Consang and poly marriage and commitment certificates

Hi, all,

While explaining for the umpteenth time that the state has no natural authority to decide who is married and who isn’t, I had an idea. Why not create our own marriage and commitment certificates for consang couples and polycules?

After a little research, I found that there were some people already doing that for the poly community, and contacted Rachel of thatweddinglady.com . She sells some customizable certificates for polyamorous marriages already. Here’s her response to Keith and me:

Rachel McMurray wrote: Dear Folks,

Totally interested. Let’s do this! It will give me incentive to sit down and make new styles to add to the collection.

They are all completely customizable and clients can mix and match styles and text.

Use this link for polyamory versions:

http://www.thatweddinglady.com/polyamory-commitment-certificates-that-wedding-lady/

Thank you for including me.

Rachel McMurray

So, if you would like to commemorate your marriage with a certificate, she’s willing to help! Please contact her directly at the email address listed on her site to commission a custom design.

Stay safe,
UN

What an awesome idea!

This is such a cool idea! I think at some point we should come up with our own marriage certificates... perhaps with the friends of lily symbol. That this lady is willing and able to help consang couples now with this is excellent news, and something we should recommend to anyone who would like a certificate The state cannot stop anyone from declaring themselves married. If you are a couple or polycule who declares your love and intention to remain as a committed unit before the universe and friends who understand, then you are married and nobody, not even the state, can tell you otherwise. The state has no power except that which the people lend to it. We willingly hand over some power (for example, we expect laws which keep is safe and free from serious harm, and we punish those who break laws, such as putting murderers in prison), but the state oversteps it's rightful bounds when it dictates if consenting adults may or may not marry. When it comes to our most intimate partnerships, the governent has absolutely no right to dicate when no harm is being done.

to be pedantic for a moment: the state does have to define what is marriage for as long as marriage is a thing with legal status

IMO governments should not call the stuff that gives legal benefits marriage, but a civil union or partnership. That'd settle a whole lot of stuff without getting anyone's religious sensibilities involved.

mèþru wrote:to be pedantic for a moment: the state does have to define what is marriage for as long as marriage is a thing with legal status

IMO governments should not call the stuff that gives legal benefits marriage, but a civil union or partnership. That'd settle a whole lot of stuff without getting anyone's religious sensibilities involved.

Well, I dont think that religion ought to come into it at all. Religion is someones private beliefs, and it should not influcence the function of the state in any way. After all, nothing is stopping a Christian from marrying according to their belief in a Church, or a Muslim in a Mosque...etc, But the moment we give an inch to one religion, a mile will be taken by all. Religious belief ought to be irrelevant to whether or not a partnership should be called a marriage. People have the right to be offended, but they have no right to tell anyone who should and should not marry.

From the standpoint of some people who are religious, not my own belief, the state's definition of what to them is a religious matter is having the state define for them what their religion should accept in contradiction to their scriptures.

From my own secular standpoint, government recognising marriage means that the government needs to recognize specific buildings and/or private persons in accordance with some kind of test to be qualified as a place for a ceremony that binds people into a marriage. Inevitably, some religion's house of worship will not qualify under those tests, or their ceremony or officials not recognised. This happens a lot to recently founded religions. Even though person still can get married at a courthouse (in some countries) it still violates the supposed principle that all legal religious activity has equal status.

mèþru wrote:From the standpoint of some people who are religious, not my own belief, the state's definition of what to them is a religious matter is having the state define for them what their religion should accept in contradiction to their scriptures.

From my own secular standpoint, government recognising marriage means that the government needs to recognize specific buildings and/or private persons in accordance with some kind of test to be qualified as a place for a ceremony that binds people into a marriage. Inevitably, some religion's house of worship will not qualify under those tests, or their ceremony or officials not recognised. This happens a lot to recently founded religions. Even though person still can get married at a courthouse (in some countries) it still violates the supposed principle that all legal religious activity has equal status.

While this may be most unfair to minority religious groups, I don't think that is an act of malice so much as an oversight on part of the government. As long as we're not talking about harmful cults like Scientology (which exists mainly to milk money off followers by charging them extortionate amounts to go on courses which brainwash them further), I see no reason at all why any religious group cannot be given the right to hold weddings at their own house of worship.

This said, I don't think that marriage is necessarily a religious thing, legally speaking, it is a contract between two people which allows those people certain tax breaks and things like that. So while people are free to practice their religion, no religion gets to say what is a legal marriage and what is not. This is why the law now allows gay marriage and not just civil partnerships (which oddly enough had all the same rights and priviledges of a marriage contract but could not be called a marriage legally). Personally, I think that the current system, while imperfect in that it does not allow poly or consang marriage, is generally fair spirited to all religions in that it does not play favourites.