If America has a separation of church and state which side should get marriage?

Marriage has been a religious custom since Mesopotamia and Egyptian at the birth of human civilization. And has continued and is a part of every major world religion.





Before the Supreme Court decided there was a wall of separation between church and state, the state got into marriage.





Should the state be allowed to capture this religious custom and continue to secularize it?





Or should government get out of marriage?





Or do you not support a wall of separation on this issue?If America has a separation of church and state which side should get marriage?
You can be married in a chuch or at the office of the justice of the peace. Either way you choose.If America has a separation of church and state which side should get marriage?
The state isn't secularizing marriage. There is a legal marriage that a state can recognize and it extends benefits to the married couple and their family. A legal marriage establishes the joining of a man and woman into a new family. It establishes rights of visitation and tax breaks for raising a family. It's important that these things be done, it is beneficial to the country.





Their is a wall of separation though. The state doesn't perform religious ceremonies, doesn't designate the type of faith you conduct your ceremony under and doesn't demand that you have a faith based marriage.





The state's legal version of marriage and the religious institution are really quite separate things.
Your phony version of world history isn't going to fly. Marriage is primarily a secular institution that various churches have captured for their own purposes. There has been secular marriage in the USA since the beginning, and no matter how much they whine about it, religion doesn't get to own it.





In your fantasy world, atheists wouldn't be allowed to get married. In your fantasy world, if you can't find a priest or other witchdoctor to conduct the ceremony, you can't have it. That's primitive. Go away.





Oh, and Bethany? You're full of it.
The law gives special rights to married couples the so state must have a way to define what is a legal marriage. These law made more sense when marriage was a life long contract than they do now. Maybe it would be better if the two people just signed a legal documents like business partnership agreements about the things they wanted to legally share and just repeal the laws granting married couples special privileges. Then marriage would be only a religious custom.
The state shouldn't be involved in religious matters, including marriage ceremonies. Civil unions are the alternative. This should work for everyone who isn't looking to dictate the practices of a religious group.





I may not always agree with that, but logically that's how it should be.


For example, I don't believe that polygamy should be allowed, however under the umbrella of faith, it's not my business.
Government should control legal marriages as it is a matter of records, and for taxation.





Religion can have whatever ceremonies they wish, but it should not be confused with a legal marriage.





Edit: Christianity is not the only religion in the world, or America. Are you saying atheists have no right to marriage? Muslims, Jews, Hindus? COME ON!
I think that there has to some sort of govt involvement in the fact that when children grow into adults they leave the protection of their parents and create families of their own. An adult ';child'; is no longer a child at all and should not be forced to choose a blood relative (parent, sibling, or child) as legal next of kin. We want the person of our choice to be speaking for us if we are seriously injured, a person who may not be a blood relative at all. Every adult should be free to form a new family unit in which mutually consenting adults are next of kin to each other. No matter what the legal designation of this partnership may be, no matter how much it is purely secular, people WILL call it marriage.





That said, any church is free to recognize or not recognize marriages according to its own beliefs. A good example is the Catholic Church not recognizing the subsequent marriages of divorced persons, no matter how much the law declares such unions to be legal.
Yeah, because the religious people always know what's best when it comes to marriage...





*rolls eyes as he reads a list of 12 year old girls dying of birth due to their religion requiring them to be married at the age of 11*





**rolls eyes again as young women in the Middle East are circumsized because their future husbands would prefer it that way due to religious reasons**





***rolls eyes at Mormons and polygamy in general***





****rolls eyes at the Anglican creation of divorce****
I think we should step back and look at it from a scientific perspective...





(Keep in mind I am against gay marriage, and I am a republican)





Gays claim to have been BORN gay. They say they can not help but be attracted to the same sex. Great argument right? Well, as I dove deaper into my psychology studies, I have found that this can be true in some VERY RARE cases. However, a man can be born with a chemical imbalance in his head that causes him to be attracted to young children in his adulthood. He can't help, but be attracted to little kids. Same goes for adults who are attracted to animals sexually. So should we allow a full grow adult to marry a child or an animal? No, we shouldn't, so why allow gay marriage?
I don't believe in marriage period.





I don't think you need a judge or a pastor to tell you that you love someone. I don't think you need a piece of paper, in order to have feelings.





I also don't believe in feelings because feelings are gay.
As taxation, etc all relate to marriage, it makes more sense for marriage to be treated as secular. No religion has the right to tell people they can't get married, they can bar them from their own church if they choose, but they have no say otherwise.
Marriage should be done by churches.





If its done on a government level, homosexuals provide no benefit to society. They cant reproduce. So why should they get the benefit of tax deductions if they serve no purpose.
Get the government completely out of marriage. All voluntary agreements between adult individuals are OF NO BUSINESS TO ANYONE ELSE!!!!
State. Before there was any religions there were couples living together and having kids and raising them together. I'd call that a marriage. I bet there was that before the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians...