homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Church, state, and marriage (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Church, state, and marriage
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who sets the rules for marriage in your church -- your church, or the state?

If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?


If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage? If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?


If a couple is living together without having been married by the state or by the church, but they are raising children together, buying a house together, and otherwise living together in a manner that is very much like marriage, are they treated the same way as they would have been treated had they been married by the state, or differently? Why?

If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)? If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together? Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church? If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family? If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

[ 16. May 2012, 08:44: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Non-Anglican churches in England need a licence and an official from the state (registrar) to conduct marriages.

It would not be legal to conduct marriages outwith of the law and I don't know any church that would risk doing marriages which were outwith of the state system.

I'm trying to think what evangelical churches would think of your other questions. I believe they would recognise dual-gender marriages conducted by the state of other religious people - though to be honest I don't know that they would spend very long thinking about it. For many a marriage which was not conducted 'before God' would be an inferior sort of marriage.

I can't think of any evangelical church which would require remarriage in the church as a requirement of membership, but those who are not married would need to be before being offered membership. I think this is pretty odd given they're likely to see the state marriage as valid.

I don't know what would happen regarding time apart before being accepted for membership. I suspect they'd just be encouraged to get married as quickly as possible.

If a single partner wanted to join the church, I think it would be encouraged that they get married, although I think people would accept this was a difficult situation if the other party refused. I can't see many churches requiring the breakup of a marriage for membership - but then I can also see many churches refusing membership for such a person. In one evangelical church I knew, divorced people were refused membership forever. Just couldn't be members. I don't know how widespread that would be.

I don't know what would happen to a polygamist.

[ 15. May 2012, 15:45: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thinking some more, I suspect most evangelical churches would assume the first wife was the 'real' one and the others were long-term affairs. I guess they'd therefore need to see the situation trimmed down to a one-man-one-woman marriage, some serious public apology for the lifestyle and pretty quick changes before offering membership. Again, membership might not be offered at all, ever.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A story on this subject from Slacktivist:

quote:
Pennsylvania wouldn’t certify a marriage license until Tennessee certified a birth certificate, and getting Tennessee to do that while we were in Pennsylvania was proving tricky.

Six weeks before the wedding we still didn’t have a marriage license. Our good friend Father Bert — the Episcopal priest who was to perform the ceremony — was getting worried.

“We may have to postpone the wedding,” he said.

“Don’t be silly,” I told him. The invitations had been mailed, relatives had made plans, and we’d already scheduled vacation time for the honeymoon. “Who cares about a little paperwork?”

“But without a marriage license, your marriage isn’t legal,” he said. “You can’t go on your honeymoon if the marriage isn’t legal.”

Just a short time before we’d sat with Father Bert as he explained to us about the sacrament of marriage. Now he was saying that he could only administer this holy sacrament of the church if he had written permission from the county clerk’s office.

“Who cares about the license?” I said. “That’s just for, like, taxes and stuff. We can get all that sorted out later if we need to, after we get back from the honeymoon.”

My friend looked at me like I had three heads. It took us quite a while to understand one another. Eventually I said this, “You’re going to pronounce us married in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit — do you really think that doesn’t matter unless you add the name of Gov. Casey?”

He wasn’t persuaded. There were rules and he wasn’t allowed to break them.



--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An area where this kind of paperwork issue comes up is U.S. immigration law. Given that many jurisdictions have restricted the access undocumented immigrants have to the apparatus of the state (including the issuing of marriage licenses), do churches in these juridictions have to refuse to marry couples where one or both are in the U.S. illegally? If so, doesn't that mean that the state has added a de facto 'immigration status' requirement to the ritual standards of the church?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the CofE the priest is acting as a registrar on behalf of the state. So they would be unable to conduct a wedding that was against the rules of the state. So in England a church is unable to carry out a wedding without a state registrar and so cannot perform a wedding that is against government rules.
They can of course carry our any number of ‘marriage’ blessings as their church rules allow (CofE rules would not allow a blessing of a civil union/same sex relationship, for example) but they would never be legal marriages in the eyes of the state, even if they were in the eyes of the church.

The CofE also treats a civil marriage in the same way as it does a religious one.

By and large these days, it only worries about the mariatal status of the man-in-the-pew if they want to go forward for soem sort of licensed office

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Who sets the rules for marriage in your church -- your church, or the state?

Both. They sometimes clash, but rarely (us being the Church of England)

quote:

If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

No. Though there might be exceptions around illegal immigration.

quote:

If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?

The CofE would recognise the marriage of a Christian to a Buddhist anyway - and would perform such a wedding in church, or indeed a wedding between two non-Christians. The ministers of the ceremony are the couple, they are the ones making the promises, and if they feel able and willing to do that then the CofE won't stop them.

Strictly speaking we don't marry them. They marry each other. We're just witnesses and friends. We don't make it happen.

Some vicars will object to celebrating the wedding of a divorced person. That still causes trouble, though far less than even twenty or thirty years ago.

quote:

If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage?

Yes

quote:

If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?

No

quote:

If a couple is living together without having been married by the state or by the church, but they are raising children together, buying a house together, and otherwise living together in a manner that is very much like marriage, are they treated the same way as they would have been treated had they been married by the state, or differently? Why?

Differently. They would be encouraged to marry. The strength of the encouragement would depend on the priest involved. These days most CofE priests would likely be glad that they were together and that they wanted to come to church, and put little if any pressure on them. Some would though.

We wouldn't ordain them though. Strictly speaking we ought not to appoint them to any office in the church at all, but to be honest I suspect that no-one would much worry about making them a churchwarden. Come to think of it I know unmarried parents who have been churchwardens. I have no idea whether they would be excluded from being Readers (in Southwark, I guess probably not, other dicoceses might have firmer views)

quote:

If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)?

In practice very little is likely to be said. We have often baptised the children of unmarried couples, and some of them were regular member sof the congregation.

quote:

If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together?

No. Though I have known that to happen. One woman in our parish confessed publically before the congregation that she had sinned by living with her boyfriend unmarried (yes, in Britain, in London, in the 1990s - we evangelicals are funny folk) and said that they would remain apart until their wedding.

Something of "don't ask, don't tell" applies, and has applied for a long time. The truth is that has been quite normal for couples intending to get married to have sex with each other in England for centuries. But apart from odd episodes of rampant enthusiasm, there are surprisingly few early modern historical records of public condemnations and excommunications. For the most part people politely looked the other way and were grateful for the wedding when it came.

quote:

Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

No rules about that at all, its treated the same as any other marriage.

quote:

If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church?

No. Again, they would likely be encouraged to marry. The details would vary between parishes.

We have had a great many single parents in our congregation, almost all women. Not all are divorced or abandoned. Presumably there are men out there somewhere who are the fathers of those children. I can't remember anyone every being criticised or disadvantaged because of not being married.

quote:

If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

Yes. Marriage is not the property of the church, or the state. It existed before either. We recognise marriages celebrated by other states than our own, and other religions than or own, if they come within the rules of what we see as a valid marriage (basically that its a man and a woman, neither married to anyone else, and they consent freely)

quote:

If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family?

I've seen this in Kenya. As usual its more likely that the women would want to join the church than the man. Turning up on their own, or with their children. I think they they would be accepted. We're not in the business of turning people away. The position of the man is different. He might very well come under a lot of criticism, and depending on how firebrand the preacher is, could be excluded from church - there I mean, not here in England, I've never seen this in England.

The official position of the Anglicans in East Africa towards polygamy changed in colonial times. At one point they would refuse to recognise polygamous marriages at all, treat them as void. They changed that because it led to injustice to wives. What they were worried about was a rich man (and of course its only rich men who can afford more than one wife) marrying a new young wife in church, or in a civil ceremony, and repudiating his previous marriages to older women as void. Or getting rid of wives from a poor family and only recognising the well-connected ones. So sometimes the rules got used to exclude less favoured wives and their children from inheritance (cf. Genesis, passim)

So they moved towards recognising the marriage, even while disapproving of it. They wouldn't celebrate polygamous weddings in church though, and wouldn't appoint a husband of more than one wife to any office in the church. That was some time ago. I'm not sure what the position is now.

quote:

If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

No idea. I've never seen it happen here. This being England, I suspect that if they kept quiet about their home life no-one would notice. Or they would try hard not to. Just as no-one officially noticed all the lesbians in church for the last century or two. The Church of England is quite good at toleration. Though it often consists of pretending to look the other way when people do things we are supposed to disapprove of, so that we can plausibly deny that we saw them.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Non-Anglican churches in England need a licence and an official from the state (registrar) to conduct marriages.

It would not be legal to conduct marriages outwith of the law and I don't know any church that would risk doing marriages which were outwith of the state system.

I'm trying to think what evangelical churches would think of your other questions. I believe they would recognise dual-gender marriages conducted by the state of other religious people - though to be honest I don't know that they would spend very long thinking about it. For many a marriage which was not conducted 'before God' would be an inferior sort of marriage.

I can't think of any evangelical church which would require remarriage in the church as a requirement of membership, but those who are not married would need to be before being offered membership. I think this is pretty odd given they're likely to see the state marriage as valid.

I don't know what would happen regarding time apart before being accepted for membership. I suspect they'd just be encouraged to get married as quickly as possible.

If a single partner wanted to join the church, I think it would be encouraged that they get married, although I think people would accept this was a difficult situation if the other party refused. I can't see many churches requiring the breakup of a marriage for membership - but then I can also see many churches refusing membership for such a person. In one evangelical church I knew, divorced people were refused membership forever. Just couldn't be members. I don't know how widespread that would be.

I don't know what would happen to a polygamist.

Yep, I'd go along with all that with one addition - secular marriage + church blessing = Holy Matrimony

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Until recently I was a Methodist church steward. My fellow church steward was a woman who'd been cohabiting with a man for a long time and had two teenaged children with him. (At least, I have no reason to think they weren't his children.) Her partner often attended church.

I don't know why they never married, and from a Methodist point of view it would be entirely inappropriate for me to ask. I'm sure our minister knew about it, but made no indication that it was a problem for her to hold a post in the church. (Indeed, she was rushed into the job not long after joining!)

Methodists tend to avoid conflict even more than the CofE, and are even more tolerant of 'marital irregularities';at least until recently, most of the couples we've married have been divorcees who couldn't get married in the CofE!

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"ken
Differently. They would be encouraged to marry. The strength of the encouragement would depend on the priest involved. These days most CofE priests would likely be glad that they were together and that they wanted to come to church, and put little if any pressure on them. Some would though.

We wouldn't ordain them though. Strictly speaking we ought not to appoint them to any office in the church at all, but to be honest I suspect that no-one would much worry about making them a churchwarden. Come to think of it I know unmarried parents who have been churchwardens. I have no idea whether they would be excluded from being Readers (in Southwark, I guess probably not, other dicoceses might have firmer views)"

Yes they are excluded from being readers, I know somebody that it happened too. She was progressing along the reader route when her church realised she and long term partner were not married. She was told that she would not be allowed to go any further forward, while still unmarried but openly living with somebody.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zacchaeus

How did she take that news? Not very well, I imagine.

It must be rather embarrassing to get so far in your biblical studies and to plan to preach the gospel to others without realising that your church (like most of the others) prioritises marriage over other types of romantic union. Of course, you might disagree with that position, but not to be aware of it at all sugggests that there's been a serious gap in your religious education. But it's inevitable that this sort of thing will sometimes happen in denominations that neglect to discuss this issue for fear of causing offence

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239

 - Posted      Profile for Jenn.   Email Jenn.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken's experience is similar to mine. I wonder if, as this will change as the definition of marriage is reconsidered in the uk. Personally I would be quite happy to go with a seperate system, such that marriage was registered for legal purposes solely by the state registrar (not vicar) and church blessings being carried out for those that want them. To be honest I'd prefer this simply because the people I hear talking about their marriages at the school gate tlk about them as a pretty dress, a party and a massive bll, which changes nothing. The promises are just something you do to get that experience, which don't really need to be taken seriously. I don't want to be a part of that.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Possibly a stupid question..

The CofE seems to be able to affirm gay Civil Partnerships (or I assume so - given that some clergy are clearly in them). Does this mean that two gay people living together would be expected to become gay civilised (sigh, why can't we just call it marriage and be done with it? [Frown] ) in the same way before taking a role in the CofE?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The long ranger

I understand that all Anglican gay couples, whether in civil unions/marriages or not, are in theory expected by the CofE to be celibate. So it's not a case of the church urging 'unmarried' gay couples to get married and stop 'living in sin'.

This does raise an irony though - if heterosexual cohabitation is more or less acceptable to the church (as implied on this thread), this suggests that heterosexual marriage is declining in overall importance. Meanwhile, gay Anglican couples are arguing for their cohabitation arrangements to be 'upgraded' to marriage. So it would seem that same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage are potentially moving in opposite directions, at least from an Anglican point of view.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Zacchaeus

How did she take that news? Not very well, I imagine.

It must be rather embarrassing to get so far in your biblical studies and to plan to preach the gospel to others without realising that your church (like most of the others) prioritises marriage over other types of romantic union. Of course, you might disagree with that position, but not to be aware of it at all sugggests that there's been a serious gap in your religious education. But it's inevitable that this sort of thing will sometimes happen in denominations that neglect to discuss this issue for fear of causing offence

She was very unhappy - to clarify she hadn't started formal training, as marital status is enquired of as part of it. It was the discussions and recomendations point of her local church that it came to light.

It just happens in life when you meet a couple you don't actually think to ask 'are you married.'

Interestingly after many years they have now got married - but she has not picked up the reader idea again.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The CofE as institution does not affrim Civil unions, nor are the clergy allowed to bless or be involved in any form of service around gay relationships.

Of ourse as indivuals they may have their own ideas and the institution will have had to accept the legal standing of them.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mmm.. but one could be living with someone of the same gender and it not be a problem with regard to holding office in the CofE (unlike being someone who is in a non-married mixed gender relationship)?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

I doubt it. (See below)

quote:
If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?

A legally married couple is a married couple as far we are concerned. Should they have the marriage blessed? Yes

quote:
If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage? If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?

Yes
No

quote:
If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)? If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together? Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

No, they don't have to marry before joining the Church. I know of priests who refuse to marry couples living together unless they promise to stop having sex before marriage. Silly policy I think. No way to enforce it. Marry the couple and then they want be having sex outside of marriage.

quote:
If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church? If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

Don't need to end the relationship to join the church. Should the couple get married? Yes. Are they living in sin? Yes.
quote:
If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family? If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

As the bishop of a diocese in the Midwest said a couple of years ago, "The Episcopal Church doesn't stand for much but be draw the line at incest and polygamy."

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Mmm.. but one could be living with someone of the same gender and it not be a problem with regard to holding office in the CofE (unlike being someone who is in a non-married mixed gender relationship)?

Yes it could be - very much. Hence the arguments over Jeffrey John and his sexuality when he was nearly appointed as Bishop of Southwark..

Some people will accept a gay priest, but by and large is back to 'don't ask don't tell'.

Somebody who was in an openly gay relatioship is not going to be accepted for training to the priesthood.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Zacchaeus, I'm sorry to be difficult, but I wasn't talking about ordination - others were talking about offices such as church warden and reader.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712

 - Posted      Profile for PaulBC         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would think a big application of the virtue of charity has to be involved in who you will or will not marry. And even in talking about same sex amrriage, marriage w/unbeliever ,or of a divorced person a LOT of discretion &/or common sense has to be brought into the room. [Votive] [Angel] [Smile]

--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8

Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok being a reader is a licensed public office and has selection processes and 3 year accredited training from the wider church. It is also be publically sanctioned by the diocesan bishop. So the criteria for readreship are stricter than for churchwardens.

Churchwardens are elected by the local community annually and they only critieria for them is that they are a 'fit and proper person' according to charity law. Also that they are church of England communicants.

There election depends on the local people thinking they are acceptible. It is not a public leadership or worhip office and so sexuality may not be an issue - that depends on the views of the local congregation.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In the CofE the priest is acting as a registrar on behalf of the state. So they would be unable to conduct a wedding that was against the rules of the state. So in England a church is unable to carry out a wedding without a state registrar and so cannot perform a wedding that is against government rules.


That's interesting.

Let me make sure I understand, though. If a couple wanted to opt out of the legal institution of marriage, but they wanted a religious marriage, would no church or religious institution in the UK be permitted to perform a wedding that did not involve the state? If, as a matter of conscience, a Christian minister refused to act as an agent of the state, or to allow the state to have any say in what happened inside the doors of the church, would that minister not be able to perform weddings at all?

In the US, of course, the state has no say at all about strictly religious weddings. You get no legal benefits from such a wedding -- but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired.

In the US, most churches, as a matter of policy, won't perform a religious wedding without doing the legal bits, too. But there are a few that refuse to do the legal bits, telling the couple to go do the state's business with the state separately. You're saying that's not possible in the UK, though.

quote:
They can of course carry our any number of ‘marriage’ blessings as their church rules allow (CofE rules would not allow a blessing of a civil union/same sex relationship, for example) but they would never be legal marriages in the eyes of the state, even if they were in the eyes of the church.

Here's where I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you. Can the CoE do the service of the Sacrament of Marriage, but not do the bits that make it a legal marriage in the eyes of the state? Or is there a separate rite or service to bless a relationship where a legal marriage isn't possible?

quote:
The CofE also treats a civil marriage in the same way as it does a religious one.


From what people are saying here, it sounds as though most churches in the US do, too.

Which I find extremely interesting. It's not what I was expecting.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Josephine - as I understand it, only the state can sanction marriage in England and Wales (not sure of the situation in Scotland). It is not possible to have legal marriages outwith of the state, no.

A minister could presumably declare two people married, but that would have no legal validity without the presence of a registrar.

I think in some churches where there is no building certification, people are married in a state ceremony and subsequently have a religious ceremony - but without the registrar and the witnesses, you're not married.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the legal part is using the correct form of words in the oaths and the signing of the register.

I vaguely remember someone got into trouble because people had been married without saying the correct words - and there was a question about whether these people were actually legally married. But I might have made that up.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is only in the CofE where the priest is automatically the registrar too. In the past when people marrried in other churches, the couple had to arrange for the civil registrar to be there too. However nowdays there may be a perosn attached to the church who is the registrar for that church, this may or may not be the minister of the church.

I do know of a non CofE couple who had the civil, legal part of their service at the registry office and then the religious part later. This happens as a matter of course in some european countries, you must have the legal bit and then the church bit comes later if you want it.

For the wedding to be legal there are certian words that have to be said in front of the registrar. So in my expereicne a CofE belssing can be very similar to a legal wedding. But without the legal formalities being carried out it will not be a legal wedding.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Josephine
"In the US, of course, the state has no say at all about strictly religious weddings. You get no legal benefits from such a wedding"

Interestingly, I saw a documentary about this in some Muslim communities in England, apparently this is happening in their communities. They have their religious service and consider that the binding marriage and some of them did not even realise that it wasn’t a legally binding marriage in the eyes of the state.

"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think the legal part is using the correct form of words in the oaths and the signing of the register.


There must also be two adult witnesses and before hand the banns of marriage must have been published correctly or the appropriate licenses obtained.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

Perhaps the couple have been living together for 25+ years. He wants to marry; she doesn't. He proposes regularly. She regularly declines. Then she develops terminal cancer. They take steps to protect him from the effects of her medical debt -- they don't want him to be homeless as well as alone after she dies. A couple of years down the road, she's in hospice, and may die at any time. And she says she wants to marry him before she dies.

At that point, it might very well take too long to do the paperwork for a legal marriage. And the legal marriage would undo the financial protections they had put in place. But the legal bit isn't what matters. She wants to give him herself, as his wife, to formally accept the love he has always given her as the final act of love that she can give him before she dies. So he buys a ring and arranges for clergy of her faith to come to the hospital that very day, and to perform the service of marriage before she dies.

Or perhaps he and she are both widowed, and have grown children, and they are in a community property state. They do not want to live in sin -- they genuinely want to marry. But they do not want to complicate their childrens' inheritances. They don't even think it's terribly important that they wouldn't be next of kin to each other -- if one or the other of them is hospitalized, their kids are going to be involved anyway. A religious marriage, without the legal bits, would seem to fit their needs.

I'm sure that other scenarios exist where someone might want a religous wedding, but not a legal one.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

For some people being married in the eyes of God is a driving consideration while being married in the eyes of Cæsar is a matter of indifference.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599

 - Posted      Profile for Mockingale   Email Mockingale   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Who sets the rules for marriage in your church -- your church, or the state?

If a marriage would be acceptable in your church, but the state forbids it (say, because of the specific degree of consanguinity), would your church perform the marriage?

If a couple's marriage is legal, but the church forbids it (say, because of divorce, or because one of the parties is a Buddhist), does your church recognize them and treat them as a married couple? Or are they considered to be living in sin?


If a couple has been married by the state, but not by any church, does your church recognize that marriage? If such a couple wants to join your church, are they required to be married in the church as part of joining your church?


If a couple is living together without having been married by the state or by the church, but they are raising children together, buying a house together, and otherwise living together in a manner that is very much like marriage, are they treated the same way as they would have been treated had they been married by the state, or differently? Why?

If a couple living together but not married wants to join the church, do they have to marry before joining the church (or as part of joining)? If so, is the general policy that they must live apart for a while before they marry and can move back in together? Do the same rules apply to people who were married by the state?

If one member of a couple living together but not married wants to join your church, does your church require the person to either marry their partner or end the relationship in order to join the church? If so, and if the partner would be willing to enter into a civil marriage, but not willing to be married in the church (or does not qualify to be married in your church and is unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to qualify), would the civil marriage be enough?

If a family consisted of a husband and three wives, and they live in an area where polygamy is legal, and they all wanted to join the church, what would be required of the family? If such a family wanted to join the church, but they live in an area where polygamy is not legal, what would be required?

In the United States, a minister has the power by law to process a a civil marriage, as do most judges, court clerks, and notaries. American law does not (indeed, could not, thanks to the First Amendment) force upon religious ministers the obligation to marry any person who comes before them, regardless of the requirements of that minister's religion.

So, for instance, the law of every state provides a procedure for divorce. It is open to any person, regardless of whether that person is part of a religion which itself forbids divorce or was married in a ceremony performed in a church that forbids divorce. Yet, if a Catholic who was previously married and then divorced by civil authorities comes to a priest and asks him to officiate at a new wedding, the priest has the right to refuse to perform the wedding if it is against the tenets of his church. By contrast, a justice of the peace does not have the right to refuse to perform a wedding under those circumstances, even if he or she is a practicing Catholic.

As for whether a church may perform marriages that would be invalid under state law (for reasons of consanguinity, polygamy, etc.)... no and yes. No, the persons married under the church ceremony would not be recognized as married under the law, and the clergyperson and witnesses would not be able to legally certify that the persons were married. However, under certain limited circumstances, there would be no actual criminal consequences for performing a wedding that was not recognized by law.

For instance, the law does not recognize a marriage between a living person and a departed soul, but, barring necrophilia, there is no practical crime in performing a ceremony and calling it a marriage. Similarly, because laws against adultery and fornication are rarely if ever enforced in the United States, a group of people could, theoretically, engage in some plural marriage ceremony which binds them together in the eyes of their church. It would not have any legal effect in civil courts, but it probably wouldn't violate any laws (at least practically) either for the church to perform that ceremony or for the members of that "marriage" to live out something resembling polygamy.

Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In the US, of course, the state has no say at all about strictly religious weddings. You get no legal benefits from such a wedding -- but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired.

I had assumed that this was the case in the UK too, but I am open to correction. It's just that we don't get much exposure to it. This stems from our history. The legal status of marriage and the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony, despite being two distinct things, have long been conflated in our culture (a) because we have a state church which for most of the past few centuries at least has by far held the majority of our religious affiliation, so there has been a close link between church and state, and (b) because this state church has a low sacramental view of Holy Matrimony, and would have no qualms about recognising for Christian purposes a civil wedding performed by a registrar in a register office.

Combined, these facts have the result that, in our culture, unless they confess a form of Christianity that has a very high sacramental view of Matrimony or else they belong to another religion that emphasises its own form of marriage as something distinct from the legal ceremony/arrangement, most people just don't conceive of any difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage. The concept would seem alien to them and any suggestion of it would likely elicit a response of confusion.

Within churches that hold to a high sacramental view of marriage, on the other hand, it is not uncommon for couples to be legally married in a register office, and come to the Church for their Christian wedding on a separate occasion. They recognise that what happens in a register office is not the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that in the eyes of the Church, a couple who have taken on that new legal status, while they may receive the legal benefits that it brings, are no more married than the Owl and the Pussy Cat. I know of a number of Orthodox couples who have done this. They only had the minimum required number of witnesses at the register office, and for them it was simply a formality for the legal benefits of marriage but the big event to which friends and family were invited was the Church wedding, and it is on this date that they celebrate their anniversary.

However, I have been to other Orthodox weddings which have had a registrar present at the Church wedding, which has been slightly modified to satisfy the law. I had assumed that this inclusion of the legal wedding within the church wedding, and also the fact that I have never known an Orthodox wedding to take place prior to the legal wedding but always either at the same time or some time afterwards, was to avoid social confusion and potential irregularity, given the deep-seated cultural understanding that I mentioned earlier. However, with other people's responses, I now wonder whether there may be some legal reason.

I find it difficult to imagine, though, that this could be the case. If a minister of religion is not purporting to be performing any sort of legal ceremony, then what right does the law have to interfere in the sacramental worship of a church?

This, incidentally, is why the indifference expressed in conversations with some (though by no means all) of the most traditionally-minded Orthodox people about recent proposals in the UK for the recognition of same-sex legal marriages may surprise some people. As far as some are concerned, this doesn't affect them or their church but is a legal matter to do with tax, inheritance rights, and so forth, and they're just not going to go into anaphylactic shock about it. A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

[ 15. May 2012, 22:47: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Ok being a reader is a licensed public office and has selection processes and 3 year accredited training from the wider church. It is also be publically sanctioned by the diocesan bishop. So the criteria for readreship are stricter than for churchwardens.

Indeed. Because in my old church, we went through the whole formal announcement and period for people to object to the proposed appointment of a reader, and object they did - on the grounds he was in a gay relationship.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Within churches that hold to a high sacramental view of marriage, on the other hand, it is not uncommon for couples to be legally married in a register office, and come to the Church for their Christian wedding on a separate occasion. They recognise that what happens in a register office is not the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that in the eyes of the Church, a couple who have taken on that new legal status, while they may receive the legal benefits that it brings, are no more married than the Owl and the Pussy Cat. I know of a number of Orthodox couples who have done this. They only had the minimum required number of witnesses at the register office, and for them it was simply a formality for the legal benefits of marriage but the big event to which friends and family were invited was the Church wedding, and it is on this date that they celebrate their anniversary

I believe the claim by the church that there is a 'Christian Sacrament of marriage' that is different from the state one is an unjustified one. AFAIKS, marriage is a creation ordinance, given by God to all, and nothing to do with the church as such; we are acting as priests of the creator God - not presbyters of the Church - when we bless such marriages. This enables me to welcome non-Christians (i.e. unbaptised people) to my church to get married - they are asking for God's blessing on their marriage, which God invented and makes available to them. It's in that context that the church should be getting concerned at the state trying to pretend that it has the right to redefine what God has laid down.

On the issue of polygamy, it's my understanding that the Episcopalians turned up at one of the Lambeth conferences suggesting that they would turn a blind eye to that issue in Africa if the Africans would ignore gay relationships in the USA... I think Ken's right about the present African policy: no further women to be added to the family, but respect the condition of the family when they do join the church. Again this derives from the idea that marriage is a creation ordinance, and polygamy, whilst not the ideal, is not so wrong as to be needing to be repented of.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the United States, a minister has the power by law to process a a civil marriage, as do most judges, court clerks, and notaries. American law does not (indeed, could not, thanks to the First Amendment) force upon religious ministers the obligation to marry any person who comes before them, regardless of the requirements of that minister's religion.

The accuracy of this statement depends on what you mean by "process". Most American states consider clergy to be legitimate witnesses to the signing of the state-issued marriage license which makes a marriage legal in the U.S. Clergy cannot, absent such a license, perform, process or in any other way create a legally binding marriage.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

Now I'm wondering which churches don't see any space between a legal marriage and a Christian marriage.

I understand that the CoE doesn't, and given their history, I understand why.

The Orthodox and Catholic churches see them as two distinct things, and either one can exist without the other. (At least, I think the Catholics see it that way. I'm open to correction.)

I think the very conservative churches that do not recognize the marriage of divorced persons must see them as two distinct things.

But apparently many churches see them as exactly the same thing. I didn't realize that. But it would explain why some churches want to be able to set the rules for the State -- because they have allowed the State to set the rules for the church.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Within churches that hold to a high sacramental view of marriage, on the other hand, it is not uncommon for couples to be legally married in a register office, and come to the Church for their Christian wedding on a separate occasion. They recognise that what happens in a register office is not the Christian Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that in the eyes of the Church, a couple who have taken on that new legal status, while they may receive the legal benefits that it brings, are no more married than the Owl and the Pussy Cat. I know of a number of Orthodox couples who have done this. They only had the minimum required number of witnesses at the register office, and for them it was simply a formality for the legal benefits of marriage but the big event to which friends and family were invited was the Church wedding, and it is on this date that they celebrate their anniversary

I believe the claim by the church that there is a 'Christian Sacrament of marriage' that is different from the state one is an unjustified one. AFAIKS, marriage is a creation ordinance, given by God to all, and nothing to do with the church as such; we are acting as priests of the creator God - not presbyters of the Church - when we bless such marriages. This enables me to welcome non-Christians (i.e. unbaptised people) to my church to get married - they are asking for God's blessing on their marriage, which God invented and makes available to them. It's in that context that the church should be getting concerned at the state trying to pretend that it has the right to redefine what God has laid down.
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

Now I'm wondering which churches don't see any space between a legal marriage and a Christian marriage.

...

apparently many churches see them as exactly the same thing. I didn't realize that. But it would explain why some churches want to be able to set the rules for the State -- because they have allowed the State to set the rules for the church.

I think you're exactly right, Josephine.

As far as which churches distinguish between the two and which do not, I'm not entirely sure. As you say, the Orthodox and Catholic churches do and the Church of England does not. Perhaps its "continuing" offshoots also do not - I'm uncertain.

I strongly suspect that, in the UK, the equivalent to what I think our American friends would call the mainline churches would not distinguish between the two. To do so would seem to run contrary to their general approach. There is often a strong focus on inclusiveness and acceptance in these churches - a good focus in itself - but which sometimes seems to supersede other things, such as the need to correct what is unhealthful. I cannot see them saying to a couple married in a register office that they need to be married in church, and think that they would instead adopt the less confrontational policy of recognising the civil marriage as Christian.

Without direct knowledge myself, and welcoming input from members of these churches, you may also find that, for the purposes of marriage, they have adopted the Latin approach of identifying specific "ministers of the sacrament" for marriage (something I'm guessing they do not explicitly do for other sacramental rites), because in this instance, identifying the ministers as the bride and bridegroom allows for (but does not necessitate - see the RC approach) acceptance of marriage outside of church as Christian Marriage.

Interestingly, these seem to be the same churches that would not try to influence the state on the matter. So who knows?

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
"but there are situations where the legal benefits are irrelevant, and only the Sacrament of Marriage (or the Rite of Holy Matrimony) is desired"

That is interesting why would that be?

For some people being married in the eyes of God is a driving consideration while being married in the eyes of Cæsar is a matter of indifference.
Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.

Now I'm wondering which churches don't see any space between a legal marriage and a Christian marriage.

I understand that the CoE doesn't, and given their history, I understand why.

The Orthodox and Catholic churches see them as two distinct things, and either one can exist without the other. (At least, I think the Catholics see it that way. I'm open to correction.)

I think the very conservative churches that do not recognize the marriage of divorced persons must see them as two distinct things.

But apparently many churches see them as exactly the same thing. I didn't realize that. But it would explain why some churches want to be able to set the rules for the State -- because they have allowed the State to set the rules for the church.

Well, I expect there's a great deal of intertwined history on both sides here, because the attitude of the State towards Church marriage varies from country to country, as well as the Church attitude towards State marriage.

In many countries, the State doesn't recognise a religious marriage at all (much of continental Europe for example). Which would more or less force a Church to consider its own marriage ceremony as separate even if it wanted to consider them as the same.

[ 16. May 2012, 07:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Morlader
Shipmate
# 16040

 - Posted      Profile for Morlader         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.

Sorry for the tangent, but could a medical shipmate comment, please? I have been admitted to hospital several times in the past couple of years and I have given my partner of 22 years as my next of kin with absolutely no problem/comment from the person filling in the admission documentation. Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin? How would the hospital know to consult her about life support etc?

--------------------
.. to utmost west.

Posts: 858 | From: Not England | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.

I really don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a 'Christian marriage' is the same thing as a 'secular' one, or not? In Roman Catholic there does appear to be a difference, to the point where a Catholic can freely divorce from a marriage that wasn't done by a Roman priest. This to me is an abomination. AFAICS, having a 'church wedding' makes no ontological difference - though it might be more 'blessed' by God in some sense.

For the record, where Orthodoxy is the established religion (i.e. Greece) the church has to follow what the state says about divorcees, being required to remarry anyone who has a state divorce. This is not one of Constantine's more helpful legacies.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the Netherlands, the church isn't allowed to marry people, only to give its blessing to a (civil) marriage. Usually, the written liturgy sheet will call it something like "Service to ask God's blessing for the marriage of ... and ..."

Officially, the preacher should even ask for the civil wedding certificate of the couple before (s)he's allowed to hold such a cerimony, although in practice this is seldom asked for.

The Netherlands have been recognising gay marriages for over 10 years now. It depends a bit on the congregation whether they'll hold a cerimony for a gay couple. I guess a significant number of mainstream congregations within the PKN had conversations about this within the community, and they will. But that took a couple of years.

Services for second or third marriages after a divorce are usually not a problem, save in very orthodox (small o) congregations.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but most people who are in a permanant relationship would want to be the one who is considered as the legal next of kin.

For example, they would want be the one who was consulted about the turning off a life support machine. Without the legal marriage this is not the case.
I can see from what geraldine says there may be people who don't mind about the legal bits, but by and large most people would want to be the one that was to be consulted about their loved ones life.

Sorry for the tangent, but could a medical shipmate comment, please? I have been admitted to hospital several times in the past couple of years and I have given my partner of 22 years as my next of kin with absolutely no problem/comment from the person filling in the admission documentation. Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin? How would the hospital know to consult her about life support etc?
That's a legal question, the answer to which would depend on the law that applies where you are. After all, people end up in hospital for all sorts of reasons and are not always in a position to be able to name a next-of-kin. In the days before civil partnerships in the UK, I recall reading of cases of people being admitted to hospital unconscious and their same-sex partners of many years being refused any access to them in their dying days by next-of-kin, who were blood relations who disapproved of the relationship. As with this case and the case of the lady mentioned by Zacchaeus who wanted to be a reader, we tend to grow so accustomed to our own life situations that we forget that official rules do not always see this as "normal", and it often only comes to light when a situation arises to highlight the discrepancy, bu which point it is often too late.

Living as I do in England, were I in the sort of position you describe (in a relationship of many years but with an undissolved legal marriage to another person), I would perhaps try to regularise the legal situation to reflect the reality of my life, so as to avoid the potential horrors that could arise. However, I recognise that there are all sorts of other factors that may be preventing this, and that it isn't our place here to ask, nor are you under any obligation to share. I would strongly recommend checking out the laws of your country, though.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
A problem only really exists for those Christians who hold to traditional Christian understandings of human sexuality but who find themselves belonging to churches that recognise legal/civil marriages as Christian marriage.
I suspect many of the people who object to 'redefining marriage' are that section of the population that ticks 'Christian' in answer to the question about religion on the census form but never feels the need to darken the doors of a church except when being hatched, matched or dispatched. Certainly a lot of people in my parents' generation would feel this way - they don't go to church themselves but they have very strong views about what the C of E Ought To Do.

[ 16. May 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.

I really don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a 'Christian marriage' is the same thing as a 'secular' one, or not?
I'm saying that it isn't. Civil marriage is a social and legal arrangement. There is nothing wrong with it and I believe it can be and usually is beneficial. However, it is something different from the marriage ordained by God, by which two people become one flesh, and grow in Christ. Personally, I think that the use of the same term for both is unhelpful and would prefer to see civil union used for the secular arrangement, but we're kind of stuck with the culturally inherited terminology and it isn't going away, so we just have to work with it.

quote:
For the record, where Orthodoxy is the established religion (i.e. Greece) the church has to follow what the state says about divorcees, being required to remarry anyone who has a state divorce. This is not one of Constantine's more helpful legacies.
I didn't know this. This is unfortunate. Presumably, an ecclesiastical divorce, which would usually be within the bishop's discretion, would have to be granted in situations where bishops would normally not be willing to grant one. Canonically, by economy, we can allow that up to a certain number of times, so I wonder what would happen in Greece if, due to circumstances, somebody's marriages kept falling apart and that number were exceeded.

[ 16. May 2012, 08:12: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I don't think that you and I disagree that much about the place of Matrimony in creation but rather about the place of the Church in relation to that. From an Orthodox perspective, at least, God's saving work is for the redemption of the whole of creation, and there can be no real distinction drawn beteween priests of God's Church and priest's of God's creation. The former exists for the redemption of the latter. Dr Margaret Barker's work on Temple Theology touches on this. She really is quite an amazing lady in more ways than one, but I digress.

Anyway, I only really wanted to say that I think we agree on marriage as a creation ordinance but that the healing and drawing of creation to its fullness and especially mankind into the likeness of God happens through the life in Christ, in the Church, and marriage is no exception to this.

I really don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a 'Christian marriage' is the same thing as a 'secular' one, or not?
I'm saying that it isn't. Civil marriage is a social and legal arrangement. There is nothing wrong with it and I believe it can be and usually is beneficial. However, it is something different from the marriage ordained by God, by which two people become one flesh, and grow in Christ. Personally, I think that the use of the same term for both is unhelpful and would prefer to see civil union used for the secular arrangement, but we're kind of stuck with the culturally inherited terminology and it isn't going away, so we just have to work with it.

Thanks for the clarification - and that's exactly where we disagree. I believe that the biblical evidence is that a 'secular' marriage is a marriage in God's eyes.

1) Paul tells people married before they were Christians to stay together

2) Jesus uses the passage in Genesis about them 'becoming one flesh' of, in effect, secular marriages. That's when the 'creation ordinance' was ordained.

3) Similarly the phrase about 'one flesh' is used by Paul of the relationship created with a prostitute - there's nothing especially 'Christian' about it.

Given all this, I'm convinced that the state sanctioned marriage is the creation ordinance; the church may add a blessing - though personally I'm with the Reformers in denying this the status of 'sacrament'. And, of course it's this logic that leads to vocal opposition to states changing the definition of marriage; it's not for them to mess with. But what we can't do is try to claim the word 'marriage' back from the state: that's who it's been delegated to.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In Roman Catholic there does appear to be a difference, to the point where a Catholic can freely divorce from a marriage that wasn't done by a Roman priest. This to me is an abomination. AFAICS, having a 'church wedding' makes no ontological difference - though it might be more 'blessed' by God in some sense.

This is not accurate - it's a shadowy rendition of what is the case, but not a correct one. In the first place, a "Roman" priest is not absolutely necessary for a valid Catholic marriage. In the second place, any Catholic can freely divorce. In the third place, a 'church wedding' is not required in order for the Church to accept the marriage.

The Catholic Church's position on marriage is akin to what Michael describes, although we are not quite as separatist about the rest of humanity as he implies ("they are no more married than the owl and the pussy cat"). The Catholic Church accepts as valid marriages - marriages according to nature - those contracted in other religions and even in civil registers, where these comply with the essential nature of marriage. The Catholic Church does not set itself up against those and regard them all as invalid unless and until they are performed in a Catholic Church. Should two Anglicans marry and subsequently become Catholics, their marriage is not affected by their conversion. They are married.

There are certain principles that bind Catholics, however. The assumption is that Catholics will want to celebrate a sacrament as well as the contract of marriage: the two are very distinct things. A Catholic who marries a Muslim, for example, may well contract a completely valid, wholesome and laudable marriage - but they do not celebrate a Christian sacrament. Firstly, to suggest they do insults the Muslim party, but more fundamentally because the other sacraments are dependent upon baptism. A marriage may be a Christian sacrament, but it does not have to be. Even a valid Catholic marriage may be a sacrament, but it does not have to be. The Orthodox operate something similar when it comes to the remarriage of divorcees: the first marriage is regarded as the sacrament, and any subsequent marriage is not - even if it is recognised by "economy".

For a Catholic to celebrate a valid Catholic marriage, four essentials are required: they need to be married to another Catholic, before a Catholic minister, in a Catholic Church, using a Catholic ceremony. That's the base line. Each of those (or even all of them), however, can be dispensed. It's a similar principle to what the Orthodox call "economy" - we just happen to have a more precise set of norms governing such a setting aside of the basic norm, which we do by a formal "dispensation".

If such a dispensation is not obtained, then the Catholic will not have fulfilled the requirements for a valid Catholic marriage. If they just forged ahead and married in a registry office, their marriage is accepted by the Catholic Church as a legal marriage, but not a valid Catholic marriage. It is someone in this situation who may then divorce and be remarried in Church. Had the dispensation been obtained, however, then they would not be free to marry again.

If someone is unbaptised when they marry and subsequently converts, their marriage is indeed recognised by the Church. It is not, however, a sacramental marriage. What could then be done is what we would call a convalidation: in other words, making a legal marriage also a Catholic marriage. In effect, most Catholic marriages on the continent are convalidations: the legal or civil contract is made before an official of the State, and then the marriage ceremony takes place in the Church. In places like England, some Catholic churches are licensed for the purpose of marriage, and they then have to have a "named person" who acts as the registrar. That may be the priest, but need not be. I frequently preside at weddings, but legally I am not the person who is the registrar - either an official from the registrar's office or a named person from that church has to be present.

What we do not do is a blessing of a marriage which is contracted irregularly.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Somewhere in thread the question came up about non CofE weddings and where the legal bits fit into there service.

At one family wedding, the legal words were woven into the service, in another they were done in the vestry when the couple went through to sign the register. I am assuming that it was because, in the second case, the official registrar for the church was not the minister who conducted the wedding.

I may be wrong in that assumption and if anybody knows anything about it I'd be glad to be corrected!

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
[qb] Is my wife, who the hospital know nothing about and who lives more than "a sabbath day's journey" away, still legally my next of kin?

I am not a lawyer, and you don't live in England, but as far as I know here in England that's almost certainly the case. And even if it isnt, as Michael said, there is a huge potential for trouble and grief. Over hospital decisions, inheritance, and all sorts of other things.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools