Another approach to combating the error of Gay Marriage?

[Yeoman]

The topic of homosexual “marriage” is continually in the news, as we all know.

Without getting into the debate itself, I wonder if a it would be morally valid to take a wholly different approach to this topic than has been taken in the past. Orthodox Catholics have maintained that the state must recognize that a valid marriage can occur only between a man and a woman, and I fully agree with that. But, does the state have to recognize a marriage at all?

That is, can we (and perhaps should we) argue that the day has come for the state to simply get out of the marriage recognition business altogether? If the state were to do that, those serious about marriage would have to view it solely in terms of a religious ceremony or sacrament, depending upon their faith. Those who regard it only as a civil contract can go to a lawyer and contract any way they want.

Granted, there are a lot of legal oddities that would pop up under this approach, but it occurs to me that there are many fewer than their used to be. Classically it would be argued that marriage protects children and taking this approach would fail to protect them, but in the current age, where there is no longer any negative legal result for having children out of wedlock, even intentionally, this isn’t really true. There would, of course, be inheritance and financial issues, but I suspect there would be many fewer than we suppose, and perhaps their existence would force those who otherwise neglect these topics to put some thought into them.

And, at that point, there’s no longer any issue as to whether the state needs to recognize homosexual marriages, as recognition of marriages would no longer be a state function. That would, I suppose, take the wind out of the homosexual thesis that recognition of marriage is the stamp of approval on the conduct.

What do we think? Morally permissible?

 

[Paul2274]

Very interesting, I have heard this approach before and think that it is a valid idea. By making marriage solely a religious intention and making what is recognized by the states only a civil union or contract. Then again if that were to happen there would be someone wacky enough to start a religion solely for the purpose of gay marriage and there would be nothing the states could do then and the gay agenda still wins. I truly think that the snowball has gotten too big to stop on this one and I think that gay marriage will happen and following that polygamy will follow that… and who knows in a few years you will be able to marry your dog or a car or your favorite chair.

Paul

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thank you for your good and thoughtful intentions, OP.

However, I think this does not work in our modern and complex society, even if religiously unaffiliated citizens would be OK with it. (A different hurdle) For starters (for example), it would be a nightmare for the tax code & structure, literally revolutionizing and throwing it into chaos, since both legal (state-recognized) spouses and legal (state-recognized) dependents that are products of those legal unions are essential to calculating and predicting tax liabilities.

Specifically "Marital" status is integral to other financial and record-keeping systems as well, such as financial aid determinations for education, such as loan applications, such as community property laws, and more. (Being a spouse is different from being a partner or a joint tenant, etc.)

Now, referring back to the tax structure, if taxes were collected only State by State, and there were no federal taxes, it would not be too unwieldly at least for that segment of secular systems. The huge state of CA has a separate feature in its State tax return that allows one to file together with a (homosexual) partner as a Registered Domestic Partner. Lots of posters on CAF see a way out of gay marriage as merely confining the term marriage, universally in the U.S., to religion, with homosexual unions recognized by the state as civil unions (not marriages, which would then be a term extracted from all state business). And, as I understand it, an RDP has equivalently the same tax status as a spouse. (Therefore, separate but equal, in this context.)

The problem is threefold: (1) lots of nonbelieving straight couples who want nothing to do with religion continue nevertheless to want to be formally “married.” (2) lots of nonbelieving straight couples who are currently in recognized formal “marriages” do not want the language retroactively changed, or even in the future changed so that they are somehow a separate group of wedded couples with an antique & anachronistic status. (3) The biggest problem: The most radical of activist gays fight this tooth and nail, and they do represent the majority of gays. They want the title marriage because they believe that the title itself confers social status and moral approval, which is the entire point; for many of them, that is actually as important as any concrete privileges such as tax status, parenting “rights,” etc. They want sexual equivalency with heterosexuals: that is central to the gay “marriage” movement. They want a nondifferentiated society, with official state approval of their sexual label.

An adjunct of this last point is that they are forever identifying legally as a ‘protected class’ which justifies their being supposedly mainstreamed into all structures of society, whether or not particular structures are appropriate to a unit of identical genders. If they can redefine the term “marriage” to include themselves, they’re home free.

 

[edward_george]

it would be a nightmare for the tax code & structure, literally revolutionizing and throwing it into chaos

As if the tax code was not already chaotic…

On a more serious note, I think this is an idea with some merit, for the reasons the OP has stated.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As if the tax code was not already chaotic…

On a more serious note, I think this is an idea with some merit, for the reasons the OP has stated.

Yes, I agree with the chaos part.
However, I think the political realities align more with my arguments, despite how fiercely I continue to fight this battle. “Having merit” to an argument is one thing: having persuasive merit is something else.

I think that no headway will be made by those who do understand the purposes of marriage (Catholics and many others) until a national conversation is had – not only about many of the aspects of this already discussed on CAF, but perhaps as importantly, a national secular conversation about the implications of the government approving or disapproving of sexual terms. The government is not about that, and that, to me, is a serious hijack of government’s role that the gays are directly and aggressively seeking. I grow very concerned about this. No one on the other side seems to be directly addressing this and holding the dam.

Sexuality is a private matter, not a state matter.

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Gay marrieges is not natural in the way a marriage should. I can’t understand why people don’t understand that. I see no point in even discuss the whole matter. We all know what the Bible says,what the Church says and what the Catechism says,that is all we need. I still recomend that we all pray for gay-people to live in absolute celibacy so that they not do a mortal sin. THAT is what we should do,not talking,writing,arguing,and I don’t can think of what moore about this matter. A marriege is possible ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Why oh why is it so difficult to understand this thing. We must love also those who are gay,but do all we can to stop them sin,and that we can do praying for them to stay in celibacy.

 

[Yeoman]

I think that no headway will be made by those who do understand the purposes of marriage (Catholics and many others) until a national conversation is had – not only about many of the aspects of this already discussed on CAF, but perhaps as importantly, a national secular conversation about the implications of the government approving or disapproving of sexual terms. The government is not about that, and that, to me, is a serious hijack of government’s role that the gays are directly and aggressively seeking. I grow very concerned about this. No one on the other side seems to be directly addressing this and holding the dam.

Very true.

At the heart of it, gays argue that they’re deprived of “civil rights” as a lack of gay marriage means they can’t marry whom they choose. That’s ridiculous, of course, as they have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else, as long as marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

State recognition of marriage only exists to preserve some valid state interest. The argument that gays can’t marry those that they “love”, or more accurately those that they sexually desire, isn’t a valid argument as the state has no legitimate interest in love and desire. That’s an odd thing for the state to be concerned with.

You can argue (against my query here) that the state does have a legitimate interest in marriage in that it has a legitimate interest in protecting the logical byproduct of the male female union, children. Of course, if we agree with that, and almost everyone does, the next part of it is that the state also has a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent too many unions outside of marriage. At one time, of course, it did do that, but it hasn’t for many years and with the current sexual atmosphere, and the current interpretation of the Constitution, it won’t do that and likely can’t. Anyhow, the point is that the only point to gay marriage is to “validate” a lifestyle and to sanction sexual love. It’s a weird government that needs to bother with that.

 

[rossum]

Very interesting, I have heard this approach before and think that it is a valid idea. By making marriage solely a religious intention and making what is recognized by the states only a civil union or contract.

To some extent this already happens. Both Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims have a religious marriage that is very different to the standard civil marriage. Catholics also differ in that Catholic religious marriages do not allow divorce while civil marriages do.

Then again if that were to happen there would be someone wacky enough to start a religion solely for the purpose of gay marriage and there would be nothing the states could do then and the gay agenda still wins.

I’m afraid someone else got there first; the Metropolitan Community Church is already providing religious gay marriages. I would expect that some Unitarian Universalists would also be happy to do so.

rossum

 

[CharlesDarwin]

if the churches continue to fight against gay marriage either they will lose…or the state will get out of the marriage business altogether

I would prefer the later personally

 

[JimG]

The state does have an interest in the viability of marriage, because it has an interest in children, who are the future citizens and taxpayers.

It is beyond obvious that children born out of wedlock, along with widespread divorce, leads to increased poverty, increased feminization of poverty and the shifting of family burdens to taxpayers at large, and to government agencies which are no substitute for moms and dads.

The real losers in the disintegration of traditional marriage are children. In the long run, civilization is the loser, since children are its future.

Acceptance of gay marriage simply confirms the fact that a society has given up on marriage. If one could make bets on the continued existence of a particular society, it also would signal that the odds of its continued viability have taken a further nosedive.