<p>*Quote:
My understanding is that the Catholic Church, for example, won’t recognize the marriage of a Catholic to someone who has not at least been baptized a Christian.
*</p>
<p>No, that’s not true. The marriage is recognized as a Natural Marriage, but it’s not a sacramental marriage. The Catholic Church does recognize the marriage. The Catholic spouse is free to receive the sacraments.</p>
<p>My sister’s husband wasn’t baptized when they married. She had a Catholic wedding. Later, her H joined the Church. At that point, their marriage became a sacramental one.</p>
<p>*Practicing Catholics correct me if this has changed since my pre-Cana counseling, but if the bride is Catholic can she marry a twice divorced man? </p>
<p>And if he has age-related sexual difficulties is that still considered a barrier to marraige?*</p>
<p>It depends. If he’s gotten annulments for those marriages, then she can marry him. Or, as in the case of a friend of mine, she (the Catholic) had been divorced twice. BUT, neither marriage was in the Church. Therefore, the Church never recognized those marriages. She had to have Defect of Form papers filed, and then she easily remarried in the Church.</p>
<p>If a man knows that he can’t complete the sex act, then that is a barrier. Sexual intercourse is part of the sacrament of marriage. Until intercourse occurs, the couple isn’t really fully married. She’s an “unkissed bride.” The marriage must be consumated.</p>
<p>Whether a Catholic can marry a twice-divorced man depends on the circumstances. It’s usually the first marriage that counts . However, that isn’t always the case, especially if the other person is Catholic and didn’t marry in the Church the first time.</p>
<p>For example, my parents had a friend who was married in the Catholic Church. He divorced and remarried civilly. He again divorced. At that point, he met a very nice woman who was Catholic. In the intervening years, his first wife had died. He was free to marry in the Church, as the first marriage was the only one the Church recognized.</p>
<p>NJres-Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake As far as I know, he is only involved with one person; he may have been married twice before, but neither divorce was due to infidelity.</p>
<p>I have no doubt the “package” has been put to good use ;)</p>
<p>The cynic in me says t if finances are a concern they should save their money and not hold a commitment ceremony. The softie in me thinks the idea is sweet.</p>
<p>And the “cover your eyes” part of me thinks that discussion of why it might not be a marriage under catholic tutelage is TMI.</p>
<p>I think the finances concern is more about losing pensions or spousal support or Social Security benefits upon remarriage. These penalties keep many people from remarrying, even though their hearts tell them to. I believe this is why a couple in their 60’s would choose to “live together” rather than remarry. </p>
<p>It doesn’t take away from their sense of commitment toward each other that married couples (dare I say - should?) have. It’s my thought that a commitment ceremony is the next best way for this couple to say “we’re making a serious and hopefully lifelong commitment to each other”. They do it with the hope that those around them will realize if there weren’t financial penalties (and perhaps other legal issues) they’d be getting married. I don’t think the concern about finances means they can’t afford to throw themselves a nice party if they want to. I, too, think the idea is sweet.</p>
<p>My take on it is that the government and other agencies (pension plans and the like) have rules that make it almost stupid for some couples to legally marry. The systems are designed in a way that discourages remarriage. Personally I wish that they’d stay the heck out of the relationship business. </p>
<p>But the real relationship is how the people treat each other - not what their legal status is. I’d rather see a happy “committed” couple than a miserable married couple any day!</p>
<p>A few years ago the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) issued a comprehensive document on human sexuality. In it the church affirmed marriage as the church’s standard; however, it also specifically addressed the cohabitation by seniors issue. While not exactly “blessing” the practice, it said the church needed a “pastoral” response - i.e. don’t condem church members in committed relationships and try to understand the reasons for choosing such a path. It also acknowledged that in the case of seniors the practice was driven primarily by economic/legal issues related to pensions and social security and called for changes to laws and policies that create an impediment to marriage. I believe several other main line protestant churches have arrived at a similar point; however, implementation and actual practice are in the hands of local bishops and clergy. </p>
<p>My parents live in “senior community” in Florida and have told me of several “commitment” ceremonies officiated by main line clergy for older couples. These couples care for each other but don’t want to lose pensions or disinherit their children. Granted, if you have the money and insist upon marrying, you can spend thousands on legal fees for trusts and life estates to avoid most of the “disinherit your kids” problem. However nothing can be done about the pension/social security issue if you marrry.</p>
<p>Mini, I doubt it’s “called” a “heterosexual” commitment ceremony. I think OP probably called it that to mark the difference. The reasons for having a commitment ceremony rather than a legal wedding for homosexuals is not really a big question - whereas it might be for heterosexual couples.</p>
<p>*My take on it is that the government and other agencies (pension plans and the like) have rules that make it almost stupid for some couples to legally marry. The systems are designed in a way that discourages remarriage. Personally I wish that they’d stay the heck out of the relationship business. *</p>
<p>I somewhat agree. I think that if a spouse has rghts to his/her spouse’s retirement plan or SS, then if there is a later remarriage nothing should change.</p>
<p>It’s quite unfair for a SAHM who hasn’t been able to earn a retirement or SS benefits (except for what she’d get thru her H), to be told that she can’t remarry or she’ll lose those bennies, while her ex-H is free to remarry.</p>
<p>“Generally, you cannot get widows or widowers benefits if you remarry before age 60. But remarriage after age 60 (or age 50 if you are disabled) will not prevent you from getting benefit payments based on your former spouses work record. And at age 62 or older, you may get benefits based on your new spouses work, if those benefits would be higher.”</p>
<p>This is a reason a young widow or widower would choose not to legally remarry. For example, a young widow with young children will lose survivor’s benefits if she marries someone else, rather than remarry and (hopefully) provide a stable family situation for her children (if that’s what she chooses). It seems the government would rather have her children live with “mommy’s boyfriend” than “my step-dad”. I don’t understand the rationale behind the rule. at. all.</p>
<p>I worry that this trend towards heterosexual commitment ceremonies will undermine the institution of gay marriage. Am especially worried for marriages in NY, RI, Minnesota…</p>
<p>As a pastor, I have refused to perform commitment ceremonies for heterosexual couples. How “committed” are they if they are choosing not to marry? I understand about loss of pensions and benefits, but in my experiences it’s only been a matter of $100 or so a month, nothing that would break the couple financially. I certainly don’t condemn them for living together, but I can’t bring myself to officially bless them.</p>
<p>I will perform marriages of gay couples if it becomes legal in PA. Heck, I have one couple chomping at the bit. As soon as it becomes legal here, or the Supreme Court rules that all states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere, they will be married. They’ve been together since 1943 - THAT’s commitment!</p>
<p>KKmama, do you have a threshold for the dollar amount where couples don’t qualify for commitment at an advanced age to protect their family ? I’m really brought up short by your criteria.</p>
<p>The couples that asked me to bless their non-marriage commitments were all financially secure. One did not want to “dishonor” a deceased spouse by marrying again (no problem sleeping with them, living with them, just didn’t want it legal…) and the other two couples wanted her previous husbands’ pension to allow them to travel and such. Marriage involves some level of accepting the spouse’s lot, and some amount of sacrifice. </p>
<p>If there was a medical issue and marriage prevented one person from medical treatment I might be tempted to bless the relationship, but I doubt it. As I said, I don’t condemn them, but in good conscience I couldn’t bless it.</p>
<p>Real commitment involves wiping up the other person’s urine from the floor and toilet seat, and then cooking them dinner! It also involves taking out the trash and dealing with the backing up sewer pipes or killing and disposing of vermin. It involves WANTING to spend time with them seeing a movie that is of no interest to one’s self, but the partner has been dying to see. Or going out to dinner when you’d really rather stay home and eat Pop Tarts.</p>
:D</p>
As far as I know, he is only involved with one person; he may have been married twice before, but neither divorce was due to infidelity.</p>