D'na... you were a bit too quick off the mark with that because in the context of the previous posts my statement obviously meant "one can't win" - it's clearly you who needs the break not me.

km

D'na....then you should say what you mean.

*snicker*

Actually, I would make a case for the flip side (just the opposite) of that: marriage is a civil institution, a legal contract to be governed by the state. Churches should get out of the "business" of performing this legal contract. Now, The Blessing of a Marriage is indeed the church's business. Seems best to me (and I'm by no means the only or first to come to this conclusion) that marriages, with all that the legal contract entails, be performed by a civil authority, and then, if the couple desires, have a ceremony in the church which blesses the union. The service would be virtually identical to what it is now. Only "by the authority of the State of ..., I pronounce you..." would not be present because the "authority of the state" would not (indeed, should not) be granted to any religion to enable a legal contract. I know of many clergy who are uncomfortable with being given this legal, governmental, responsibility and would like to see it ended. Perhaps the current "crisis" will speed such a movement on its way.

D'na I did say what I meant but you misunderstood it... funnily enough as I was reading your reply I was watching Stephen Fry, master of the English language, in his programme 'Stephen Fry in America' inteviewing someone from Seattle with the words "you have McDonalds and you have Starbucks" when the meaning was clearly that "one has" those outlets... and if you don't believe me if you wait about 17 seconds you can see him doing the same thing here <--- discussing the internet with the words "when you're a teenager especially if you've grown up in the city like I did..." when funnily enough the interviewer wasn't ever going to be a teenager because she was already over 20 years...

km

What you mean impose that by law even if people don't want it? Two ceremonies? I don't see that being very popular. Considering that people can already do that voluntarily but only one person ever has - Prince Charles - I'd say the idea would be pretty unwelcome.


The service would be completely different because they'd already be married. You're overlooking the magic of the moment that makes them man and wife.

km

Hope you are enjoying this dance as much as I am.

Oh, I agree macdavid--my marriage to my wife is a marriage even though we religiously excluded any religious framework. I'm just harassing KM. I should know better cause he's so unflappable. Must be the lime in the coconut.

Now your sexism is showing.
Husband and wife is used almost exclusively these days.

The service would be completely different because they'd already be married. You're overlooking the magic of the moment that makes them man and wife.

Not overlooking it all all. It's called "The Blessing of a Civil Marriage", and believe me, it can have all the trappings! Been there. Done that!

(And KM: Although I have promised myself not to respond to your foolishness, I just have to say that I think you delight it arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Whatever intelligent remark is made here, you simply must refute it... it your own bizarre fashion.)