In Australia, as in the US, a marriage celebrant must be registered by the state in order to officially "marry" a couple. So, for example, all the rabbis in my synagogue are registered celebrants, and the marriages at which they officiate include the issue of a state marriage certificate.yovargas wrote:Whereas I had thought that after many years of debate I pretty clearly understood Cerin's position but this last few posts utterly baffle me. I earnestly cannot wrap my head around what she is saying. I'd like to because even though I very strongly disagree with her POV, I believe that Cerin is intelligent, sincere, and un-malicious, but I read that last post several times and it practically feels like she's speaking a different language.I am just jumping in here to say that I do understand where Cerin is coming from.
This bit in particular made my brain explode:
There would be no problem, if one could, as you suggest, be married in a church and still be considered married by the state, without subscribing to a state license. Indeed, I've been hoping that this might be a remedy that will be put in place -- a conscientious objector's marriage license that officially acknowledges the couple's urgent need, based on religious belief, to identify with the pre-SCOTUS definition of marriage.
However, many same-sex couples in my synagogue have been married under a chuppah, with all due ritual, by those same rabbis. These ceremonies are officially called commitment ceremonies because they are not state-sanctioned (unfortunately) and are not registered etc. But these ceremonies "acknowledge the couple's urgent need, based on religious belief" to be married in the eyes of their religious community.
It seems to me that those couples who conscientiously object to State-sanctioned marriage as currently defined (in other words, inclusive), could have a ceremony without signing onto the state's definition by being married in the eyes of their religious community without state sanction.
(And if they find that isn't "fair" or "just" because they are being discriminated against...well, the shoe's on the other foot.)
(Also, Inanna, with regard to Genesis 20:24, in the original Hebrew, the word is "isha", which is the word for woman as well as wife. )
And may I just say, for the past week or so, I've seen this thread at the top of my "unread threads" list, and I get a zing from it every time - 50 states!
It just blows me away that this marvel has happened in my lifetime. I remember when Nerdanel first started this thread, at a time when state-sanctioned inclusive marriage throughout the country seemed to be a far-off wish, and in what seems a blink of an eye, it has happened.
You will excuse me if I say I simply didn't think it would happen so quickly - not in the US, which has such a religious current throughout the country. And yet it has. It has. The tide has turned so quickly. In one lifetime, public opinion has swung 180 degrees.
It's miraculous
That's all. I just had to say it.
I hope so very fervently that we swing the tide here in Oz soon, but it may not - the current PM's attitude is shameful.