Alternatives to civil marriage

[Ani_Ibi]

Bill C-38 is before the Canadian Parliament. It proposes extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
In its Submission to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-38 The Catholic Civil Rights League suggests the following:

“With so many pitfalls to making this change, and doubtless many more not even predictable at this point, we urge Parliament to drop Bill C-38, and pursue other means of granting equality to same sex couples who seek legal recognition for their domestic arrangements while maintaining the definition of marriage that Canadians have always known and understood. While granting any legal status to same sex unions is contrary to the religious beliefs of some people, itwould at least not create the human rights dilemmas posed by redefining a foundational institution in society.”

Read more.

One other means of granting parity to same sex couples is to change the terminology of civil ‘marriage’ to civil ‘unions.’ All people – regardless of their sexual orientation – would have civil unions when joined by a justice of the peace. This would include opposite-sex couples.

Marriage then would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of religious institutions.

 

[jlw]

I voted no civil recognition. Of course, anyone can create a legally binding contract, include whomever they want in their will, etc. Visitation rights seem just to me as well.

 

[didymus]

Ani Ibi:

One other means of granting parity to same sex couples is to change the terminology of civil ‘marriage’ to civil ‘unions.’ All people – regardless of their sexual orientation – would have civil unions when joined by a justice of the peace. This would include opposite-sex couples.

Marriage then would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of religious institutions.

That’s the option I voted for. Let City Hall (or wherever) register civil unions and those of us who want marriages can get them in church. Of course some churches will elect to “marry” gays, but that’s their lookout – no one will be able to force chuches to marry anyone they don’t want to.

 

[Maranatha]

When the poll says " regardless of sexual orientation" do you mean to include pedophiles, polygamists and people with sexual attractions to animals?

 

[fix]

No legal (civil) recognition of same-sex couples at all.The rest are just subtle endorsements of perverted desires and actions.

 

[Philip_P]

Get the state out of marriage and make it all civil unions. What business does the state have “sanctifying” anything at all? Marriage is a sacrament; for civil contracts, I’m fine with letting the standards be decided by the democratic process.

 

[Richardols]

Philip P:

Get the state out of marriage and make it all civil unions. What business does the state have “sanctifying” anything at all? Marriage is a sacrament; for civil contracts, I’m fine with letting the standards be decided by the democratic process.

In many European countries, the Church is NOT the agent of the State as we’ve made it in the US. Get married in France, for example, and you must go through a civil ceremony to satisfy government requirements, and then have your church wedding to satisfy God’s requirements.

I agree. Keep the State out of the business of Sanctification (of anything). Let people go through a five minute procedure to be bound civilly, and then those of us who believe in marriage can go on to the church for the real union.

 

[TPJCatholic]

the government has no business taking responsibility for an institition that God initiated.

 

[Richardols]

TPJCatholic:

the government has no business taking responsibility for an institition that God initiated.

Sure, marriage is none of the State’s business except for certain public health issues. If they want to authorize civil unions before a judge or other bureaucrat for non-believers or such, that’s their call. Not mine.

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

Get the state out of marriage and make it all civil unions. What business does the state have “sanctifying” anything at all? Marriage is a sacrament; for civil contracts, I’m fine with letting the standards be decided by the democratic process.

The state still has a resposibility to the best “common good”. In their quest of the “common good” they sorta leave out ideals and stick with the lowest “common” denominator, (ie “persons” in love).

Leave religion out of it if you must.

THE HUMAN RACE STILL EXISTS BECAUSE OF STABLE HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.

The State, on promoting the general welfare, should recongnize the ideal of the biological family unit kept together by marriage.

 

[TPJCatholic]

richardols,

I disagree. The government has a responsibility to protect the general populace in more ways then just militarily. They should not be granting civil agreements that are in direct competion with thousands of years of marriage and family structures.

If we say it is okay for same sex couples to be civily united, then I just cannot see how we can rightfully stop people from having multiple wives or husbands from a civil point of view, or from joining with their daughters or sons.

 

[sweetchuck]

fix:

No legal (civil) recognition of same-sex couples at all.The rest are just subtle endorsements of perverted desires and actions.

I almost voted for the 3rd option since it wouldn’t be an overt endorsement of homosexual partnerships, but I ultimately voted for the 1st, simply for this reason stated by fix. Any of the other options would be a vehicle to legitimize depraved acts. The 3rd option would be seen as a comprimise, but we see how well many legal comprimises have evolved. For instance, Roe v. Wade never intended to legalize abortion on demand, but it in fact has. It is better to maintain the status quo, otherwise, we’d be Europe or Canada, but we’re not far off anyway. :banghead:

Maranatha!

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

No legal (civil) recognition of same-sex couples at all.The rest are just subtle endorsements of perverted desires and actions.

Hi fix!

When you say “no civil recognition of same-sex couples at all,” I have to wonder what that would mean in practice. Certainly Christ has not granted the U.S. government the sacramental authority to perform marriages, so when we are talking about legislatively prohibiting same-sex marriage, what exactly does that mean?

Certainly the public institution of marriage may express society’s hope that children that are a product of this marriage be raised in a secure and stable environment. To this end, society privileges the institution with favorable taxes and inheritance guarantees. Marriage may be more in some type of subjective sense but not as a matter of law. Legally, marriage is a rather sterile bundle of civil rights, liberties and privileges afforded to the married couple.

If we talk of prohibiting same-sex marriage as a means of expressing society’s disapproval of same-sex sexual acts, it would undermine that intention if we allowed the same-sex couple access to those rights and privileges through other means. What would the moral difference be between marriage, civil union or some other privately contracted arrangement?

You mean, I assume, to prohibit any legal recognition of a same-sex couple because such a recognition would ultimately be destructive to the culture. If the idea that private contractual arrangements between these couples becomes widespread enough and tolerated, it’s hard for me to see how they will not come to be viewed as a legitimate alternative to marriage and so have the same destructive impact.

In order to be consistent, you must hold that a heterosexual has a special right to his property and his health, and that freedom of association does not apply to the homosexual in the same way. The homosexual must not be legally able to designate an heir or a healthcare provider, establish durable power of attorney, or even draw up a private contract between himself and any other individual. Right?

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

Sure, marriage is none of the State’s business except for certain public health issues. If they want to authorize civil unions before a judge or other bureaucrat for non-believers or such, that’s their call. Not mine.

Of course, because we participate in a democracy, it appears the call is also yours. Will your vote be cast in such a way that sin is facilitated?

 

[Other_Eric]

Fiat:

Of course, because we participate in a democracy, it appears the call is also yours. Will your vote be cast in such a way that sin is facilitated?

Hi Fiat!

I suppose it depends upon how far you mean to take it. Usury is also a sin, and yet we seem to have an entire economy founded upon it.

 

[Brain]

homosexuals can draw up contracts to get around their partnership problems. any law promoting their actions or giving them a right they intrinsicly do not have woudl be a bad thing. we all have equal rights, they want special rights and that is not OK.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Maranatha:

When the poll says " regardless of sexual orientation" do you mean to include pedophiles, polygamists and people with sexual attractions to animals?

Maranatha:

Options 3 and 4 are the Modern Liberal Assault on Marraige Options. Assume the sickest and most appalling, because that’s what the Supreme Court will say we have to allow in the name of the “Right to Privacy”, and that’s what the liberals will say we have to allow in the name of “Pluralism” and “Diversity”.

And, Yes. You can go to the Bathroom and throw up whatever you ate last. It’s potentially that sickening.

Let’s just hope that the POLITICIANS listen to the PEOPLE on this one, because the PEOPLE have spoken in a number of States, and they have soundly rejected options 3 and 4 every single time!

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael

 

[Lonevoice]

jlw:

I voted no civil recognition. Of course, anyone can create a legally binding contract, include whomever they want in their will, etc. Visitation rights seem just to me as well.

I agree. Folks can do whatever they want in their wills, etc.

I believe that ANY formal recognition of these relationships would be the start of the proverbial slippery slope.

JMHO

 

[Other_Eric]

Lonevoice:

I agree. Folks can do whatever they want in their wills, etc.

I believe that ANY formal recognition of these relationships would be the start of the proverbial slippery slope.

JMHO

Hi Lonevoice!

The problem is, that as soon as you ask the government to enforce the provisions of a contract, the relationship between the parties of the contract becomes formally recognized. In order for no formal recognition of the relationship between two homosexually oriented individuals to be tolerated in law, they cannot have the right to enter into a contract. It must be a special right reserved only to those who are not subject to homosexual temptation.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Wow! Very stimulating contributions. Where do people think the balance lies among the following?

1. the public good
2. the reality that not all Canadians are Catholic

Somebody brought up the subject of contracts. Can homosexuals not already contract among themselves? This is something I had not thought about. I think the issue is whether or not homosexuals can contract with government.

My (current) leaning with respect to the balance is the following. Please feel free to correct me because I am still mulling this heavily. In the case of abortion, I think the public good is in not having abortion. Why? Because of the application of the principle of Double Effect. The harm to the unborn is absolute and without remedy. In the case of same-sex civil unions, the harm is not absolute: it happens in degrees of severity and it is with remedy.

So, for abortion the gloves are off as far as I am concerned. No compromise. For same-sex civil unions, I am of the view that my Catholic life is lived in a world of non-Catholics and that much good can be accomplished through common works and cooperation. OK let me open my umbrella. You may rain on my parade now.