Civil Unions

[pprimeau1976]

OK, I am trying to understand Church teaching against civil unions.

I have a humanistic approach to marriage. To the Church, marriage is a sacramental covenant involving God and the couple. To the state, marriage is a contract between the couple and the state. On a purely secular level, the state acts as God and this is totally unacceptable. The problem with the government sactioning marriages is that it is in a sense redefining what marriage is and what role the state has.

So if governments are redefining marriage, why is the Catholic church or any other Christian “denomination” concerned with how the state views marriage? Aren’t they in a sense feeding themselves to the lions?

My opinion is that government has a habit of screwing up whatever it touches and therefore marriage should be therefore stricken from the governments lexicon in exchange for civil unions. In otherwords, get government out of the marriage business - they are messing it up. Privatize the marriage industry! Let God through the Church determine what is a marriage and what is not. What is wrong with this opinion?

 

[Mirdath]

I’ve suggested this in various threads many a time, and I’ve yet to see a downside.

 

[fix]

OK, I am trying to understand Church teaching against civil unions.

I have a humanistic approach to marriage. To the Church, marriage is a sacramental covenant involving God and the couple. To the state, marriage is a contract between the couple and the state. On a purely secular level, the state acts as God and this is totally unacceptable. The problem with the government sactioning marriages is that it is in a sense redefining what marriage is and what role the state has.

Marriage is a natural institution that existed from the very beginning. The state has an important role in regulating it.

**

2210

**

The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society13 entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty "to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity."14

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

So if governments are redefining marriage, why is the Catholic church or any other Christian “denomination” concerned with how the state views marriage? Aren’t they in a sense feeding themselves to the lions?

Civil authorities are not exempt from the truth or moral law. They have a serious duty to protect marriage and the authetic rights of people.

My opinion is that government has a habit of screwing up whatever it touches and therefore marriage should be therefore stricken from the governments lexicon in exchange for civil unions. In otherwords, get government out of the marriage business - they are messing it up. Privatize the marriage industry! Let God through the Church determine what is a marriage and what is not. What is wrong with this opinion?

What is wrong is that it is a misunderstanding of the role of God, the state, freedom, rights, and obligations.

 

[pprimeau1976]

That would be great if we were living in Thomas More’s Eutopia. However, we are not. I posted another opinion on this basicly stating what I think the churches reaction should be to the government’s changing view on marriage. Essentially, if the government is so insistent on redefining marriage, the Church should take no part in being a representative of the state in mediating the civil marriage contract.

Marriage is a natural institution that existed from the very beginning. The state has an important role in regulating it.

Civil authorities are not exempt from the truth or moral law. They have a serious duty to protect marriage and the authetic rights of people.

What is wrong is that it is a misunderstanding of the role of God, the state, freedom, rights, and obligations.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I have said before:

Forty years ago, someone asked me, “How does it hurt you if someone else takes drugs?” At the time, I didn’t have a good answer – but I do now!

Forty years ago, someone asked me, “How does it hurt you if someone else has a child out of wedlock?” At the time, I didn’t have a good answer – but I do now!

And now they are asking “How does it hurt you if someone else has a gay marriage?”

The answer is, all these things have contributed to the disintegration of society. Crime is much higher now than it was forty years ago. Children grow up without fathers, in welfare homes, with drug-addicted mothers. The steady decline in the poverty rate has stopped. Our education system has proven unable to cope with the consequences of this social tinkering.

“Redefining” marriage attacks the basic social institution – and is more dangerous than all the previous “innovations” that have brought us to where we are.

 

[fix]

That would be great if we were living in Thomas More’s Eutopia. However, we are not. I posted another opinion on this basicly stating what I think the churches reaction should be to the government’s changing view on marriage. Essentially, if the government is so insistent on redefining marriage, the Church should take no part in being a representative of the state in mediating the civil marriage contract.

It is not about a utopia. That civil authority and many in the population fail to grasp basic moral truth does not mean we give up. Your argument could be made about many items like abortion or racial discrimination. We do not stop using arguments or reason to influence hearts and minds.

The state may act illegitimately, but we have a duty to fight against such things.

 

[pprimeau1976]

It is not about a utopia. That civil authority and many in the population fail to grasp basic moral truth does not mean we give up. Your argument could be made about many items like abortion or racial discrimination. We do not stop using arguments or reason to influence hearts and minds.

The state may act illegitimately, but we have a duty to fight against such things.

I think it’s unfair to say that I am giving up the marriage debate, I just think the Church should just wipe the slate clean and start anew when it comes to it’s influence on the state with regards to this issue. Look at the early church, they had to build up their moral teachings and the moral beliefs of Christians before the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and accepted it’s moral teachings into their laws.

Now the tides have reversed and the state wants nothing to do with the church, so what does the church do? My answer would be to enact bold actions in order to teach it’s people and preserve the flock that hasn’t strayed.

And as far as abortion or racial descrimination, those two things are not comparible to the issue of civil unions. With secular marriages, the state is essentially playing God’s role in binding the husband and wife to a contract. This is totally unacceptable. The Church is against Communism for essentially eliminating God and elevating the state to “god” status by giving itself the power to grant rights, etc. What the state is doing with marriage is essentially the same thing that the Communists attempt to do, only on a much smaller scale.

If you think that wasn’t convincing, think about this…why did Jesus reject an earthly kingdom and prefer a spiritual one? Becuase he recognized that political leaders cannot solve spiritual problems. The catch phrase in the movie “Jesus of Nazareth” was that “Men must change, before kingdoms can.” You better believe it!

 

[fix]

I think it’s unfair to say that I am giving up the marriage debate, I just think the Church should just wipe the slate clean and start anew when it comes to it’s influence on the state with regards to this issue. Look at the early church, they had to build up their moral teachings and the moral beliefs of Christians before the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and accepted it’s moral teachings into their laws.

This is from CCC:

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.

Now the tides have reversed and the state wants nothing to do with the church, so what does the church do? My answer would be to enact bold actions in order to teach it’s people and preserve the flock that hasn’t strayed.

That answer contradicts what the Church teaches. Where does She say we must retreat and allow the government to act contary to natural law?

And as far as abortion or racial descrimination, those two things are not comparible to the issue of civil unions. With secular marriages, the state is essentially playing God’s role in binding the husband and wife to a contract.

Actually, the state derives its authority from God. It is misused often, but that does not make the enter enterprise illegitimate.

This is totally unacceptable. The Church is against Communism for essentially eliminating God and elevating the state to “god” status by giving itself the power to grant rights, etc. What the state is doing with marriage is essentially the same thing that the Communists attempt to do, only on a much smaller scale.

The CCC calls us to to oppose unjust laws, not retreat from the democratic process.

If you think that wasn’t convincing, think about this…why did Jesus reject an earthly kingdom and prefer a spiritual one? Becuase he recognized that political leaders cannot solve spiritual problems. The catch phrase in the movie “Jesus of Nazareth” was that “Men must change, before kingdoms can.” You better believe it!

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

 

[RyanL]

OK, I am trying to understand Church teaching against civil unions.

Commendable.

I have a humanistic approach to marriage. To the Church, marriage is a sacramental covenant involving God and the couple. To the state, marriage is a contract between the couple and the state.

True, in so far as it goes. A civil marriage is different than a sacramental marriage.

On a purely secular level, the state acts as God and this is totally unacceptable.

I disagree. The state is not trying to confer grace through a civil marriage, simply encourage certain behavior.

The problem with the government sactioning marriages is that it is in a sense redefining what marriage is and what role the state has.

That is a problem. Just look at the divorce statistics - thank the state for “no fault” divorce.

So if governments are redefining marriage, why is the Catholic church or any other Christian “denomination” concerned with how the state views marriage? Aren’t they in a sense feeding themselves to the lions?

No, because civil marriages aren’t the same as sacramental marriages, necessarily. The Church keeps these two distinct, as does her faithful. A civilly divorced couple is still married in the Church’s eyes, and a civilly married couple may not have a sacramental marriage.

For those ecclesial communities who don’t have a sacramental view of marriage, I agree that this is a problem.

My opinion is that government has a habit of screwing up whatever it touches and therefore marriage should be therefore stricken from the governments lexicon in exchange for civil unions.

Fair enough.

In otherwords, get government out of the marriage business - they are messing it up. Privatize the marriage industry! Let God through the Church determine what is a marriage and what is not. What is wrong with this opinion?

Nothing, so far. But remember to be prudential in deciding how to define a “civil union.” At its root, it’s a policy question. What type of conduct are you trying to encourage?

I just think the Church should just wipe the slate clean and start anew when it comes to it’s influence on the state with regards to this issue.

That’s certainly one approach. Re-invent the wheel. Ok.

Look at the early church, they had to build up their moral teachings and the moral beliefs of Christians before the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and accepted it’s moral teachings into their laws.

Thankfully, the Early Church had the stones of the apostles and prophets upon which to build, and Christ Himself - who is the cornerstone.

Would you propose a different foundation?

Now the tides have reversed and the state wants nothing to do with the church, so what does the church do? My answer would be to enact bold actions in order to teach it’s people and preserve the flock that hasn’t strayed.

Amen. Preach it, brother!

…With secular marriages, the state is essentially playing God’s role in binding the husband and wife to a contract. This is totally unacceptable.

I don’t see why. We contract for all kinds of things. With God, it’s not a contract - it’s a covenant. There’s a difference.

I believe that the state has the right (responsibility!) to incentivize certain conduct. Marriage falls within that sphere.

If you think that wasn’t convincing, think about this…why did Jesus reject an earthly kingdom and prefer a spiritual one?

Christ’s Kingdom is both earthly and spiritual. He merely rejected a strictly earthly kingdom.

Go back to the start. What type of conduct is the government trying to encourage with recognizing marriage?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

Let’s add this:

… No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons…

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good…

… Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[pprimeau1976]

Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good…

OK, I will agree. But let’s say the civil law really doesn’t care about homosexuality but is neutral on the issue. For example, let’s say I am a single guy with a good job and I have great benefits. Let’s say I want to share those benefits with my younger brother, who is stuck in a dead end job with no health insurance, and he has chronic health problems. A marriage between us to pool our fiscal resources would be grotesque and contrary to marriage’s purpose. However, a civil union would just make us Brothers, Inc., for the lack of a better term.

I hear dumb reasons all the time as to why marriage should be changed. Take the person’s sexuality out of the question…why should the government not allow two people - who may not even live together - to pool their wealth/resources/benefits? It will end the debate for good as to what a “marriage” is. The simple answer is “whatever the Church says it is”. Politicians are not qualified to define marriage. The Church is.

 

[fix]

OK, I will agree. But let’s say the civil law really doesn’t care about homosexuality but is neutral on the issue. For example, let’s say I am a single guy with a good job and I have great benefits. Let’s say I want to share those benefits with my younger brother, who is stuck in a dead end job with no health insurance, and he has chronic health problems. A marriage between us to pool our fiscal resources would be grotesque and contrary to marriage’s purpose. However, a civil union would just make us Brothers, Inc., for the lack of a better term.

But you can secure those benefits through contracts that do not use any “union”. The entire civil union debate is a ploy to get society to change their understanding of marriage.

I hear dumb reasons all the time as to why marriage should be changed. Take the person’s sexuality out of the question…why should the government not allow two people - who may not even live together - to pool their wealth/resources/benefits? It will end the debate for good as to what a “marriage” is. The simple answer is “whatever the Church says it is”. Politicians are not qualified to define marriage. The Church is.

Because marriage is not unique to any specific religion. It is a natural institution. It existed before Christ elevated it to a sacrament.

It would be like changing the law to claim male and female no longer exist only one sex exists. Such a law contradicts right reason and the natural moral law that may be known by all regardless of knowledge of the Christian faith.

 

[Polaris]

When I think of Marriage and Civil unions, I think of the Republic of Rome. If it actually worked there would have never been a need for a Caesar yet it didn’t, and that’s how we ended up with a Caesar. A pretty good system when you think of how long the Roman empire was around. Around that line maybe we should re-evaluate marriage. “Marriage” developed with oppression and domination of a weaker sex at its core. It’s even set up that way in Genesis. A civil union on the otherhand is based on equality of people which also occurs between two people of them same sex. Maybe that change from sub and dom to equality is what is destroying marriagein our current society. So what do you we do now? Do we abandon the Republic all together. No I agree with Romans of old we keep the Senate(Marriage) to placate the people(Catholics) and feel empowered and the Caesar(Civil unions) for the possible advancement and stability of society on a whole. In the future that system might fail with the further development of society, and a new system may develop better than either of them.

 

[levi86]

OK, I am trying to understand Church teaching against civil unions.

I have a humanistic approach to marriage. To the Church, marriage is a sacramental covenant involving God and the couple. To the state, marriage is a contract between the couple and the state. On a purely secular level, the state acts as God and this is totally unacceptable. The problem with the government sactioning marriages is that it is in a sense redefining what marriage is and what role the state has.

So if governments are redefining marriage, why is the Catholic church or any other Christian “denomination” concerned with how the state views marriage? Aren’t they in a sense feeding themselves to the lions?

My opinion is that government has a habit of screwing up whatever it touches and therefore marriage should be therefore stricken from the governments lexicon in exchange for civil unions. In otherwords, get government out of the marriage business - they are messing it up. Privatize the marriage industry! Let God through the Church determine what is a marriage and what is not. What is wrong with this opinion?

Agreed, but id take one step further. The government should not acknowledge a couples marriage OR civil union. A couple obtains a civil union for two reasons, to seek public validation for a relationship they view as legitimate, and to share legal rights or responsibilities with another person…

With respect to public validation: the government by granting civil unions is sanctioning the legitimacy of the relationship, this is completely beyond the realm of government responsibility. It is of no importance to the government as to the nature of its citizen’s personal relationships.

The government does however have a responsibility to allow its citizens to share legal responsibilities and privileges with anyone they see fit. This should by no means be limited to a gay or strait union between two people. It should be extended to include any form of relationship that an individual views as legitimate, this may include a hereditary or business relationship, or even multiple participants such as polygamous marriages.

Under this system there would exist neither civil unions or state sanctioned marriages, but a simple contract sharing legal rights,.

 

[pprimeau1976]

But you can secure those benefits through contracts that do not use any “union”. The entire civil union debate is a ploy to get society to change their understanding of marriage.

I see your point, but don’t you think that secular “marriages” kind of defile the sacrament? Look at it this way - I KNOW that there are people that want the “church wedding” and will go through the motions of joining the parish, attending the mass enough to not make the priest anxious, and then are not heard from again after the wedding. The practice is so rampant that now “WEDDING CHAPELS” are popping up just to give the illusion of the Church wedding.

Us Catholics have been so worried that the Eucharist can be defiled by mortal sin that we haven’t focused enough on the fact that Matrimony is being defiled as well. I admit that we are focusing better, but the divorce rate is still pretty high because I think that some people should have never been married to begin with. The Church shouldn’t “retreat” from marriage, it should re-evaluate it’s strategy on fixing society’s perception of what marriage is.

Because marriage is not unique to any specific religion. It is a natural institution. It existed before Christ elevated it to a sacrament.

You say that “it is a natural institution. It existed before Christ elevated it to a sacrament.” True, but bread and wine also existed before Christ instituted it as a sacrament. The Church is extremely particular of what kind of bread it uses, what kind of wine it uses. It is also very particular as to who can recieve the Bread of Life. However, the Church could care less about the ingredients of Wonderbread or Riunite or the qualifications of the person eating or drinking it. Why should the Church care about what extraordinary rights the states bestow on people through civil unions and that it might give the person the wrong impression?

It would be like changing the law to claim male and female no longer exist only one sex exists. Such a law contradicts right reason and the natural moral law that may be known by all regardless of knowledge of the Christian faith

.

Once again, so what? Why concern yourself with it? We can do all we can to make it not happen, like elect the right people. We can do that by encouraging our people to vote with their conscience, that’s all. And let’s say that it happens (and I think that it will) that gay marriage is allowed. What can the Church do? I say that they should make bold changes that should have taken place long ago. Be more diligent as to who it marries. Turn marriage from some private spectacle into more of a communal one like a sacrament should be - like the Eucharist - and make it take place on Sunday as part of the mass. Maybe it can “officiate” the marriages of multiple couples in one group like they do with first communions. We only run the risk of looking like the “Moonies”, but everyone who cares to know, will know the reasons why. Pastors should refuse to sign the “marriage license” and only worry about “The Certificate of Holy Matrimony” If the couple doesn’t like the fact that they will not be able to file their taxes legally as a couple, the pastor need only show them the Acts of the Apostles and essentially say to them, “They were fed to the lions, and you are worried about a tax deduction?”

 

[Holly3278]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore civil unions for gays are also wrong. Why people can’t get this through their thick skulls I don’t know. The Bible is clearly against homosexuality.

 

[Jerry_Mitchner]

Would anyone object to this?
“Non-specific familial adoptions” wherein any two or more persons not related by blood could affirm mutual responsibility for one another’s well-being by registering as “family” with corresponding legal rights and duties.

This might defuse the whole question of “gay marriage” or "civil unions’ which are being pushed as a way to pressure society to accept immoral sexual expressions. Inheritance, having one’s “significant other” automatically included under family insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, & etc. are all used as arguments in favor of “gay marriage / civil unions” – but camoflage the real agenda.

Plus, there are circumstances when it might be desirable for co-religionists to give greater legal status to their bond as brothers & sisters (children together of the one God.)