Friday, 12 June 2009
-
Should God Be Mentioned At Civil Weddings?
Sacramento County, California has abandoned efforts to keep God out of some weddings, according to a recent article.
According to Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, his client Manuel Zamorano wished to preside over a relative's wedding, and the Sacramento County registrar's office offered him permission to do so. However, Zamorano was shocked when officials informed him that he could not mention God during the ceremony, because the permit came from a government department. He received instructions from the county which included the statement, "You may use any ceremony of your choice as long as the ceremony does not have any religious connotations."
Dacus' firm sent a demand letter to the agency explaining that Zamorano's First Amendment rights were violated. Dacus explains that the decision about whether or not to have a religious-based ceremony should be up to the couple, not the government.
After receiving Dacus' letter, the agency rescinded their former policy, realizing that they couldn't censor God out of individuals' weddings.
Do you think God, or any religious references for that matter, should be mentioned at civil wedding ceremonies?
-
recommend
- recs 2
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Winds_of_Change
- Name: Winds_of_Change
- About Me: Hi, I'm Amanda. I'm an English major in the Journalism Certificate program at the University at Buffalo. I love to write, and through this Revelife blog, hope to integrate that passion with my other love, my Catholic Christian faith. I'm a big fan of Christian music...Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Chris Tomlin, Michael W. Smith, Stephen Curtis Chapman..you name it. I sing at my churches both at home and school and am a firm believer in "He who sings prays twice." Most importantly, throughout the last few years, I've deepened in my faith and come to know that God will always be there to guide my steps. I often live by this passage and trust its message: "'For I know the plans I have for you,'" declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."' - Jeremiah 29:11
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 90 Views: 0 89355 Comments: 0 4012 View all posts by Winds_of_Change
Comments (65)
No.
Yes.
What a sad question-- so long as our nation is still free, it should be up to the couple. You and I have the right to decide how we want our weddings to proceed, until our right has been taken away from us to get married when and how we want, this question is completely irrelevant.
More imbecility in the name of separation of church and state. Sigh...
One does not need to be religious in order to believe in the existence of the Creator.
The state of California is being tyrannical by dictating what speech is permissible at a private ceremony. The state imposes permits as a matter of regulation. By requiring a permit to perform a marriage the state figures it can regulate the person who received the permit. But regulating speech is clearly unconstitutional.
It seems that the foolish majority of California voters continues to elect the same set of tyrants to office year after year.
So now Gods presence nor HIS NAME is welcome inside of the INSTITUTION that HE CREATED?
I know that we aren't suppose to be shocked and distracted by these things... They are foretold. Just let me catch my balance.
Actually I don't know if that's the place for it. I was surprised to hear that it was said in civil ceremonies actually. If the couple wants a religious based ceremony, they should go to a religious institution or a minister to get married, not city hall. God created marriage and the state recognizes that sacramental institution, but civil marriage is a governmental institution. It should have no religious connotation.
Only when asked for.
if they wanted to bring religion into it, why did they have a civil wedding? why not get a religious figure to preside?
no religious declarations should be made during a civil wedding ceremony.
it's funny... Christians rant about how marriage is a religious institution... and then they get civil weddings which are designed for people who do not want to bring religion into it. you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
It should be certainly allowed. It is a violation of his first amendment rights.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -
"no religious declarations should be made during a civil wedding ceremony."
UM. Freedom of speech? This is not a church-state issue. A civil wedding is one where a person is given a permit by the government to conduct a wedding. A permit given by the government for one to conduct a wedding should not be tailored with restrictions on the content of his speech. Civil weddings aren't designed by people who want to keep religion out of it. If that were the case, why would the person who applied for the permit want to mention God? Civil weddings allow the couple the option of not having a priest presiding over, allow them the option not to make religious statements. It also allows a friend to preside over the wedding instead of a priest.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - it should if the individual is acting as an agent of the government, such as instances where a couple heads to city hall to get married by a judge.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - i just edited to add to what i said.
No. If you want a religious wedding, get married in a church!
@poetesshue@xanga - "So now Gods presence nor HIS NAME is welcome inside of the INSTITUTION that HE CREATED?"
I have to agree here. I don't believe marriage as we know it would exist had God not instituted it. Religious or not...
@crystal_air@xanga - That's right! praise the Lord. Excellent post!
I think the couple getting married has a right to choose
it's their special day, and therefore they should be allowed choose whether or not their ceremony has religious connotations
my hubby and I are both strong believers, and we were married by a Justice of the Peace because we did not want to get married in a church. Our JP was amazing, and we even had my uncle do a mini-sermon type thing at the end, blessing our marriage.
if you take God out of it, why bother getting married? just live together for ever.
I can understand why they don't mention God in a civil ceremony. Just earlier people were talking about wanting the civil part of getting married completely differenciated from the religious ceremony. There is absolutely nothing stopping people from getting married whatever way they choose to, the state isn't forcing people to get civil marriages and therefore leave God out of the ceremony, it is an option - generally for people who either don't have the time/money for a full ceremony or people who don't feel that it is necessary. They can have a wedding with church and God and all of that at their discresion. I do not see a problem with keeping God out of a purely civil ceremony - thats kind of the point.
I don't really know how it works in Cali, in Colorado, anyone can get married however they want with or without a member of clergy or government there to preside. I had to re-read it to see that it was a private wedding conducted by someone who just recieved state permission to preside. That is a different thing, they should be able to do whatever they want. I can understand not having a religious ceremony at a courthouse, however, but a ceremony conducted by a friend - that is entirely different.
I guess if it remains an issue, we know now to get ordained to preside marriages online, not with the state government. Still, they do it better in Colorado, thats for sure.
@LucyWrites@xanga - you said it best. I really don't have to add anything.
p
recommend
I, personally, don't have a problem with it, but there are many others who may take issue with any religious figure being mentioned in a civil ceremony. As far as the government is concerned, our country was founded by quite religious individuals and, by tradition, there will always be religion involved in our government to some extent. I don't believe it is a matter of imposition, but of tradition.
The government is involved in marriage as a matter of recognition. I forget which amendment it falls under, but it is a matter of saying that a marriage in one state (and the rights and priveleges that come with it) will be recognized even if a couple moves to another state. I forget the exact language...shame on me.
I don't see why anyone would be upset by mentioning God in a civil union ceremony.
1. If you want to keep God out of it because you don't believe in Him: It's not your ceremony so you shouldn't be able to say "you can't say that!" That's ridiculous.
2. If you want to keep God out of it becayse you think you're protecting Him somehow: He is God, He takes care of Himself. And if they say something to the effect of "God approves of this marriage" and He doesn't....well, saying something doesn't make it so. Again, ridiculous.
If I were to have a civil wedding, it would be my way of keeping it out of a church while making my union legally binding. If the person presiding over my civil wedding (in this case) began spouting off about his god and beliefs, then he would be violating my right to have a secular wedding. If he got mad and claimed I was trying to "censor" his free speech, it would be akin to claiming that your boss is trying to censor your rights by telling you not to use profanity when dealing with customers or possible clients.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga -
"If that were the case, why would the person who applied for the permit want to mention God?"
that's precisely my question. i don't understand why someone who'd want a religious ceremony would seek out a civil marriage. most Christians i know would not recognize a marriage as being blessed by God, unless it was performed by a member of the clergy.
a huge part of the debate regarding same-sex unions is whether civil unions (which is essentially what this couple got... not a marriage as defined by any Christian interested in making marriage a purely religious institution for straights only) are equal to marriages. to me, this is just an attempt to bring God into a ceremony where He's essentially not welcome. so many conservative Christians argue against same-sex marriages and point to civil unions as an acceptable alternative. if the same deity who supposedly frowns on homosexuality can be brought into the mix, i don't see how that can continue to be the case.
do you think that people who perform civil marriages should be forced by the couple to mention God? free speech goes both ways.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -
"i don't understand why someone who'd want a religious ceremony would seek out a civil marriage"
Firstly, suppose his reasoning is inconsistent. That doesn't warrant your assertion, that religious statements should be kept out of civil marriages; that's a statement about what should be legal, and it doesn't follow. Secondly, his reasoning is not inconsistent, since the reason they got a civil marriage was to have specifically him to preside over it, not another pastor. Perhaps they decided that he was the right one, perhaps they know each other really well. We simply don't know why they chose to have a civil marriage. So it's perfectly consistent with it if he wants to pray or refer to God in one sentence or a whole speech. Thirdly, a religious ceremony wasn't implied in the story. Only a religious reference was enough to be illegal according to the registrar's office. Finally, you seem to assume that the man who objected that his freedom of speech was being violated is also anti-gay marriage. Nothing in the story even remotely suggests that. (Most Christians in the US, believe it or not, are not against gay marriage).
"free speech goes both ways."
Yes, it does. Of course I wouldn't have anyone forced in a civil marriage to refer to God. My only point was that they should be allowed to. Civil marriages are done for a plethora of reasons (the primary one being affordability).