Alternatives to civil marriage

[Other_Eric]

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.

Hi Ani Ibi!

Not being Canadian myself, I hope that I do not mess up your second statement by reworking it to say that “not everyone in society is Catholic” and trying to find the balance between that and the public good.

The truth is that homosexuals are free to contract among themselves at this time. The issue is decidedly not whether homosexuals can contract with the government because marriage is not a contract between the government and the couple. It is a special private contract between two individuals that the government sees fit to endow with certain privileges.

To appeal to the principle of Double Effect as applied to a formalized homosexual union you would have to posit that to allow the union is itself either morally neutral or good. It is not. There are public health consequences involved as well as the further breakdown in the concept of what marriage is meant to be. This has repercussions on family stability and by extension, to society as a whole. There can only be a self-interested good in it for the two individuals involved in such a union.

Therefore, it is argued that we must legislatively prohibit such a union from occurring. If we allow the homosexual a right of private contract, we implicitly grant to him back-door access to precisely the type of union we mean to prevent him to entering into.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

---

Other Eric:

Hi Ani Ibi!

Hi Other!
Other Eric:

Not being Canadian myself, I hope that I do not mess up your second statement by reworking it to say that “not everyone in society is Catholic” and trying to find the balance between that and the public good.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is (some) good in the world outside the Catholic Church. It may be difficult to find. It may be easier just to say that if everyone were Catholic, we wouldn’t have these problems. To which I respond: one need only to listen to Sister Chittester to disapprise oneself of that notion entirely.
Other Eric:

It is a special private contract between two individuals that the government sees fit to endow with certain privileges.

And the endowing of those privileges comes with certain understandings. Those understandings are contractual.
Other Eric:

To appeal to the principle of Double Effect as applied to a formalized homosexual union you would have to posit that to allow the union is itself either morally neutral or good. It is not.

Whoops. Gonna have to codify your case. Here is the principle of Double Effect:

According to the Principle of Double Effect, for an act to be morally licit all of the following must apply:

The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil).
**

The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm.
**
The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available.
**

****The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment).
**

****The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.
Other Eric:

If we allow the homosexual a right of private contract, we implicitly grant to him back-door access to precisely the type of union we mean to prevent him to entering into.

True. But one cannot contract to something illegal. The question is whether or not same-sex unions of whatever form should be legal (ie, contracted to between government and society).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hi buds! Here is another interesting angle on this discussion: The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted a brief claiming that abandonment of natural law leads to totalitarianism:

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060308.html

Anyone have any commentary?

 

[Holly3278]

No legal/civil recognition of same-sex couples commitments at all.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Looks like Michael Coren could use some support. If you can’t catch the Rochester Ferry or motor around the Falls to see the debate in person, then please email your support to:

---

<mcoren@sympatico.ca>

---

**FULLER INFO RE MICHAEL COREN DEBATE ON SSM ON JUNE 7TH IN TORONTO

**----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Coren <mcoren@sympatico.ca>
To: Robert A Jason <bobeva@niagara.com>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: Fw: Michael Coren - Gay marriage debate

PLEASE CIRCULATE!

After several changes and postponements the CFRB debate on homosexual marriage will be on June 7th, 7-9 pm, at the Holiday Inn on King street I lead our side and Mark Eliot leads the other. We each have three supporters, all heavy-hitters. It will live on CFRB and on our Montreal station, so the reach will be enormous. The microphone will also be taken to the floor. In other words, this is important. If you can come along please do. We know that the other side will certainly be there. Thank you.

---

Dear Friends:

A number of you have asked me for the full address and city of Michael Coren debate on SSM I mentioned yesterday. Well, a good friend who lives in the Toronto area has kindly provided the following info for you. Here it is:

"Please note that JUNE 7th is a TUESDAY. The street address of the HOLIDAY INN ON KING is 370 King St. West, Toronto (Phone 416-599-4000). Please remember that speakers draw strength from the presence of supporters. Let us give our support to Michael Coren. There will be many to cheer the the pro-homosexual marriage side. So please try your best to attend the debate.

THERE IS NO CHARGE TO ATTEND."

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

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?

Since when does a legitimate government have any authority to act contrary to the natural law?

Legally, marriage is a rather sterile bundle of civil rights, liberties and privileges afforded to the married couple.

Is just law not a relection of the truth? Are law and truth at odds?

What would the moral difference be between marriage, civil union or some other privately contracted arrangement?

Any attempt to legitimize homosexual conduct is evil.

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.

Any formal recognition of such things is not good. How will private contracts become well known? If it comes to a point that such things are merely cover for immoral acts, then I think they should be prohibited. Are contracts for immoral behavior morally licit? Should they be condoned? It is one thing to pass on property and money, it is another thing to use legal devices as agit prop.

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.

Huh? How is that?

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?

Why?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Since when does a legitimate government have any authority to act contrary to the natural law?

Is just law not a relection of the truth? Are law and truth at odds?

Any attempt to legitimize homosexual conduct is evil.

Any formal recognition of such things is not good. How will private contracts become well known? If it comes to a point that such things are merely cover for immoral acts, then I think they should be prohibited. Are contracts for immoral behavior morally licit? Should they be condoned? It is one thing to pass on property and money, it is another thing to use legal devices as agit prop.

Huh? How is that?

Why?

Hi fix!

I was not aware that I was arguing that government has any authority to act contrary to the natural law. I also hope that you are not arguing that Christ has granted any legislature the charism of infallibility so that the written legal code and the truth are never at odds. Governments tend to get it wrong quite often and if we mean for the law to reflect the truth we also must see that it comports with justice.

I said that in a legal sense marriage is a sterile bundle of rights and privileges. No marriage law that I am aware of mentions intercourse, the frequency with which the married couple should engage in it, the techniques it is licit for them to practice or any other requirement that the marital act be engaged in at all. Marriage, legally, is just a standardized way of designating a healthcare surrogate, heirs, and rights to any children arising from that union.

Comes now a same-sex couple who by means of private contract make exactly the same arrangements. Their documents also do not refer to any morally illicit behavior but rather only to those rights and privileges that would be conferred upon a married couple. With the exception of a few vague generalities the relationship functions the same way in front of a judge. Because the same-sex couple’s contracts only refer to such things as inheritance and power of attorney, there’s nothing morally illicit to invalidate any of them.

If you do not believe that this type of arrangement will become well known and widespread in the gay community, then I am afraid that you betray a woeful ignorance of exactly how those groups operate. Literature, lectures and such on exactly these types of legal constructions are known to virtually every sexually active homosexual.

So, we quickly arrive at the point where such legal devices are used as agitprop for what everyone knows is an illicit relationship even if it does not say so on paper. Therefore, by your own admission we must prohibit the homosexual from designating heirs, healthcare providers and other such things because if we did not, he would use these rights to construct the illicit relationship we mean to prevent. Therefore, the government must dictate who the homosexual’s heirs will be. The government must ultimately decide who will make the medical decisions for such an individual. The government must automatically invalidate any contractual agreement between homosexuals. With all of these restrictions, we have effectively eliminated the homosexual’s right to free association.

If you can point out to me where I’ve gone wrong, I would most like to hear it.

 

[fix]

Eric,

Your premise is wrong and so your conclusions are wrong. Marriage is not about delegating money and property rights. That is what the homosexual groups want us to believe.

Marriage is known from the natural law. It is always between one man and one woman. Anything else that attempts to mimic that is false.

Any two individuals may draw up a contract to transfer property and such, what does that have to do with marriage?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Eric,

Your premise is wrong and so your conclusions are wrong. Marriage is not about delegating money and property rights. That is what the homosexual groups want us to believe.

Marriage is known from the natural law. It is always between one man and one woman. Anything else that attempts to mimic that is false.

Any two individuals may draw up a contract to transfer property and such, what does that have to do with marriage?

Hi fix!

Marriage may very well be more than just delegating money and property rights, but you can’t deny that in terms of how the arrangement functions in front of a judge and for purposes legal recognition, that about sums up what it is. You have said that any formalized recognition of a same-sex relationship would be wrong. That would include enforcing the provisions of a private contract designed to approximate the effects of marriage. Or perhaps I misread you and you would have no problem with some form of civil union that conferred the property and inheritance rights until now only associated with marriage. After all, it’s a civil union and what does that have to do with marriage?

To blithely say that a same-sex couple can have absolutely no recognition before the law is to say that any legal arrangement that they construct, public or private must be invalid to protect the sanctity of marriage.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Marriage may very well be more than just delegating money and property rights, but you can’t deny that in terms of how the arrangement functions in front of a judge and for purposes legal recognition, that about sums up what it is. You have said that any formalized recognition of a same-sex relationship would be wrong. That would include enforcing the provisions of a private contract designed to approximate the effects of marriage. Or perhaps I misread you and you would have no problem with some form of civil union that conferred the property and inheritance rights until now only associated with marriage. After all, it’s a civil union and what does that have to do with marriage?

To blithely say that a same-sex couple can have absolutely no recognition before the law is to say that any legal arrangement that they construct, public or private must be invalid to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Let us be very clear. Any legal recognition of same sex unions is wrong and ought never to be tolerated. Civil unions are nothing but “gay” marriage in disguise.

If two people want to draw up a contract to pass on property that does not imply they are homosexual.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Let us be very clear. Any legal recognition of same sex unions is wrong and ought never to be tolerated. Civil unions are nothing but “gay” marriage in disguise.

If two people want to draw up a contract to pass on property that does not imply they are homosexual.

Hi fix!

But if you will not tollerate a gay marriage when it is disguised as a civil union, why will you tollerate it when it is disguised as a private contract?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

But if you will not tollerate a gay marriage when it is disguised as a civil union, why will you tollerate it when it is disguised as a private contract?

A private contract is not a public committment. There is nothing that distinguishes a contract in such a way that people will think that it means one is “married”.

I have many contracts and so far no one has claimed I am married to my mortgage company or healthcare insurer or any such thing.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

A private contract is not a public committment. There is nothing that distinguishes a contract in such a way that people will think that it means one is “married”.

I have many contracts and so far no one has claimed I am married to my mortgage company or healthcare insurer or any such thing.

Hi fix!

Aren’t the contracts that you have between your mortgage company or your healthcare insurer? Those contracts were never designed to look like a marriage. You wouldn’t even think to say to anyone that they were remotely similar. The same-sex couple creates contracts that are specifically designed to mimic the effects of marriage and they advertise this fact. Taken one by one, each of the agreements in the contracts may be perfectly licit, in and of itself, but put all together and they definitively form the marriage counterfeit we mean to prevent. In order to be consistent, one must hold that the provisions of these contracts are therefore invalid.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Aren’t the contracts that you have between your mortgage company or your healthcare insurer? Those contracts were never designed to look like a marriage. You wouldn’t even think to say to anyone that they were remotely similar. The same-sex couple creates contracts that are specifically designed to mimic the effects of marriage and they advertise this fact. Taken one by one, each of the agreements in the contracts may be perfectly licit, in and of itself, but put all together and they definitively form the marriage counterfeit we mean to prevent. In order to be consistent, one must hold that the provisions of these contracts are therefore invalid.

The contract that would allow for the transfer of property and such is not inherently homosexual. Now, I am not a lawyer, but if the contract specifically mentioned that the contract was for homosexual conduct and this was specfically related to transfering property, then you may have a point.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

fix:

The contract that would allow for the transfer of property and such is not inherently homosexual. Now, I am not a lawyer, but if the contract specifically mentioned that the contract was for homosexual conduct and this was specfically related to transfering property, then you may have a point.

This begs the question. The govt must make up its mind on a situation which furthers harm to society. If it furthers harm to society, then it must be illegal. If it is illegal, one cannot contract to it.

 

[fix]

Ani Ibi:

This begs the question. The govt must make up its mind on a situation which furthers harm to society. If it furthers harm to society, then it must be illegal. If it is illegal, one cannot contract to it.

How does it beg the question? I said if the contract was intending to mean it was for homosexual relations it would be wrong. I am against anything that would legally recognize homosexual “unions”. A contract bewteen two parties has nothing to do with sex. How can the government prohibit people from passing property or other things to each other? I can’t see how contracts are equal to a so called civil union?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

The contract that would allow for the transfer of property and such is not inherently homosexual. Now, I am not a lawyer, but if the contract specifically mentioned that the contract was for homosexual conduct and this was specfically related to transfering property, then you may have a point.

Hi fix!

The thing you seem to be missing is that in law, there are circumstances under which even things like purchasing a car with one’s own money become illegal. Say, for instance, you made an agreement with a couple of other people to rob a bank and you purchased the car to be used as a getaway vehicle. Under conspiracy law, the purchase of the car is an actionable offense even if the bank robbery never takes place. Because the purchase of the car furthers an evil intention, it is illicit.

I am applying this same principle to the same-sex couple who contract with each other. The contract itself may have all the appearances of a legal document, never mentioning any illicit sexual activity. The thing that makes it illicit is the evil relationship between the two contracting individuals that the contract means to facilitate.

This is why I say that if we mean to deny any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship, the homosexual cannot be understood to have the same right of contract as everyone else.

 

[didymus]

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

I daresay that we’ve been sliding down the slope for quire a while now.
Marriage is dead – it has been killed by easy divorce, acceptance of premarital sex, cohabitation, extramarital sex, out-of-wedlock children, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The fact the people use the term “gay marriage” without bursting out laughing – the fact that we even have to debate “gay marriage” – shows that we’ve already lost the debate.

All we can do is preserve it as a religious institution and pray that the world will eventually come back to its senses. I voted for Option #3, civil unions for all (and religious marriages for those of us who want the real thing).

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

The thing you seem to be missing is that in law, there are circumstances under which even things like purchasing a car with one’s own money become illegal. Say, for instance, you made an agreement with a couple of other people to rob a bank and you purchased the car to be used as a getaway vehicle. Under conspiracy law, the purchase of the car is an actionable offense even if the bank robbery never takes place. Because the purchase of the car furthers an evil intention, it is illicit.

I am applying this same principle to the same-sex couple who contract with each other. The contract itself may have all the appearances of a legal document, never mentioning any illicit sexual activity. The thing that makes it illicit is the evil relationship between the two contracting individuals that the contract means to facilitate.

This is why I say that if we mean to deny any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship, the homosexual cannot be understood to have the same right of contract as everyone else.

Again, I am not an attorney, but your argument does not make any sense to me. First, homosexual acts are no longer illegal as far as I know, although I think they should be. Second, how would one know if one were homosexual in these contractual transactions?

A simple contract cannot be assumed to be illegal. If there is proof of some sort than the matter can be investigated. The concept here is public recognition of homosexual unions, not property rights. Property may be passed on as one directs that does not mean one is homosexual.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

didymus:

Marriage is dead – it has been killed by easy divorce, acceptance of premarital sex, cohabitation, extramarital sex, out-of-wedlock children, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

I agree. I think that this has been an invisible part of this ‘dialogue.’ Civil ‘marriage’ includes recognition of common law marriages after a period of two years has passed. A ceremony is not necessary. A tremendous amount of harm has occurred because of the civil erosion of the vision of marriage. I do not feel obliged to consider couples joined by a justice of the peace ‘married.’