A marriage is an act between two people that love each other, it's a communal sharing of that love. And if you believe in God, it's a moment you pledge that love in front of God and "Man".  The rights are the great fringe beneifits that go with that.

You know, that's been said to me before and I agree with it in sentiment, but I still want to get the deed done, so I'm willing to negotiate... lol... for now.

Valerie wrote:
"Because in some traditions, it is not a financial contract, but a religious sacrament or at the very least a sacred, rather than merely legal, covenant.

Financial contracts are for business partners, not life partners."

As Tom already mentioned, clearly, marriages begins as a way of treating women as a commodity, weaving alliances through bloodline and exchanging goods, lands, what-not to keep peace, etc.

But that aside... if marriage isn't about being a financial and legal contract, how come we never hear a great outcry from religious corners that the governemnt should stay the heck away from marriages altogether; that a "marriage" should by no means resemble a financial or legal contract in any way and hence carry no financial or legal weight whatsoever. Then it could be a religious sacrament.

As it is now, it's partly like giving financial and legal privilieges to anyone who takes communion, and then saying that communion is about a religious sacrament. Yeah right.

Don, I have to say that the entire separation of Church and State as done in US never ceases to amaze me. Don't get me wrong, but it's the only country I can think of, at the top of my head at least, which has such a strong separation between the two (or at least the only country where it's continually pointed out so that few could possibly miss it). Now, obviously that in itself isn't what baffles me more than a wee bit, but rather the fact that I know of few countries in the world where questions concerning religion etc are such hot political issues in elections and what-not as in the US.  Mind-boggling, somehow.

Oh, and thanks for your comment on the analogy, Don. I had the feeling I'd found a good one there (and I'm sure we'd all be seeing a whole lot more people going to communion if it meant tax deductions).

Well, doesn't the roots of separating church and state in fact heed back to the pilgrims, who'd suffered religious persuction and din't want that visited upon others. Any others that is.  I agree that a separation between church and state is a sound idea, but I find it ironic to say that least that a country which has turned that into the actual law of the land in many respects is less ruled by the idea behind the law than some countries that don't.

For instance, as I write this, I'm trying to remember whether the Swedish "state" Church was separated from the state a couple of years ago or not... It just didn't have much bearing on the whole. I do know that if your baptized which a lot of kids like myself are, you are automatically a member of the church and you have to pay church taxes unless you resign your membership. Considering the tax issue and my status as a non-believer (well, at least in the church as an institution, other than that I'm probably more agnostic than atheistic), I've on occasion considered doing this, but at the end of the day I haven't. Mostly because I'm fond of old church buildings, and the church is in charge of maintaining those cultural artefacts for the Swedish people... so I choose to think that my money goes to salvaging and maintaining a cultural heritage and the like.

But the Big Fat Gay... THREAD DRIFT is drifting even further now. Back to the proper topic... the real THREAD DRIFT that is. ;)

Because in some traditions, it is not a financial contract, but a religious sacrament or at the very least a sacred, rather than merely legal, covenant.

Financial contracts are for business partners, not life partners.

That being said, I think the hair-splitting over the words on a legal document is a bit silly.

I miss your point Valerie.  I don't think anyone contends that marriage is not also often a religious sacrament but by the same token it is always a union that has both legal and fiscal implications.  To that end, do you oppose civil unions?  If so why?  If not then do you have any issue with term marriage being used for a civil union between a man and a woman?  Do you take issue with the term being used for a civil union between a man and man (or a woman and a woman)?  If so why?

Then why does the ceremony end with the couple signing a legal document?

It does?  I thought it ended when the drunk brother-in-law got thrown out of the reception.  See, this is what I don't know about straights...

I feel like I should get out a blue book, Geoff.  (Do they still use those?)

They do.  I have not so pleasant memories.  But those would be easy questions. 

I remember reading about a case a few years ago where a woman besieged with overwhelming medical expenses sued her ex of two decades for support. I don't recall if she was successful.

The position was that marital vows constitute a binding contract -- especially the part about supporting in sickness or in health.  As the divorce agreement did not contains a specific clause recinding that part of the vows it was contended that the agreement to support was still in effect.

I filed this under "Things That Make You Go Hmmm".