Gordo! You are my new best friend for bringing this up.

I have thought this for a long time. The church should get out of the wedding business (even though it provides a form of revenue for church and clergy) and let the provinces do that. Unfortunately, some times marriage can be used as a way of protesting the governmnet and promoting justice (I'm in favour of equal marriage and I know people who did ceremonies without the government's blessing.)

Still, I think that churches and clergy should have blessing ceremonies rather than legalized marriage services.

Just my thoughts. Thought I could be biased. A best man recently threatened to punch me (all I told him to do was line up a different way, The couple said he went through a recent break up and was "stressed") I suggested to the couple that if he was there the next day, I wouldn't be.

OTOH,
weddings provide a point of contact for people with a fatith community. If we could no longer do the legal stuff we might lose that point of contact.

I think that one point of contact is all thats needed. And not just for the couple being married. Some family/friends may just find that one kernel in the pastors words that opens up a window in their mind that will let God in. How can we let that opportunity go?

Mamma, I don't think that "blessings" (if that's what they came to be called) would stop because people had to do the legalities elsewhere. People have never stopped having Ministers preform funerals just because a coroner had to pronounce the person dead.

Not that I should be comparing the two ceremonies, sorry if that offended anyone, but they are similar in the fact that there are a legal and a religious side to both.

I think that the religious/social connection of the people who had blessings done with their religious communities would stay the same.

That said, there would still be religious communities who would perform the blessings for same-sex couples. That would still be their choice.

I like the idea of removing the "legal" aspect of marriage from religious orders. Neat thought.

Cheers.
ByOurLove

Excellent idea, Gordo, and one of those ideas that makes so much bloody simple sense it is a wonder we don't already do it that way. Point below about the funeral/coroner is a good one.

BRAVO...

I've been saying forever that the Church should get out of the wedding business - GET MARRIED in a CIVIL service then come to the Church for a blessing if your religious!

I'll take 5 funerals to one wedding ANY DAY!!!

Peace!
Vicar007

Meh. I don't care whether they do or don't, as long as it's clear they have no special claim to the word "marriage," and as long as it's clear who's really in charge of marriage (ie: the state).

I am all in favour of separating legal marriage from the celebration of love and commitment. Then, for me, the second step would be for all of us to think about what our collective interests in "family" law, divorce, child custody and domestic partnerships are all about.

I never have and never will marry and I challenge all my friends who do to carefully think through what legal and social arrangements they are buying into, aside and apart from the joyous occasion in their personal life.

This summer, my clan celebrated my parents for their 50th wedding anniversary and the 50 years they have lived on and built up a farm, a family and a community in rural Alberta. We had a big party with lots of family, friends and neighbours. I get it that living more or less peaceably, more or less respectfully with another person for 50 years is an impressive accomplishment. I get it how it contributed to building stable communities.

But it does not always work that way. People are also exploited and injured in the 'privacy of the family', Children don't have many inidividual rights that aren't compromised by family status. Sexual fidelity is not terribly common and I'm not even sure its terribly important. Why should our sex life, our economic life and our childrearing life all happen under the same roof for maybe 65 years?

I think social relations have changed a lot since the state got started in the business of regulating, rewarding and people's sex lives and the custody of children. We haven't done well in prostitution law, or adoption law or marriage and yes, I think they are all int eh same package. Let's look further afield - to northern Europe, even Quebec and come up with a better set or arrangments.

Amen to the "blessing"folks!! Four decades ago, Winnipeg Presbytery (of which I was then a member) had a referendum (or something) on this topic. Lost fairly substantially. The downtown moguls didn't want ayone to cut into thei under-the-table revenue. I voted for it then, and I would today!

As for the statement above that nobody would come for blessings; I agree that many wouldn't. But those who did would value the support of the Christian community on their union. They'd also be on our marriage registers while the others would not be.

GIven the debate this weekend amongst our ANglican and Lutheran (ELCiC) siblings I thought it was worth bumping this one up.

NOw in effect this is what the Anglican motions were suggesting. Separate the legal and religious aspects of teh relationship.

ANd really the church has little role in commenting on the legal status of a relationship. Legal mariage doensn;t automatically mean what we in the church think marriage means.

Gord, yes I think this too. legal and religious - two different things. It would make things for everyone so much easier ( but then you have the Marriage commissioner in saskatchewan, who refused to do the legal part( his job , I may add) because the couple was same sex. Are people never going to get over this?

I believe that separating the civil aspects from the religious aspect of marriage would be a Good Thing. I don't see that the religious marriage ceremonies would really need to change, just a slight change in the wording may be needed,

Actually all I would have to do is take out the two questions (impediment and intent):
1. Can you, or anyone her show just cause why you may not lawfully be married...
2: N willl you take N to be your husband/wife/partner?

THat and signing the legal forms are all that would change.

They may have been legally married but they are also getting married within the church.

Item #1could be left in, just take out the "lawfully".

I think that you could leave item #2 as it is.

Posibly IDM but those are the questions I am legally required to ask. To be legal a marriage merely has to include those, the signing of the documentation, and a pronouncement of marriage.

IMO you don't even need #1 anymore due to the fact taht in this province a couple has already signed an oath to that effect when they got the marriage license. THe question is purely aimed at legal barriers (as has been discussed on another thread). #2 is taken care of in the vows of covenant and blessing.

I would want to remove them because if we are wanting to make clear the distinction between legal union and religious blessing we need to make sure they don't look the same.

Excellent ideas!! even the question about it being a connecting point where people might just hear soemthing they need to hear at a formative moment.

In all logic, separating the two is a great idea, but it does remove that opportunity.

If I had to pick, I'd go with separating them.

It would be interesting to see if there was a reduction in church weddings if civil unions were separate from church weddings..

Many people already get civil marriages rather than church weddings. There are many people who would still get a church wedding because of their (or their mothers') religious beliefs. Some women (or their mothers) would still insist on a big fairytale church wedding. That still leaves a large number of people who may decide to forgo a church wedding after they get a civil union.

What do ministers think of couples who don't, and probably never will go to church, but want to have a church wedding? Do ministers see this as a hollow religious ceremony?

Excellent idea.
Have the important legal stuff done at a registry office.
Anyone wanting a big wedding with all the trappings can have it at a church blessing ceremony.
This might save some people a lot of money who really can't afford the large church legal ceremony but feel they have to because of family pressure.
Some couples go in debt to do this and really, what for?
Perhaps we would get back to the important family gathering it once was.
This would be a win win situation.

I have argued for years we should get out of the state aspect - we can do that by giving up our license. The problem is in Ontario it is hard to find a place and people to do the state function - but that can be done as it has in many other provinces - I friend in the usa got a license to perform the marriage of her son. Nice.

Now here are two practical problems: At the moment as clergy if we are present when vows are said the people are married legally, even if they don't want that.

The second is the ethical: Would bless those who did not do the 'legal" thing. There is an advantage to the legal in does protect us from our worse self. More protection than in common law - now here is a whole new debate.

Given all of this blessing is the way to go.

I think we have to ask ourselves why we are doing it?
If we are trying to avoid trouble, why not dump the whole kit 'n kaboodle?

If the church quits doing legal marriages, is the church offering just a blessing?

Doesn't that mean the same topic of do we or don't we?

The people pretty much insist on lining up either that it has God's blessing or that it does not.

It does not have to have anything to do with "joining two people" legal or not legal. Remember, I was recently baptized. I also took my first Communion.

"Now here are two practical problems: At the moment as clergy if we are present when vows are said the people are married legally, even if they don't want that."

ARe you sure Pan? (Admittedly I haven't checked) If the legal forms ore not signed and filed, if the legally required (under the Ontario Marriage act) questions are not asked has a legal marriage happened?

ALso, I sometimes wonder if we have the purposes confused. IS the church worried about the legal status or the state of the committment? ANd does the legal status assure commitment (or vice versa)?

A good real reason that the churches can not do marriages while the governement does legal civil unions is that civil unions are not reconised as legally binding in many countries.

Some US states have actually passed laws against giving any reconition to any kind of civil union, gay or straight.

That would then create uge problems for people who move between different juristrictions. Also a couple could move a juristriction where civil unions don't exist and are no longer be legally together.

This would have serious problems when it came to divorce and child support.

I have no problem with Clergy refusing to perform legal marriages, but the governement in Canada must still make marriage available to all.

BTW I know an orthodox rabbi and he regularly performs marriages (in Quebec where he has no marriage license) so that the couple can be faithful to Jewish law, but not to Canadian law so they can keep any benefits they are entitled to as singles under Candian law.

I think he said however that he could not do it in Ontario becuase he had a license in Ontario, and perform such marriages might endanger his license there.

Could a United Church Minister marry someone in the church without registering it? or would they loose the right to perfrommed licensed weddings as well