Banning Civil Marriage in California

[c659smith]

I don’t understand how the state would be saying anything about marriage. You would be in a domestic partnership that the state recognizes as such, that so happened to also be a marriage. The state would not be in the business of making those classifications.

That would be a tragedy for society IMHO. I would only want this course of action( withdrawing the word marriage) if the California laws used the word marriage to describe unions that could not possibly be open to the matrimonial bond and there was little hope of reversing those laws.

That would also violate the constitution where the state shall make no laws in regards to Religion.

 

[Benadam]

Under this proposition, marriage would not be defined at all.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Any way you look at it, what this proposition is proposing is a lie.

God says I am married. The state would say I am not married.

Since those are contradictory, one of them is a lie.

Who here is in favor of a lie being written into law?

 

[Princess18]

Any way you look at it, what this proposition is proposing is a lie.

God says I am married. The state would say I am not married.

Since those are contradictory, one of them is a lie.

The state cannot say you are not married any more than they can say you are not baptised. It is not their territory. They would only be saying that your religious marriage ceremony has no legal standing. They are not lying, they’re just not paying attention to your religious designation.

Changing the words also does not negate your current legal status. You would not be in jeopardy of losing insurance, medical authority, legal rights, children’s rights, etc. They cannot undo your legal status because they change the terminology.

However, couples from this point on would form a legal domestic partnership and then have their sacramental marriage in the Church. This is not far off from what already happens - MANY couples get legally married first and then have the marriage convalidated.

We are all very attached to the word “marriage”, and it’s upsetting to think that they might remove it from state vocabulary. However, this does not change what exists, and we cannot base the value of our relationships on terminology. So I’d be a “partner” or “spouse B” instead of “wife” … so what? I’m already referred to as “dependent” 98% of the time as it is. They could call me “tax deduction #1” if they wanted … it really doesn’t matter.

 

[magdelaine]

They could call me “tax deduction #1” if they wanted … it really doesn’t matter.

This is only true if you believe that the state sanctioning of an institution like marriage has no effect on people getting married in the first place.

Marriage is an institution that benefits and protects children, primarily, regardless of what current secular apologists say about it. I believe that it does have a positive effect in spite of the damage that marriage has suffered from contraception and divorce. You may not be harmed by the change, personally, but guaranteed your children (and their children) and society in general, will be.

 

[fix]

We are all very attached to the word “marriage”, and it’s upsetting to think that they might remove it from state vocabulary. However, this does not change what exists, and we cannot base the value of our relationships on terminology. So I’d be a “partner” or “spouse B” instead of “wife” … so what? I’m already referred to as “dependent” 98% of the time as it is. They could call me “tax deduction #1” if they wanted … it really doesn’t matter.

We are attached to the word because words convey truth. People want to change what is true. Some want the state to redefine marriage, or minimize it. That is no small matter.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The state cannot say you are not married any more than they can say you are not baptised. It is not their territory. They would only be saying that your religious marriage ceremony has no legal standing. They are not lying, they’re just not paying attention to your religious designation.

God says I’m married. If the state says I’m not married in any sense whatsoever, it is contradicting what God says. So unless you want to call God a liar (and I don’t believe you do), the state would be lying.

Changing the words also does not negate your current legal status. You would not be in jeopardy of losing insurance, medical authority, legal rights, children’s rights, etc. They cannot undo your legal status because they change the terminology.

So? The state would still be lying.

However, couples from this point on would form a legal domestic partnership and then have their sacramental marriage in the Church. This is not far off from what already happens - MANY couples get legally married first and then have the marriage convalidated.

If they are doing it that way, they are doing it backwards.

We are all very attached to the word “marriage”, and it’s upsetting to think that they might remove it from state vocabulary. However, this does not change what exists, and we cannot base the value of our relationships on terminology. So I’d be a “partner” or “spouse B” instead of “wife” … so what? I’m already referred to as “dependent” 98% of the time as it is. They could call me “tax deduction #1” if they wanted … it really doesn’t matter.

Well, if it doesn’t really matter, then you will have no problem voting against this if you are a California citizen.

However, it does matter. Imagine little Susie being told by her teacher that her parents are not married. Imagine being on the witness stand–having sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth–and then being asked, under oath, to state whether or not you are married.

Words do matter. Perceptions do matter.

Truth matters!

 

[snowpiece]

MARRIAGE is a word used by religions. NOBODY is coming into your Church and telling you who your Church can and cannot marry. NOTHING IN THIS BILL WILL AFFECT YOUR CHURCH OR IT’S PRACTICES.
The Catholic Church views CIVIL MARRIAGEs as INVALID MARRIAGES. So, a CIVIL certificate of marriage is viewed by the Church as no different from a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP anyway.
This proposal will make a clear separation between Church and State. Who cares what the CIVIL word is? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE.
Everybody wins here-
divorcees don’t get to use the M-word.
gays don’t get to use the M-word.
The only people who get to use the M-word are people who go to a Church and get Married. So, your Church is the sole arbiter of who can and cannot use the word Marriage.
Where’s the problem?

 

[magdelaine]

MARRIAGE is a word used by religions.

No, it’s not. And you know it.

Marriage is a word used by culture and society around the world to indicate a life-long bond between a man and a woman in order to procreate and raise the next generation.

Find me one example in any society (before the last 20 years or so) where either “marriage” means something other than the above, or that the above was referred to by something other than marriage; particularly by secular institutions, governments, or societies.

You can’t.

 

[snowpiece]

No, it’s not. And you know it.

Marriage is a word used by culture and society around the world to indicate a life-long bond between a man and a woman in order to procreate and raise the next generation.

Find me one example in any society (before the last 20 years or so) where either “marriage” means something other than the above, or that the above was referred to by something other than marriage; particularly by secular institutions, governments, or societies.

You can’t.

The history of marriage isn’t a pretty one. Yes, the word “marriage” is used by religions. If it weren’t, you would have absolutely no reason to discuss it on a forum such as this one. This proposal would give Churches COMPLETE discretion and control over the word Marriage.
You can’t what? What’s the problem?

 

[fix]

MARRIAGE is a word used by religions. NOBODY is coming into your Church and telling you who your Church can and cannot marry. NOTHING IN THIS BILL WILL AFFECT YOUR CHURCH OR IT’S PRACTICES.

Marriage is a word used to convey what it is. It is not specific to religion.

The Catholic Church views CIVIL MARRIAGEs as INVALID MARRIAGES.

This is untrue.

So, a CIVIL certificate of marriage is viewed by the Church as no different from a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP anyway.

Again untrue. There are plenty of valid marriages that are not sacramental.

This proposal will make a clear separation between Church and State.

There is no separation between the state, logic, and truth.

Who cares what the CIVIL word is? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE.

Here is the real issue. People want to undo what is true. They want marriage to mean anything they claim.

Where’s the problem?

Among other things, the problem is society continues to unravel.

 

[magdelaine]

The history of marriage isn’t a pretty one. Yes, the word “marriage” is used by religions. If it weren’t, you would have absolutely no reason to discuss it on a forum such as this one. This proposal would give Churches COMPLETE discretion and control over the word Marriage.
You can’t what? What’s the problem?

Sigh

You can’t "Find me one example in any society (before the last 20 years or so) where either “marriage” means something other than the above (a life-long bond between a man and a woman in order to procreate and raise the next generation), or that the above was referred to by something other than marriage; particularly by secular institutions, governments, or societies."

In other words, marriage is a societal and cultural as well as a religious term. Although this is a Catholic forum, we *are *capable of discussing issues that are important to society at large, like the institution of marriage.

Clear enough?

 

[snowpiece]

Marriage is a word used to convey what it is. It is not specific to religion.

This is untrue.

Again untrue. There are plenty of valid marriages that are not sacramental.

There is no separation between the state, logic, and truth.

Here is the real issue. People want to undo what is true. They want marriage to mean anything they claim.

Among other things, the problem is society continues to unravel.

Can you state WHY you believe these statements to be untrue? How is a CIVIL MARRIAGE, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Church, valid in the eyes of the Church? This has not been my experience- I have had countless priests, and even a bishop, tell me that civil marriages are not marriages in the eyes of the Church. Please provide a REASON or a REFERENCE.

To say that society is unraveling… it sounds like your issue with this proposal has nothing to do with marriage. Please expand.
Also, it would be great if you could mention why the Church is not interested in banning civil divorce. Jesus said a lot of things about divorce, and said nothing of homosexuality, so why is it that the Church is hung up on legislating homosexual marriages rather than heterosexual divorces is unclear to me. Could it be that the Church would lose members & money by attacking divorce?

 

[fix]

Can you state WHY you believe these statements to be untrue? How is a CIVIL MARRIAGE, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Church, valid in the eyes of the Church? This has not been my experience- I have had countless priests, and even a bishop, tell me that civil marriages are not marriages in the eyes of the Church. Please provide a REASON or a REFERENCE.

Catholics are bound by the Catholic form of marriage. That does not mean non Catholics are bound. You can have two non baptized people validly married. It may not be a sacramental marriage but it can still be valid.

To say that society is unraveling… it sounds like your issue with this proposal has nothing to do with marriage. Please expand.

Marriage is a fundamental aspect of society. Once that is artificially redfefined you allow in more deviations which in turn destabilizes society.

Also, it would be great if you could mention why the Church is not interested in banning civil divorce.

For one thing civil divorce is not always a moral offense. There may be justification for it in a limited way. I grant it is over used and misused today.

Jesus said a lot of things about divorce, and said nothing of homosexuality, so why is it that the Church is hung up on legislating homosexual marriages rather than heterosexual divorces is unclear to me. Could it be that the Church would lose members & money by attacking divorce?

There is no divorce in the sense of undoing a sacramental marriage that has been consumated. But, we are talking of civil divorce here.

And Jesus founded a Church. That not every single word He spoke is recorded in the bible is no evidence homosexual acts are good. in fact, the evidence is the exact opposite.

 

[snowpiece]

“It may not be a sacramental marriage but it can still be valid.”

Exactly my point. It’s a LEGALLY valid marriage, but the Church does not recognize it (because it’s not the Sacrament of Marriage, it’s just a civil contract).

“Marriage is a fundamental aspect of society. Once that is artificially redfefined you allow in more deviations which in turn destabilizes society.”

Marriage has a long social history. Most of that history isn’t pretty, and isn’t very similar to our current idea of marriage. Marriage has changed drastically over the years (for an example of this, read what The Bible has to say about marriage) without any destabilization of society. This is an ALARMIST view that is designed to get you to the polling place (& to donate more $ to the Church), nothing more. If this social disintegration took place every time marriage changed, our society would have collapsed every twenty or thirty years. If we should stick to the Biblical view of marriage, wives are husband’s PROPERTY, men would be allowed multiple wives, and if a wife were raped by a single man- both of them would be stoned to death. Those are some real moral values that need to be reinstated, or else our society as we know it will self-destruct!

"But, we are talking of civil divorce here. "
Just like you’re talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE in a religious context-- you’re forcing your religion into state law. To ban divorce is the same thing… but you wouldn’t dream of that!

“That not every single word He spoke is recorded in the bible is no evidence homosexual acts are good. in fact, the evidence is the exact opposite.”
Those who wrote the Bible saw fit to include numerous proscriptions against divorce. The American Catholic Church grants lots of shady annulments in order to allow it’s members to bend this commandment. Any priest will tell you this. If you’re not convinced, look around ANY Catholic Church & you will find LOTS of divorcees (people with civil divorces & Catholic annulments… even in longstanding marriages that cannot be annulled according to Catholic doctrines). The Church in the US bends on this issue, then uses gay people as scapegoats.

 

[foolishmortal]

we need to end civil marriages for heterosexuals as we fight against it for gays. It’s time we end this farce of marriage.

 

[fix]

Exactly my point. It’s a LEGALLY valid marriage, but the Church does not recognize it (because it’s not the Sacrament of Marriage, it’s just a civil contract).

Not legally valid but valid in God’s eyes. The Church recognizes that valid marriages exist outside of the Catholic form.

Marriage has a long social history. Most of that history isn’t pretty, and isn’t very similar to our current idea of marriage. Marriage has changed drastically over the years (for an example of this, read what The Bible has to say about marriage) without any destabilization of society. This is an ALARMIST view that is designed to get you to the polling place (& to donate more $ to the Church), nothing more. If this social disintegration took place every time marriage changed, our society would have collapsed every twenty or thirty years. If we should stick to the Biblical view of marriage, wives are husband’s PROPERTY, men would be allowed multiple wives, and if a wife were raped by a single man- both of them would be stoned to death. Those are some real moral values that need to be reinstated, or else our society as we know it will self-destruct!

Marriage is a natural institution that has existed for as long as man has been around. That deviations happen is no proof they are good or should be codified into law. We already have too much divorce, adultery, fornication and much else. That stems from an abandonment of marriage in part. Codifying faux unions only amplifies an existing problem.

Just like you’re talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE in a religious context-- you’re forcing your religion into state law. To ban divorce is the same thing… but you wouldn’t dream of that!

It is a legal device to secure certain items needed. Such a device is not intended to be used as it is. From this example it should be clear we do not need more misuse in the law. In fact, we need to tighten up divorce law and keep out more degradation of marriage. Not bring more problems on. Introducing such legal devices must be consistent with the moral law and consistent with the good of society. The device of banning marriage, changing the name, or codifying fake unions only does more injustice. The mususe of civil divorce does not prove we need a totally unjust law foisted on us.

Those who wrote the Bible saw fit to include numerous proscriptions against divorce. The American Catholic Church grants lots of shady annulments in order to allow it’s members to bend this commandment. Any priest will tell you this. If you’re not convinced, look around ANY Catholic Church & you will find LOTS of divorcees (people with civil divorces & Catholic annulments… even in longstanding marriages that cannot be annulled according to Catholic doctrines). The Church in the US bends on this issue, then uses gay people as scapegoats.

The Church compiled the bible. Your understanding of the bible can only be accurate if you understand the Church is the authority. If not, then we end up with erroneous interpretations as the one you give us here.

That decress of nullity may be unjust does not prove we make things more unjust. It means we improve what is right. Not introduce more deviation.

 

[foolishmortal]

The National Organization for Marriage means well and does good things, but they say marriage is a human institution. That makes the definition of marriage fallible and alterable. Declared as it is by the Church, which approved in its canon Gospel or Gospels that mentioned Jesus defining marriage (though he corrected them on polygamy, as gay people probably never conceived of marrying then, the Bible was clear on homosexual behavior–something he didn’t change), it is infallible. Why? It’s a divine institution for man.

 

[magdelaine]

Nice article on this topic: catholicexchange.com/2009/04/02/117001/

 

[Kay_Cee]

Nice article on this topic: catholicexchange.com/2009/04/02/117001/

Thanks, Magdelaine!