Alternatives to civil marriage

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

A contract that means to mimic the effects of marriage attempts to create an illicit union. No legal recognintion of a same-sex union means that such a contract must be void.

That is your opinion. The contracts we have discussed do not mimic marriage in any authentic way and do not lead others to think two same sex members are married.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thanks for your comments folks. I have been reading along with interest. There are still many things I do not know about this question and much for me to learn.

What about Bishop Henry’s words concerning adult dependent relationships? These words ‘desexualize’ the question. The laws concerning care of the disabled are really complex in Canada. They need to be simplified so that they can be understood and applied by anyone who is in a dependent relationship with another adult.

This does not have to be two same-sex sexual partners. This can be a sister caring for her paraplegic brother or a friend caring for his terminally ill buddy. There seems to be quite a bit of room for legal clarity and neighbourly compassion here. What say you?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

That is your opinion. The contracts we have discussed do not mimic marriage in any authentic way and do not lead others to think two same sex members are married.

Hi fix!

The reason that they do not mimic marriage in an authentic way is because the two parties are of the same sex.

Try this for a thought exercise:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument that we make illegal same-sex marriage as well as civil union but that we allow the provisions that would be granted to two individuals to be conferred under private contract to any two parties who apply for them. You’ve said that this arrangement will never come to be confused with marriage because it isn’t marriage.

This betrays stunning naivety. Law firms in San Francisco, Washington D.C., Miami and New York will begin selling these contracts in a package form and they will advertise them to the gay community as marriage in everything but name. Same-sex couples who purchase and have these contracts drawn up for themselves will then hold themselves out as married even as some do now.

Young heterosexuals, particularly men, will begin to notice that they do not need to go through the commitment of a marriage when they can have a private contract drawn up that will be essentially the same. In fact, the contracts are a better deal because they can be specifically formulated to conform to whatever whim happens to occur tot he parties. The end result will be that “marriage” will no longer be performed in a Church before a priest, but in a law firm in front of an attorney.

 

[Other_Eric]

Ani Ibi:

Thanks for your comments folks. I have been reading along with interest. There are still many things I do not know about this question and much for me to learn.

What about Bishop Henry’s words concerning adult dependent relationships? These words ‘desexualize’ the question. The laws concerning care of the disabled are really complex in Canada. They need to be simplified so that they can be understood and applied by anyone who is in a dependent relationship with another adult.

This does not have to be two same-sex sexual partners. This can be a sister caring for her paraplegic brother or a friend caring for his terminally ill buddy. There seems to be quite a bit of room for legal clarity and neighbourly compassion here. What say you?

Hi Ani Ibi!

It may desexualize the question, but only for the moment. Set up a legal arrangement like this and if homosexuals flock to take advantage of it, then it become sexualized and a “gay thing.”

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

The reason that they do not mimic marriage in an authentic way is because the two parties are of the same sex.

Try this for a thought exercise:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument that we make illegal same-sex marriage as well as civil union but that we allow the provisions that would be granted to two individuals to be conferred under private contract to any two parties who apply for them. You’ve said that this arrangement will never come to be confused with marriage because it isn’t marriage.

This betrays stunning naivety. Law firms in San Francisco, Washington D.C., Miami and New York will begin selling these contracts in a package form and they will advertise them to the gay community as marriage in everything but name. Same-sex couples who purchase and have these contracts drawn up for themselves will then hold themselves out as married even as some do now.

Young heterosexuals, particularly men, will begin to notice that they do not need to go through the commitment of a marriage when they can have a private contract drawn up that will be essentially the same. In fact, the contracts are a better deal because they can be specifically formulated to conform to whatever whim happens to occur tot he parties. The end result will be that “marriage” will no longer be performed in a Church before a priest, but in a law firm in front of an attorney.

Eric,

I can send in $100 to a company and* become* an ordained minister or get a doctor of medicine degree. Does such a transaction make me into either? Do you think the general public cannot distinguish between an authentic title and a self appointed title?

That there are crafty lawyers who will manipulate the system is nothing new. In your scenerio all that may happen is that some greedy lawyers find a marketing ploy, that does not carry the same impact as the state giving offcial recognition to same sex couples as being “married”.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Eric,

I can send in $100 to a company and* become* an ordained minister or get a doctor of medicine degree. Does such a transaction make me into either? Do you think the general public cannot distinguish between an authentic title and a self appointed title?

That there are crafty lawyers who will manipulate the system is nothing new. In your scenerio all that may happen is that some greedy lawyers find a marketing ploy, that does not carry the same impact as the state giving offcial recognition to same sex couples as being “married”.

Hi fix!

Well, what do you think the differences between a marriage and a privately contracted arrangement meant to mimic marriage would be? How do you distinguish them beyond public perception? If the general public can be duped into thinking that a fetus is not a human, how much easier will it be to convince them that two men can become married through private contract?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

Well, what do you think the differences between a marriage and a privately contracted arrangement meant to mimic marriage would be? How do you distinguish them beyond public perception? If the general public can be duped into thinking that a fetus is not a human, how much easier will it be to convince them that two men can become married through private contract?

Two men may live together now and few think of such arragements as marriage. The issue is the state publicly recognizing such things as a marriage or a union. A private contract is just that…private. These types of arragnements require a contract because by definition they are not married.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Two men may live together now and few think of such arragements as marriage. The issue is the state publicly recognizing such things as a marriage or a union. A private contract is just that…private. These types of arragnements require a contract because by definition they are not married.

Hi fix!

But the public nature of a marriage comes from the way that the couple presents themselves to society. That’s entirely a matter of perception. The minute a same-sex couple presents themselves as married their private legal arrangements are no longer really private, and once the government is called upon to enforce them they are not private in any sense of the word.

You keep coming back to some vague standard whereby a private contract that does exactly what marriage does is not marriage because it doesn’t say it’s a marriage. Well, the same could be said about a civil union. It doesn’t* say* it’s a marriage and a couple that enters into such a union will, by definition, not be married because it’s not a marriage, it’s a civil union. From a Natural Law perspective, even if the arrangement was called marriage in secular law, it wouldn’t be marriage because there is no same-sex marriage in either tradition or Natural Law.

You can twist the issue any way you wish, but at the end of the day it’s the relationship itself that poses a threat to the institution of marriage and not the name that people give it.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

But the public nature of a marriage comes from the way that the couple presents themselves to society. That’s entirely a matter of perception.

No, not entirely. People can, and do, misrepresent things. There is not a solution to this in every circumstance. People can be self serving. The issue at hand is the state endorsing a couple as married.

The minute a same-sex couple presents themselves as married their private legal arrangements are no longer really private, and once the government is called upon to enforce them they are not private in any sense of the word.

A couple claiming to be civilly married when they are not would be lying and perhaps guilty of some civil law. People break the law all the time. That is not relevant to this debate.

You keep coming back to some vague standard whereby a private contract that does exactly what marriage does is not marriage because it doesn’t say it’s a marriage. Well, the same could be said about a civil union. It doesn’t* say* it’s a marriage and a couple that enters into such a union will, by definition, not be married because it’s not a marriage, it’s a civil union.

The civil union intends it to be a union. How is that the same as a contract passing on a car or a house? You want to be able to wipe out any situation that some may interpret as a marriage. I know of no way to stop every single person from misrepresenting their situation. All we can do lobby to stop the state from formally legitimizing a faux civil marriage.

From a Natural Law perspective, even if the arrangement was called marriage in secular law, it wouldn’t be marriage because there is no same-sex marriage in either tradition or Natural Law.

I agree.

You can twist the issue any way you wish, but at the end of the day it’s the relationship itself that poses a threat to the institution of marriage and not the name that people give it.

The relationship is nothing I approve of, but that is vastly different from the state saying such a relationship is legal. I, personally, thing sodomy laws should be reintroduced and enforced as needed.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

The relationship is nothing I approve of, but that is vastly different from the state saying such a relationship is legal.

But fix,

The moment the state is called upon to enforce the provisions of a contract, there exists an actual legal relationship that the state is bound to enforce. Why don’t you understand that? It’s a basic principle of contract law.

People may, and many will, misrepresent this relationship as a marriage, and though it may not be in a genuine Natural Law sense, their deception gains credence when the government enforces the provisions of a private contract designed to mimic marriage. Certainly this would be lying, but from a moral perspective, this is the least of their transgressions. It certainly isn’t actionable unless you can demonstrate some tangible harm caused you by the couple saying they were married (good luck with that one). No law that I know of is being broken. At least no law in Florida, but if you know better, could you please cite the statute?

The bottom line is that allowing private contracts allows a same-sex couple to have a form of state sanctioned legitimacy for their relationship. Legally, it’s marriage by another name. So, I ask again, what do you think the differences between a marriage and a privately contracted arrangement meant to mimic marriage would be? How do you distinguish them beyond public perception?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

But fix,

The moment the state is called upon to enforce the provisions of a contract, there exists an actual legal relationship that the state is bound to enforce. Why don’t you understand that? It’s a basic principle of contract law.

Is the state not enforcing the passing of property, as one example? The state is not enforcing a marriage. Just becuase in marriage property is passed does not mean it may not be passed under other conditions. The only relationship the state is enforcing with the private contract is the one where one is passing property to another.

People may, and many will, misrepresent this relationship as a marriage, and though it may not be in a genuine Natural Law sense, their deception gains credence when the government enforces the provisions of a private contract designed to mimic marriage. Certainly this would be lying, but from a moral perspective, this is the least of their transgressions. It certainly isn’t actionable unless you can demonstrate some tangible harm caused you by the couple saying they were married (good luck with that one). No law that I know of is being broken. At least no law in Florida, but if you know better, could you please cite the statute?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make? In the past post we were talking of people misrepresenting their marital status. That is all. I never claimed it should be prosecuted.

The bottom line is that allowing private contracts allows a same-sex couple to have a form of state sanctioned legitimacy for their relationship.

Why? The contracts do not necessarily intend the parties are living in a homosexual relationship. What if one priest wanted to pass on a car they owned to another priest ? Would that be mimicing marriage?

Legally, it’s marriage by another name. So, I ask again, what do you think the differences between a marriage and a privately contracted arrangement meant to mimic marriage would be? How do you distinguish them beyond public perception?

A private contract may be between any two or more parties. A marriage would only be between one man and one woman and specfically be for raising a family and the state would officially allow for such a union by giving a license that would be public knowledge.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Is the state not enforcing the passing of property, as one example? The state is not enforcing a marriage. Just becuase in marriage property is passed does not mean it may not be passed under other conditions. The only relationship the state is enforcing with the private contract is the one where one is passing property to another.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make? In the past post we were talking of people misrepresenting their marital status. That is all. I never claimed it should be prosecuted.

Why? The contracts do not necessarily intend the parties are living in a homosexual relationship. What if one priest wanted to pass on a car they owned to another priest ? Would that be mimicing marriage?

A private contract may be between any two or more parties. A marriage would only be between one man and one woman and specfically be for raising a family and the state would officially allow for such a union by giving a license that would be public knowledge.

Hi fix!

What I don’t understand, is that you seem to be perfectly fine with same-sex marriage or civil union as long as it’s called a private contract. Your entire defense of the institution of marriage is semantic.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

What I don’t understand, is that you seem to be perfectly fine with same-sex marriage or civil union as long as it’s called a private contract. Your entire defense of the institution of marriage is semantic.

That is not accurate at all. I am against state sanctioned marriage or unions that include anything other than one man and one woman.

You want to deny citizens rights to pass on property and other things because they may give the appearance, but not state endorsement, of a marriage.

The appearance of illegitimacy is not confined to homosexuals, but heterosexual fornicators and others. Are any of these folks denied private contract rights? I am not a lawyer, perhaps you can show me?

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

That is not accurate at all. I am against state sanctioned marriage or unions that include anything other than one man and one woman.

You want to deny citizens rights to pass on property and other things because they may give the appearance, but not state endorsement, of a marriage.

The appearance of illegitimacy is not confined to homosexuals, but heterosexual fornicators and others. Are any of these folks denied private contract rights? I am not a lawyer, perhaps you can show me?

Hi fix!

Heterosexual fornicators can cure an appearance of illegitimacy through marriage, in which case they no longer need a private contract.

Perhaps we should take this out of the realm of marriage and try to come up with a parallel situation. Let’s say that the government outlaws the sale or possession of cigarettes, citing public health concerns but it does not outlaw the sale or possession of tobacco. A businessman then comes up with the idea of selling “miniature cigars” that are different from a cigarette in some superficial way. The initial instinct would be to arrest the businessman for the sale of cigarettes but he could defend himself by saying that because the law provides for the sale of tobacco, he has a right to make a marketable product and sell it.

You might say that a law outlawing the sale of cigarettes but allowing the sale of tobacco in other forms is silly and arbitrary. Among other things, it undermines the original intent in preventing the public health consequences. Even if the businessman’s products are called “miniature cigars,” that they will have exactly the same effect as the cigarettes the government saw fit to outlaw. The remedy would be to outlaw the use of tobacco itself except, perhaps, in extraordinary circumstances in which an individual (unlikely as this may seem) obtains a medical prescription for it.

Just as a law banning cigarettes but allowing tobacco would do, allowing private contracts to confer incidents of marriage between two members of the same sex undermines the original intention of making illegal any type of gay union. The law that would be drafted is relegated to the status of a symbol, since same-sex couples will routinely circumvent it with the blessing of the law.

 

[fix]

Whether we look at it from the civil law or the natural law we know that marriage is not about property law or healthcare proxies. That seems to be your premise. That propery and such may be passed on does not mean these issues are what constitute a marriage.
Additionally, many non married people have reasons to enter into transactions to pass on property in the same manner as married people.

The issue of perception may not be rectified through the law. Not all fornicators eventually get married. If you want to start deny property rights to all classifications of citizens then please say which groups we will include.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Whether we look at it from the civil law or the natural law we know that marriage is not about property law or healthcare proxies. That seems to be your premise. That propery and such may be passed on does not mean these issues are what constitute a marriage.
Additionally, many non married people have reasons to enter into transactions to pass on property in the same manner as married people.

The issue of perception may not be rectified through the law. Not all fornicators eventually get married. If you want to start deny property rights to all classifications of citizens then please say which groups we will include.

Hi fix!

Yes marriage is definitely more then healthcare proxies and inheritance. I would say that marriage exists completely independent of civil law. Marriage came first and then the secular government laws followed assigning privileges to the institution. Privileges such as the assumed rights of inheritance and the ability to make healthcare decisions for the partner.

You are right to say that marriage is more than these things. From the perspective of Natural Law, marriage is a supreme act of self-giving. It is a relationship that, even without children, is meant to provide security and emotional stability for the couple that enters into it. It is a method of reining in and disciplining one’s base sexual impulses. None of these things, however, appear in the government’s books and statutes. I’m not sure we would want them to.

So, when we speak of using the law to render illicit a same-sex relationship that attempts to approximate marriage, the judge, whose job it is to interpret the law, must ask himself what the legal definition of marriage is. When he consults the statutes, he will discover that marriage boils down to a set of privileges such as inheritance and the ability to make healthcare decisions. Marriage may very well be more, but the judge is paid to arrive at a legal conclusion, not a theological one.

If the issue of perception cannot be shaped by the law, what is the purpose of attempting to ban same-sex marriage? If the public’s perception of marriage will not be affected by homosexuals taking advantage of a rather obvious loophole in the marriage law, why would it be effected by explicit same-sex marriage? From a Natural Law perspective, it’s not marriage, so no harm is done to the institution.

The answer is that private contracts must be denied to homosexuals for the very reasons that marriage is denied to them. Public perception is of paramount importance. We don’t want to recognize same-sex marriage because we do not want the public to begin to see such a union as legitimate. Similarly, we don’t want the public to begin to see a private contract as a legitimate alternative to marriage for homosexuals.

So, the group we mean to deny the right of private contract to is the group that we need to prevent from perverting marriage. Homosexuals. No one else. I began this conversation saying as much. I even sketched out the method of finding them.

This is beginning to be (if it has not already become) repetitious.