Marriage flouts the distinction between the Church and State for marriage is a superstition and the state is safeguarding it though it could safeguard similar arrangements that are not as demeaning and may not do so. The only justification for marriage is that some God commanded it therefore though the state might not realise it, it is giving in to superstition by making it its cornerstone and by looking after it. The state has to forbid fraud but marriage is a fraud so the state should not sanction or guard it. That means when anybody is prosecuted for fraud that the state is persecuting them for it is discriminating against them – some fraudsters get away and some don’t just because the state prefers one kind of fraud to the other.
The state is saying the law of the land binds people in marriage. The truth is the law can do no such thing for the law is really just composed of the decisions of fallible men and women and it can be fooled. It is not much of a bind in that case for it rests too heavily on guesses and human opinion.
The state in the past used to obligate people to be members of the state religion and no other. We all agree today that that was wrong. Just because the state protects something or commands something doesn’t mean it should. If we can get away with it why should we listen to the commands of the state? If we can live with our partners as if we were married without being married then what’s stopping us? The question is, if we go through a marriage ceremony are we obligated by that ceremony and vows to stay with the person we married? The answer is no. It is love, sharing lives together and treating each other reasonably well that obligates us to stay with the person not the ceremony. To deny this is to say that the law really has power to bind one person to another. If you are truly committed to your partner you do not need marriage to express this publically. Marriage cannot make a commitment more committed. Married or not, you can be as committed as ever. If you are committed you are committed.
The laws of the land are only human opinion. God - if there is one - doesn’t have opinions. He knows what is what.
Human authority can be fooled and wrong and it cannot bind a man and woman together in matrimony. You need God to bind people in marriage right not the Law for he cannot be fooled and we belong to him and are his property and he has supreme authority. So marriage then is a declaration that the Church should dominate the state and that atheists and Buddhists who do not believe in God should be treated as second-class citizens. It is also a declaration that civil (ie non-religious) marriage should get no protection which is a grave form of discrimination. True separation of Church and state requires that marriage be demoted from its legal status.
To say that God binds my marriage together is to stay that it is my belief in God that binds the marriage together. God - to religion even if he exists - is a belief not a person. He might be a person and really exist but it is not him I reach but my belief. I can’t get to him. My belief is really God for me and it is my creation so admitting that only God can give a marriage vow authority solves nothing. A marriage I try to give authority to by my belief, deserves less protection than one that gets authority from the state. Also it is human authority that tells us what God says. To believe in the Bible as the word of God is to take the word of the authors and the defenders of the faith for it and is really to believe in them and to put them above God.
The state making marriage binding by its decrees is laughable for the state just gives a few benefits for getting married and no penalty for breaking the vows and often gives cohabiters more rights than married couples. It is not a binding together at all when it is treated so trivially. The state does not punish for committing adultery or breaking the marriage vows in any other way. It merely enforces the property rights of marriage. The state does not punish people for “living in sin” though this weakens marriage and the prestige it has. The protection then that marriage gets can be easily withdrawn for it is more than half done away with anyway. The only legal ramification for a marriage breakdown is a loss of some benefits from the state but even that in many countries is minimal. It's a ramification but not a punishment. If it is then some strange conclusions appear. Here is one. If a woman leaves her husband for beating her up she is punished for it by losing whatever benefits come from marriage! In Ireland, live-in-lovers used to be better off than married couples. To leave your lover then is a bigger punishment than leaving her if you are married to her!
The state must be pressured to abandon the concept of the married couple as its foundation and to stop seeing marriage as legally binding. It will be difficult for the state makes a lot of money out of divorce and annulment cases which is probably the reason it is so worried about wedlock. The fact is that people will still go into contracts relating to how property is divided between them and still need the law and to give it hefty fees when there is a dispute and an infringement so money shouldn’t be an issue.
When religion claims the right to say that divorce is wrong and that marriage is good, religion is asserting the right to dictate to the state for the state is being accused of being immoral and unjust if it does not protect marriage and does not ban divorce. Most things are right under some conditions so religion can only justify being so stubborn by saying that God told it those things and God knows best for he is brighter and better informed than us. So the state then is to be subjected to the authority of God. In reality it means subjected to the authority of those who speak for God for we never hear the word of God except through men meaning that it could be their word for all we know. Churches, especially ones like the Roman Catholic Church, that claim to have a superior hotline to God regard it as blasphemy to say such things and to seek to get the state to afford no unique rights to marriage while they themselves commit the following blasphemy: “We do not speak for God or do miracles but God does these things through us”. What is the point of saying this when no difference to us is made if it is them or God for we don’t know and faiths that contradict them say the same thing? They are trying to deceive us again. Our Lady of Medjugorje take note!
Marriage does not belong to religion or the state. It preceded them. It belongs to the couple. It does not belong to all married couples but to each couple. If marriage is to belong to the state or the Church, then it should belong to the state more than the Church. We need government but we do not need religion.

It is none of the states business if a couple is committed or not. Thus marriage is not its affair. Let couples do their contracts. There is no need for marriage to be legally binding. The Australian High Court redefined marriage in 2013 as "a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.” If marriage means that then it is the state's business but many question if that is marriage or just calling a set-up marriage.

A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, Westminster, 1985
Believing in God, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
Biblical Dictionary and Concordance of the New American Bible, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington DC, 1971
Divorce, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1946
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann, Penguin, London, 1991
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1971
New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Preparing for a Mixed Marriage, Irish Episcopal Conference, Veritas, Dublin, 1984
Rome has Spoken, A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
Shattered Vows, Exodus From the Priesthood, David Rice, Blackstaff Press, Belfast, 1990
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue C SS R, Liguori, Illinois, 1987
The Emancipation of a Freethinker, Herbert Ellsworth Cory, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1947
“The Lord Hateth Putting Away!” and Reflections on Marriage and Divorce The Committee of the Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985
How to Fight the Religious Right, Brian Elroy McKinley


No Copyright