comment on #78436 civil marriage

[Portia]

Link

Q: what do you hunk the CULTURAL implications would be?

A: Legal marriages can't be performed in the temple in Brazil. Most active, temple-worthy couples that I know there treated their sealing as their "official" marriage. They would get legally married several days prior, but continue to act as though they weren't married until they were sealed. They'd snap a few photos at the legal ceremony, but it was largely a non-event. I could see a similar culture developing in the US; the civil ceremony would just be a paperwork step in the process and would be about as exciting and noteworthy as filing for a marriage license.

Really? Wow. I find that to be disappointing. It seems to devalue marriage, which I thought was a big deal to LDS conservatives.

If you're married, you're married. I actually think that since within the LDS theological framework sealing is a big deal and not the same thing as being married it would behoove many people to have a cultural shift to separating the wedding and sealing process. (Guilt-tripping stories about horrifying deaths shortly after a sealing notwithstanding. >.< )

I feel a lot of pressure with a guy I’ve recently been seeing to conflate the two which I think is sort of rushing things (like how genuine is “repentance” if you’re motivated by liking someone?) and also makes it seem like cultural expectations are more important than making promises you’re ready for and intend to keep. I think it’d be different if we were both, say, former missionaries who had been through the temple several years before.

But anyway, I think all people should have to be civilly married, like it is in France.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I'm glad someone addressed that part of the question. Civil vs. temple marriages and how they're handled in different parts of the world is very interesting to me, and I was disappointed it didn't get addressed in the answer itself.

I definitely, definitely agree that everyone should have to be civilly married, and in fact years ago decided that I would be civilly married first no matter the consequences. I have to admit that the main reason for this is that if I got married in the temple right now only a handful of people could attend, and only one or two of the attendees are people I love the most. Everyone else I love, including non-member friends, less-active friends, and sisters who are too young/unmarried to be endowed, would be barred, and I don't like that idea. Not to mention that this exclusionist policy frequently causes rifts and bad feelings within families and toward the LDS church, which you'd think would be something that the church would like to avoid. (Again, it's hurting people for the sake of the rules.)

[Portia]

I'm glad someone addressed that part of the question. Civil vs. temple marriages and how they're handled in different parts of the world is very interesting to me, and I was disappointed it didn't get addressed in the answer itself.

I definitely, definitely agree that everyone should have to be civilly married, and in fact years ago decided that I would be civilly married first no matter the consequences. I have to admit that the main reason for this is that if I got married in the temple right now only a handful of people could attend, and only one or two of the attendees are people I love the most. Everyone else I love, including non-member friends, less-active friends, and sisters who are too young/unmarried to be endowed, would be barred, and I don't like that idea. Not to mention that this exclusionist policy frequently causes rifts and bad feelings within families and toward the LDS church, which you'd think would be something that the church would like to avoid. (Again, it's hurting people for the sake of the rules.)

I have some of the same concerns. Although actually I seriously consider going and doing a destination wedding (whether that's in the temple or out) just to avoid my family's dramz! LOL

[Portia]

Oh, speaking of tradition for the sake of tradition, I'm wearing a wedding dress in a shade of red. White or cream is unflattering to me, and obviously it's the US tradition regardless of creed, but I never did hew much to tradition. In the event that I solemnized my marriage with a sealing, I remember enough of my parents' to say that white is not the color that sticks out. Your poufy Cinderella dress will get covered anyway so might as well wear a simple shift you can actually kneel in.

[Shrinky Dink]

Really? Wow. I find that to be disappointing. It seems to devalue marriage, which I thought was a big deal to LDS conservatives.

I don't think it devalues marriage, I think it shows how important these people find the sealing ordinance.

Think of it this way, you've recently asked a friend if you could borrow a book from them sometime in the future. They gave you permission, but you haven't borrowed it yet. Right before you borrow it, you decide to ask again and let them know that you intend on reading it. I feel like the civil marriage is asking for permission the first time and asking the second time is the sealing, where your friend is Heavenly Father and the book is marriage (and physical intimacy).

When you asked the first time and got civilly married, you had permission to act like you were married, but out of respect for your marriage and Heavenly Father, you got permission a second time and waited until then to actually start reading the book.

[Portia]

Really? Wow. I find that to be disappointing. It seems to devalue marriage, which I thought was a big deal to LDS conservatives.

I don't think it devalues marriage, I think it shows how important these people find the sealing ordinance.

Think of it this way, you've recently asked a friend if you could borrow a book from them sometime in the future. They gave you permission, but you haven't borrowed it yet. Right before you borrow it, you decide to ask again and let them know that you intend on reading it. I feel like the civil marriage is asking for permission the first time and asking the second time is the sealing, where your friend is Heavenly Father and the book is marriage (and physical intimacy).

When you asked the first time and got civilly married, you had permission to act like you were married, but out of respect for your marriage and Heavenly Father, you got permission a second time and waited until then to actually start reading the book.

I respectfully disagree.