Separation between church and state what does it have to do with marriage?

Marriage was originally an institution of the church so why does the state issue lisseces and is that a violation of the separation between church and state?Separation between church and state what does it have to do with marriage?
Marriage straddles the line between government and state.





It is a religious sacrament and a religious event, but it is also a social institution and a family organization, and it has strong legal ramifications. This gives the states the ability to rule on marriage.





The state cannot control how or where or in which style a person gets married. You can get married by the Church of UFOs or a sea captain at sea, a Justice of the Peace or someone who got certified as a priest on the Internet.





Morally the government has no control to prohibit anyone from getting married in any way that want. That is the core of separation of Church and State, but when it becomes a legal question then it falls squarely into the field of the state.





The state has passed laws on polygamy making it illegal, but there are a few couples that are only legally married to one woman, but are married to two in their church. The state has no control over this and should not. The problem is that only the married spouse has the rights, the unmarred spouse has no rights unless they are willed to them and even those rights can be contested in court.





Since a marriage determines who has custody of the children, who can inherit and legal aspects like the right for a spouse to NOT testify against their partner in a court of law the state has every reason to become involved.





A civil union has no legal standing, even if the couple truly loves each other. They can be married in all but name, but if there are any children, a inheritance or other legal issues then the person has no rights. The important issue at stake is if a gay couple can marry and then extend their health coverage to their spouse. Since this means that more people will get health insurance without paying for it the insurance companies will go to great extents to prevent it. That and the religious morale minority are where the true opposition is coming from.





If Congress would pass a law that either gave the spouse of a civil union the rights as a traditionally married spouse or deny it then the issue would pretty much dry up and blow away, but they haven鈥檛 done either. Personally I don鈥檛 see why you should deny a spouse the protections and privileges of a traditional spouse. If they do the same job as a married couple, if they love each other and make the same commitment then the state should be blind to the sexes involved. The state is color blind in this manner so a matter of sex is just another adjustment on the scale of accepting blacks and whites. It will be a tough one, but the black people deserved it and I think that gay couples deserve it as well. I am not trying to compare the two, I am only comparing the prejudices which are very similar.Separation between church and state what does it have to do with marriage?
The separation of church and state deals with the first amendment which states that Congress shall make no law against the practice of religion. Which means, in the most part, that a state can't, by law, force you to practice, or not practice a certain religion.


But with marrage, the state has to know you are married, for statistics and things, also not all marrages involve those that are religious. The state just requires that people have to get a license to be married, regardless of religion.
The term ';marriage'; is used for two entirely unrelated things.





It refers to a religious union, sanctified by the rules of the church. This use dates back before the founding of the US.





It also refers to a civil union, which provides hundreds or thousands of specific legal benefits. And as far as the state is concerned, no church need ever be involved.





The problem is, the same term gets used for both of these. So you end up with civil legal statuses being regulated based on the rules of one specific religion, which is in direct violation of basic Constitutional principles this country was founded on.





The only workable solution that I've seen is to make marrage purely a religious term, and require anyone (of any gender or mix of genders) who wants legal benefits to get a civil union.





That way, religions get their ';sanctity of marriage';, and state stops engaging in religiously motivated gender discrimination.
marriage is more than a religious or social contract it's a binding legal agreement.
No. A violation of church and state would mean that the Government would only allow marriages performed by lets say a christian minister...and that all islamic, buddist, hindu and other marriages are outlawed...that is a violation of the establishment clause.





Marriage you can argue may have begun from religion although many others would say that it was effected by peoples who did not have organized religions also...but until you can show only one or a few religions utilize marriage there is no separation issue..





The state also have a compelling interest in regulating marriage, preventing sham marriages, preventing hasty unthoughout marriages, bigamous and fradulant marriages.