Separating church from state on marriage

[ylop]

Spotted this blog today - http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/126978.html.

Its a good argument for the church being separate from the state on marriage.

Caveat - it is written from a Roman Catholic viewpoint.

I like the comments about how the church has passively agreed to the State's definition of marriage by fully accepting multiple divorcees who are legally remarried, without investigation into the validity of that remarriage.

Your thoughts on it all?

ylop

 

[steve]

yes,
christianity was kind of the frog in the pan of water in letting the state become the final arbiter of marriage.

 

[Isabella]

Spotted this blog today - http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/126978.html.

Its a good argument for the church being separate from the state on marriage.

Caveat - it is written from a Roman Catholic viewpoint.

I like the comments about how the church has passively agreed to the State's definition of marriage by fully accepting multiple divorcees who are legally remarried, without investigation into the validity of that remarriage.

Your thoughts on it all?

ylop

The article has some good points. I personally have always been confused as to why the Church felt it necessary to support the State system to begin with, but I suppose it was simply because it came before the notion of civil marriage and powers held are hard to give up aren't they?

 

[CecilW]

Actually, if you look at history, you will find that the RC position is that the State should be under the control of the Church.

You will also see the persecutions and loss of personal freedom which that policy has brought.

One might therefore look behind a curtain or two and discover some interesting facts about the current freedom restricting trend in the US government, and how it might coincide with the rise in influence of said organization within the top leaders of the US government, A prime example is that of the religious affiliation of the members of the Supreme Court...

 

[FollowingHim]

That is an excellent article. We're in the middle of the gay marriage debate here, and I've made a submission on it opposing gay marriage on the basis that if we passed it we'd end up with something that has never been called "marriage" in the past being defined as marriage, while other things that people around the world see as marriage (polygyny for instance) are banned. Our law would therefore be even more out of touch with culture and history than it is at present. However I think this is the last stand I'll be making on this matter, because it really is pointless. Why bother trying to define the government's definition of something, when it's none of their business anyway?

If gay marriage is passed here it will be seen as so farcical by Christians that it might get people to start recognising that the state shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. We might be able to get at least some in the church to move away from state "marriage" and start conducting independent ceremonies involving contracts that actually reflect the personal beliefs of the parties involved. That would be a very controversial suggestion that would not be accepted by most Christians (yet), because the idea that you need a state certificate to be married is so entrenched. But some may see the light, and if people look more carefully into what the Bible really says about marriage in order to define what the church should be promoting that could open more opportunities for the recognition of polygyny by at least some churches.

 

[ylop]

Yes in some ways I would be happy to see "gay marriage" become law in Australia too. Perhaps finally some churches might start to see that the emperor has no clothes...