction between civic and religious in many places. There are enough, though, where religion doesn't impinge on family structure celebration and validation that it's safe to say it has an existence independent of religion, certainly.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's difficult, because if you go back far enough there isn't much distinction between civic and religious in many places. There are enough, though, where religion doesn't impinge on family structure celebration and validation that it's safe to say it has an existence independent of religion, certainly.

O.

Indeed - but where society was effectively one governed by a religion then there is still society and therefore marriage remains a societal institution even if that is synonymous with a religious institution. One point that is important is that as far as I am aware marriage in pretty well all societies has certain element which demonstrate its societal importance. Namely that marriage itself is conducted in a public ceremony, with witnesses and recorded by that society (even if the recording is really the presence of the witnesses). If marriage existed outwith society then none of that would be necessary, but it seems to be universal. If marriage was merely between the couple and god, why is it necessary to include anyone else - yet they always are.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only reason you need a civil element is because the state needs to know about it, to cover it ( or recognise it ) by law.

I have seen some articles ( Islam) questioning whether it is worth bothering getting the civil aspect as some Muslims felt being married in Gods sight was enough.

One example of a religious marriage where the civil element is missing is where Muslims have more than one wife.

The second wife, is married in religious terms only.  The civil aspect is missing.

If they had a civil aspect they would be known as bigomy.

Civil law in theory only recognises such a thing because it happens ........ And it only accepts it because it is allowed for in the Islamic religion.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uk-legally-recognises-multiple-islamic-wives-121789.html

In the UK only the first wife gets the recognition under UK law, which is the civil aspect.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf

The law is slightly different in Scotland

http://www.cflp.co.uk/islamic-marriage-and-divorce/

It's gets complicated because some religious marriages are recognised and others arn't.......

This also has a knock on effect as to whether divorces are valid or not.......

 

It's a bit " messy"

In some cases religious only marriages are accepted, if the people come from a country that does them without  a need for a civil version in the same way.

Presumably we are talking about marriage in the UK here.

And the position is clear - a marriage is only valid if it is monogamous and must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949 (as amended), the Registration of Marriages Regulations 1986 and other related Acts (eg the Children Act 1989). So a second 'marriage' carried out in some religious ceremony is not valid - pure and simply.

There are come complexities with people who for married in another country where polygamy is legal, but that's a different issue.

So to state yet again:

Religious marriage is valid when it is authorised by and conducted in accordance with the civil law of the land (or secular depending on your choice of term). If not then it is not valid - simple. So:

1. Civil ceremony without a religious ceremony - married.

2. Civil ceremony with a religious ceremony that isn't authorised under law - married.

3. Religious ceremony that is authorised under the law - married.

4. Religious ceremony that isn't authorised under the law without a civil ceremony  - not married.

People can claim until they are blue in the face that they have a valid marriage to their second polygamous wife following a ceremony in the UK but that isn't the case. And indeed if they tried to claim they were married to their second polygamous wife (or vice versa) in an official way they might get into deep water.

[Bubbles]

The thing is though, years ago religious and civil were pretty much the same thing.

For example adultery which had a religious prohibition, was also against the law ( civil).

So the state needed to know who was attached to who, so they could punish those who where breaking the Ten Commandments.

Nowadays it's more separate.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

The thing is though, years ago religious and civil were pretty much the same thing.

For example adultery which had a religious prohibition, was also against the law ( civil).

So the state needed to know who was attached to who, so they could punish those who where breaking the Ten Commandments.

Nowadays it's more separate.

 

I think I have already dealt with this in previous posts. Where civil society and religion were synonymous an institution such as marriage is still a societal institution as well as a religious one.

So it is possible for marriage to be both a societal and a religious institution, it is possible for marriage to be purely an institution of civil society with no religious involvement (as is the case for most marriages in the UK today) - I am struggling to see how the reverse is possible - marriage being purely a religious institution with no societal component. It makes no sense.

[Bubbles]

I think I have already dealt with this in previous posts. Where civil society and religion were synonymous an institution such as marriage is still a societal institution as well as a religious one.

So it is possible for marriage to be both a societal and a religious institution, it is possible for marriage to be purely an institution of civil society with no religious involvement (as is the case for most marriages in the UK today) - I am struggling to see how the reverse is possible - marriage being purely a religious institution with no societal component. It makes no sense.

It does, because in a small community everyone knows who is married.

Once societies got bigger then they needed to keep records, which were centralised.

At one point, I'd have said ALL valid marriages were religious ones, because they were the only ones on offer.

As time has moved on, and more people have become less religious, the two have separated.

Now they are totally separate.

Society has changed to suit the people in it.

Many years ago the only people to get married in a registry office were either of a different faith or unacceptable to God for some reason ( divorced,  pregnant etc) it was almost " shaming" to get married in a registry office.

People who got married in a registry office ...... Were dodgy in some way.

I got married in a registry office, back 30+ years ago, and up to a point I was aware of this attitude, because then it just about still existed, in that some people kept trying to find dodgy reasons I had to have a registry office wedding.

It was unconventional then....... Mainly used by divorced people and other such deviants 

However, I can be a deviant all on my own 

But even 30 years ago, it caused a few raised eyebrows.

It was,  I think something set up to cater for those who were considered not either good enough or of a different religion.

Nowadays it's considered more normal, no one thinks you are a bit dodgy because you get married in a registry office.

I noticed the attitude, 30+ years ago though.

It seemed to almost be considered not a " proper" wedding.

Attitudes have changed so much in the last 30 years.

I can believe people in the past thought the only valid ones were religious ones, because the attitude of society was very different in the past.

The further back you go,  the more pronounced  I reckon the attitude was, in society, that only dodgy people got married in a registry office.


Any one else have a registry office wedding 30 years ago, and did you find the same prejudices I found?

[Bubbles]

I think I have already dealt with this in previous posts. Where civil society and religion were synonymous an institution such as marriage is still a societal institution as well as a religious one.

So it is possible for marriage to be both a societal and a religious institution, it is possible for marriage to be purely an institution of civil society with no religious involvement (as is the case for most marriages in the UK today) - I am struggling to see how the reverse is possible - marriage being purely a religious institution with no societal component. It makes no sense.

According to this, civil marriage is a fairly new thing

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/

Before then, all marriages were religious ones.

Until the middle of the 18th century marriages could take place anywhere provided they were conducted before an ordained clergyman of the Church of England. This encouraged the practice of secret marriages which did not have parental consent and which were often bigamous.

Irregular marriages

It also allowed couples, particularly those of wealthy background, to marry while at least one of the partners was under age. The trade in these irregular marriages had grown enormously in London by the 1740s.

In 1753, however, the Marriage Act, promoted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, declared that all marriage ceremonies must be conducted by a minister in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England to be legally binding.

Parental consent

No marriage of a person under the age of 21 was valid without the consent of parents or guardians. Clergymen who disobeyed the law were liable for 14 years transportation.

Although Jews and Quakers were exempted from the 1753 Act, it required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches.

Restrictions removed

This restriction was eventually removed by Parliament in the Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship.

It was also made possible for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices which were set up in towns and cities.

Minimum age

In 1929, in response to a campaign by the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act. This is still the minimum age.

Civil partnership

In 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act which gave same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples. The Act also set out formal procedures for the dissolution of partnerships similar to divorce.

 

( I find I learn a lot, posting on these message boards  🌹)

[Aruntraveller]

Civil partnership

In 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act which gave same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples. The Act also set out formal procedures for the dissolution of partnerships similar to divorce.

This is not strictly true - it should more accurately read  "...many of the same legal rights and responsibilities" . There were if I recall 7 or 8 differences (mostly minor - but at least one was disadvanatageous towards same sex couples) between marriage and civil partnerships.

This was the issue I had in mind:

Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.
 
The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.
 
For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
 
But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Marriage has always been 'owned' by society. Often religion has also played a role, particularly where a society is heavily influenced by religion, but that doesn't the fundamental point that marriage is a societal institution - it always was and still is.

Who get's married for the sake of society? Hast thou not experienced ''The bubble'' with just the two of you in it?
In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?

[Shaker]

Who get's married for the sake of society?

Who these days gets married for the sake of a religion? A few, but a truly tiny minority.

In fact does anyone actually really get married for the "sake" of anything other than wanting to be married to a specific person, usually with the intention of it being for life?

In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?

No - if you hadn't noticed marriage and reproduction are separable entities.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who get's married for the sake of society? Hast thou not experienced ''The bubble'' with just the two of you in it?
In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?

I would say that most people get married because they love each other and want to make a public, consensual commitment to each other that is recognised by society.

In the UK in a minority of cases there is an additional reason of being seen to be married in the eyes of god, but that is not instead of the above, but in addition to it. So recognition by society (in its broadest or a more narrow sense of community of friends and family) is a major part of the reason to get married for most people I would argue.

[ProfessorDavey]

According to this, civil marriage is a fairly new thing

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/

Before then, all marriages were religious ones.

I think you need to look a bit further back in history.

As I and other have pointed out marriage in the ancient greco-roman civilisations was effectively a civil rather than a religious institution.

And actually the early Christian church largely ignored the institution of marriage which continued to be celebrated according to long-standing greco-roman civil traditions and outwith the Christian church and therefore the prevailing religion of the day. Indeed it wasn't until the 13thC that the christian church (certainly in the west, it occurred a little earlier in the east) fully embraced marriage as a religious institution - it was at that point that marriage was declared to be a sacrament.

Indeed as far as I am aware there aren't detailed accounts of anything resembling a Christian wedding ceremony until about the 9th Century and not until the 13th Century that marriage became a sacrament. So effectively until the 12th or 13thC in western europe, including Britain marriage was an institution largely embedded in non religious civil society, (effectively as a 'contract' between the couple) and not in the church at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?

Why - I think it is mainly religious people who see marriage and procreation as inextricably linked.

To me marriage and having children are entirely different things and, of course, this is reflected in the civil marriage ceremony where there is no mention of children, unlike, for example, the RCC ceremony where the couple have to promise to try to have children and (and here is the rub) normally expected to promise to bring those children up as catholics, including in cases where one member of the couple isn't a catholic.

[Rhiannon]

The reason civil partnerships were introduced was to give same sex couples the same protection in law as married ones, should they wish to have it. Now we have marriage equality.

[Hope]

Why - I think it is mainly religious people who see marriage and procreation as inextricably linked.

My experience is that said folk are the last to use that argument.  In fact, the people who seem to raise the idea most are those who want to suggest that it is the religious folk who raise it most.

[ProfessorDavey]

My experience is that said folk are the last to use that argument.  In fact, the people who seem to raise the idea most are those who want to suggest that it is the religious folk who raise it most.

Don't talk rubbish.

One of the major arguments used by the religious anti-equal marriage brigade has always been that gay couples can't have children, thereby inextricably linking marriage and procreation.

Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies.

[Hope]

Don't talk rubbish.

One of the major arguments used by the religious anti-equal marriage brigade has always been that gay couples can't have children, thereby inextricably linking marriage and procreation.

Sorry, PD, but I of all the arguments I've seen from the religious in this regard, this particular one comes pretty low on the list.  Its rather like the 'yuck factor' claim: most religious people had never even heard or thought of the concept until it was brought up on internet discussion boards as the chief reason why religious people opposed the idea of liberalising the laws on homosexuality.

Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies.

It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.

[Shaker]

It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.

Though a curiously optional, dispensible part so long as heterosexuals are involved, apparently.

[ProfessorDavey]

It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.

That isn't a universal view at all.

It may do in a religious context, it doesn't in a civil one - which lets not forget represents over 70% of the marriages in the UK.

[Hope]

That isn't a universal view at all.

It may do in a religious context, it doesn't in a civil one - which lets not forget represents over 70% of the marriages in the UK.

PD, your post makes absolute nonsense, because my comment was in response to the point that you made - namely "Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies".

[Hope]

Though a curiously optional, dispensible part so long as heterosexuals are involved, apparently.

Ironically, Shakes, just about every part seems to be optional in the current climate