[giaour]

France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it.

Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.

[olalonde]

What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.

[OJFord]

Well the point is that the state has to do _something_ since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries.

The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity.

Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.

[jefftk]

    since some sort of legal status is required for many
    purposes in most countries

The idea here is that you get rid of those "many purposes" and treat a married couple like any other people who have decided to spend their lives together.

[vasilipupkin]

that is what "married" means. Two people who have entered into a legal contract to spend their lives together and bear certain responsibilities with respect to each other and those in their custody. The religious interpretation of what it means is irrelevant for legal purposes in the US

[giaour]

You're right; I misunderstood the original question.

[fineman]

I see it more as either end (no government involvement, marriage is religious only or no church involvement, marriage is civil only) would satisfy the OP. The middle-ground is the actual opposite to both ends, in that marriage isn't secular or optional.

I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.

[leejoramo]

This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue.

There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states.

In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves.

In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.

[gpvos]

That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separation of church and state, the official marriage cannot be done as part of a religious service, only in a civil ceremony (which can be very minimal).

[dublinben]

That isn't very different at all. The religious wedding ceremony is not legally binding in any way. You must file for a marriage license in your local jurisdiction, and have it completed by your officiant, whoever that may be.

[gpvos]

Largely, the same goals are served, but the symbolism is a little different. In the US, the moment when the marriage becomes official can be during a religious service; in the Netherlands, it can't.

[x0054]

That sounds like discrimination in the other direction to me. In US you are given a license and you can choose who officiates that license. If you are not religious, you can have a Judge or a government official officiate your wadding. If you are religious, you are free to use a minister of your choice. This way neither side is discriminated against.

From what you are describing, in EU you HAVE to be married by a government official even if you are religious. That's the wrong attitude to take. To each their own, let the people choose.

From bureaucratic perspective the important part is that the state is aware of the "social contract" two people made between each other and there is a witness who witnessed the "execution" of that contract. That's all. Who that witness is, as long as they are trustworthy, shouldn't matter.

[kiiski]

In a civil ceremony you're married in the eyes of your state, and religious communities don't have to recognize it.

In a religious ceremony you're married in the eyes of your god, and states don't have to recognize it.

They serve a different purpose, and it makes no sense for a social contract in one community to carry weight in the other.

[bjelkeman-again]

You talk about the EU as if it is one legal jurisdiction. We in fact have 28. In Sweden you can get married either by a government official or by a vicar in the church (but only apparently a vicar of the Church of Sweden).

[melvinmt]

I've been married in the Netherlands and it's no problem to have the city official be there during your (religious) wedding; you just have to pay them a bit more to show up ;)

[refurb]

In the US, the moment when the marriage becomes official can be during a religious service

Not really. Most folks I know, even the ones who got married in a church, were technically already married when they signed their marriage certificate at city hall.

I won't claim to be a marriage expert, but I don't think things are all that different from the Netherlands.

[throw_away]

I wonder what happens if a couple gets a license and then decides not to go through with the ceremony when the time comes. Are they still married? Or do they have to file for a divorce? Are there provisions for an 'annulment' from a legal perspective?

I guess there are actual annulments, but I always thought of those from a religious perspective, not a legal one. I can't fathom that the requirements are the same as presumably the religious one stipulates no intercourss.

[carlob]

But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.

[mdpm]

Thanks for the information.