A
Archangelic
Guest
redalertpolitics.com/2012/05/10/ron-paul-abolish-civil-marriage/
Could this view be in line with the Church?
- Status
S
SonCatcher
Guest
It’s a scorched earth policy (one that won’t go anywhere since it would remove benefits like inheritance rights and tax deductions). Another one is to do away with civil marriage and make it civil unions for everyone.
No scorched earth policy concerning marriage is compatible with Church teaching. However, since the sacrament is not dependent upon legal circumstances, she would find a way to exist in any hostile environment.
No scorched earth policy concerning marriage is compatible with Church teaching. However, since the sacrament is not dependent upon legal circumstances, she would find a way to exist in any hostile environment.
J
JRKH
Guest
Short answer is yes this could be “in line” with the Church.
That said though the proposal is not doable for even if the government “gets out of” the marriage business, such unions (Domestic Partnerships) would still need to be addressed under things like “contract law”.
Things could get very “interesting” from that point. How many can be involved in a given contract? How does this effect insurance polices, child care issues and property matters etc and so on…?
The government could do away with “marriage” as a legal term and concept…but the government - especially the courts would have to continue to be involved.
Peace
James
That said though the proposal is not doable for even if the government “gets out of” the marriage business, such unions (Domestic Partnerships) would still need to be addressed under things like “contract law”.
Things could get very “interesting” from that point. How many can be involved in a given contract? How does this effect insurance polices, child care issues and property matters etc and so on…?
The government could do away with “marriage” as a legal term and concept…but the government - especially the courts would have to continue to be involved.
Peace
James
G
Gavroche
Guest
The issue I see is an avenue for criticism of the Catholic position in this regard: The Church clamors for religious liberty when it comes to the HHS mandate, but when it comes to marriage if the only Church approved option is to push for a government definition of marriage, then in terms of the civil law could this not be construed as a violation of religious liberty? say for people who believe in polygamy or same sex marriage?
Ideally I would like gay marriage illegal, but considering the options at saving true marriage in terms of views from society it seems like getting gay marriage outlawed and marriage between a man and a woman defined in law is increasingly against the odds. If eliminating civil marriage from the civil law were to occur, the majority of religious institutions would not permit same sex couples to conduct such ceremonies there, which is a good thing. And homosexuals seeking to be “married” would resort to either just calling themselves married and living together or having secular ceremonies bereft of any legal or religious significance. This plan would also make things better for Catholic business owners who would no longer be put in compromising positions of the law requiring them to provide services for an employee’s “spouse” who happens to be of the same sex or other similar circumstances where laws accepting a definition of marriage that includes homosexuals provide them with special protections that would put people of faith in compromising positions such as the owner of a catering hall not wanting to host a same sex “wedding” and then hit with a lawsuit based on the legal standing of gay “marriage”
So I know the Church has been steadfast in supporting defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and outlawing gay “marriage” but are we permitted to pursue the avenue of eliminating civil marriage from the civil law? If we keep fighting in the avenues of government, it seems like the prevailing cultural winds are against us, and if we lose this high stakes game of political poker, the consequences would be disastrous and far reaching to our Catholic values. The other political option is to sink the ship all together, and don’t let a government poised to redefine marriage to include people of the same sex do so. Have those within the Church considered this option of eliminating civil marriage from the civil law as possibly the most realistic route at preventing full blown government acceptance of marriage that includes people of the same sex ? Any damage done to real marriages by eliminating marriage from the civil law could be redressed through common law and contracts which would ensure the safety of things like inheritances and the safeguarding of children.
The future looks grim in the US on this issue, but a simple answer would be nice, can Catholics support the elimination of civil marriage from the civil law as a moral means to prevent the spread of support for gay “marriage”? I’d really like to know before I take any solid stances in a FB discussion I’m currently involved in.
Ideally I would like gay marriage illegal, but considering the options at saving true marriage in terms of views from society it seems like getting gay marriage outlawed and marriage between a man and a woman defined in law is increasingly against the odds. If eliminating civil marriage from the civil law were to occur, the majority of religious institutions would not permit same sex couples to conduct such ceremonies there, which is a good thing. And homosexuals seeking to be “married” would resort to either just calling themselves married and living together or having secular ceremonies bereft of any legal or religious significance. This plan would also make things better for Catholic business owners who would no longer be put in compromising positions of the law requiring them to provide services for an employee’s “spouse” who happens to be of the same sex or other similar circumstances where laws accepting a definition of marriage that includes homosexuals provide them with special protections that would put people of faith in compromising positions such as the owner of a catering hall not wanting to host a same sex “wedding” and then hit with a lawsuit based on the legal standing of gay “marriage”
So I know the Church has been steadfast in supporting defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and outlawing gay “marriage” but are we permitted to pursue the avenue of eliminating civil marriage from the civil law? If we keep fighting in the avenues of government, it seems like the prevailing cultural winds are against us, and if we lose this high stakes game of political poker, the consequences would be disastrous and far reaching to our Catholic values. The other political option is to sink the ship all together, and don’t let a government poised to redefine marriage to include people of the same sex do so. Have those within the Church considered this option of eliminating civil marriage from the civil law as possibly the most realistic route at preventing full blown government acceptance of marriage that includes people of the same sex ? Any damage done to real marriages by eliminating marriage from the civil law could be redressed through common law and contracts which would ensure the safety of things like inheritances and the safeguarding of children.
The future looks grim in the US on this issue, but a simple answer would be nice, can Catholics support the elimination of civil marriage from the civil law as a moral means to prevent the spread of support for gay “marriage”? I’d really like to know before I take any solid stances in a FB discussion I’m currently involved in.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
M
markomalley
Guest
From Pope Leo XIII:16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection…The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also – indeed, human society itself – may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.
A worthy read in entirety. The threat at the time was the if the State regulates marriage, then the State will be able to put all sort of unnatural restrictions on it that don’t exist in Church doctrine (such as interracial marriage) or will allow distortions such as divorce that will contribute to the destruction of morals within society.
Considering the plain language Leo used in his encyclicals, I shudder to think of the language that a pontiff like Leo would have used had he been confronted with the specter of so-called “homosexual marriage”
Bottom line: Leo XIII was not in favor of civil marriage.
However, now that the genie has been let out of the bottle, what would be the impact on society (leaving aside such unimportant things like tax benefits) if civil marriage was altogether eliminated? I’m not sure how to force the genie back into the bottle.
- Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
- Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
- Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature.
A worthy read in entirety. The threat at the time was the if the State regulates marriage, then the State will be able to put all sort of unnatural restrictions on it that don’t exist in Church doctrine (such as interracial marriage) or will allow distortions such as divorce that will contribute to the destruction of morals within society.
Considering the plain language Leo used in his encyclicals, I shudder to think of the language that a pontiff like Leo would have used had he been confronted with the specter of so-called “homosexual marriage”
Bottom line: Leo XIII was not in favor of civil marriage.
However, now that the genie has been let out of the bottle, what would be the impact on society (leaving aside such unimportant things like tax benefits) if civil marriage was altogether eliminated? I’m not sure how to force the genie back into the bottle.
M
Michael_Allen
Guest
You could do away with all civil laws at the same time I guess and only have laws for Christians.
I tend to think civil laws (on marriage, property, etc) are required in a multicultural society and that they, by necessity, are the result of negotiation between all members in that society with democracy so far being the least-worst means of achieving that.
If civil marriage had no real purpose to it I could understand the view that it could be abolished. But clearly civil marriage is a major means of protecting the welfare of the parties, especially the financial welfare of the wife who may have given up a career to raise children. It would seem if you did a way with civil marriage you’d have to immediately replace it with another legal entity that was pretty similar.
J
JRKH
Guest
Precisely…A rose by any other name…
In the civil world, “marriage” is basically a matter of “contract law”. Change the title from “marriage” to “civil union” or “domestic partnership” or whatever - and the fundamental basis remains the same - a contract.
In my view we really aren’t that far from this point anyway. Already some people, particularly more wealthy ones, have included additional contracts to the marriage contract through the use of Pre-nuptual agreements.
It’s just a question of how far can things be pushed…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Nice post…I just want to make one small clarification. The Church is not trying to “outlaw” gay marriage. Same sex marriage has traditionally never been recognized, therefore it is already outlawed. The Church is merely seeking to maintain the status quo.
This may seem a subtle difference, but it is an important one.
Peace
James
G
Gavroche
Guest
Well consider what would happen if the genie was not only permitted to stay outside of the bottle but was so transformed that it was hostile to Catholics and Christians in general. This is my ultimate fear: those of us with the best intentions, seeking to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, might see this efforts backfire royally. I know many in the Church are supporting such a plan, and ideally this would be a great thing in my view. The only problem is, the public is increasingly becoming more accepting of homosexuality and will increasingly be hostile to the efforts to get such an amendment passed or similar legislation.
And with this being the case, I’m afraid that the weapon used by our side can quickly be turned against us (the civil law). Imagine the horrendous circumstances that would arise if the state officially permits “marriage” between people of the same sex. You think Catholics and other people of faith are in compromising positions over the HHS mandate? Imagine how much worse conditions would be with gay “marriage” receiving all the legal backing of the state. Catholic adoption services would be under increased threat for wanting to deny children to gay couples who would have increased legal support from the government. Employers would be put in compromising positions where the state is going to attempt to force them to recognize the “spouse” of a gay employee through benefits from the business, and the indoctrination of children in the public schools, this is among what I fear most. If the state creates some fake right to marry for homosexuals, this will soon be ingrained into the curriculums of our public schools as something taught in the same spirit as the civil rights movement.
I remember being a grade school kid, even in kindergarten, being taught about Martin Luther King and about racial discrimination at that young of an age. It was good to learn about this, but imagine what our schools are going to do if the state has officially accepted gay “marriage” I have no doubt many public schools are going to be actively subversive to good morals on this issue trying to mold a generation of young people who are so permissive when it comes to such issues of sexuality. I don’t even have children, but I am afraid of what’s in store for them if I have any. What if I can’t afford to send them to a good Catholic school or homeschool them, what if my only option is to send them to public school and the state is constantly trying to pull my children away from the faith on such an issue, teaching them that their father and faith are intolerant, mean, unfair, supporters of inequality… a horrible scenario indeed, but a scenario that soon may be upon us.
J
JohnTomHoc
Guest
This was the fact that led me astray on this question for awhile – the Constitution doesn’t recognize the divine origin of marriage nor the right of the Church to instruct on Christ’s authority the meaning of marriage.In the civil world, “marriage” is basically a matter of “contract law”. Change the title from “marriage” to “civil union” or “domestic partnership” or whatever - and the fundamental basis remains the same - a contract.
In my view we really aren’t that far from this point anyway. Already some people, particularly more wealthy ones, have included additional contracts to the marriage contract through the use of Pre-nuptual agreements.
It’s just a question of how far can things be pushed…
Peace
James
The harm that would be done is that civil law is always an instruction in moral law, and unjust laws by their nature undermine all laws. The moral offense – raising to a legal right what is one of the four sins crying for vengeance, according to classical Church teaching – is something that becomes less visible as the moral sense is eaten away 24 hours a day by the acids of corporate media; the effect, creation of an unjust law increasing social disorders is one that simply baffles the secularized mind, including the minds of many who still believe themselves to be faithful.
J
JimG
Guest
This is exactly where we are headed as soon as gay marriage is generally approved. Teaching Catholic doctrine on marriage will become a civil or a criminal offense, perhaps both.
M
markomalley
Guest
The genie was the State being involved in the Sacrament of Marriage in the first place. I truly don’t know how to approach getting that rectified without serious societal damage.
Homosexual unions are but the most egregious violation so far. So far.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not even sure how the state COULD get out of the marriage business. Would it continue to recognize marriages, but not perform them? Would the Army provide spousal benefits or not. Would there be health benefits for spouses? Would the State make any reference to divorce laws without having marriage laws?
M
markomalley
Guest
That’s the point.
You could talk about eliminating tax benefits…easy enough (people complain about the “marriage penalty” anyway)
Make all “entitlements” based upon the individual him/herself, along with dependent children. Eliminate most of them. (That would work for almost everything except social security and medicare, where some level of coverage is earned based upon the spouse’s work)
You could institute a standard where an employee could provide medical/dental insurance for him/herself plus one other adult plus the offspring (natural or adopted) from either covered adult…not quite so easy, but ok. (With the military, that would be tougher, as the insurance is provided without employee contributions…but it could still, in theory, work)
Cohabitation in housing is really not an issue anymore anyplace in this country. I don’t see any issue there (except for property taxes…and that would be determined by the name(s) on the deed).
Life Insurance. Not a big deal. Just declare beneficiaries and remove the “by law” option.
Hospital rooms and medical privacy. Require hospitals to comply with declarations by the patient. Same with patient medical records. Check.
But then you get into the sticky areas:
- Military family housing. Big sticky area. Do you allow non-conjugal relationships to occupy MFH?
- Federal employee post housing when stationed overseas. Not as big, but still significant (as there are two reimbursement rates)
- Spousal visas. A spouse of a citizen is normally automatically given a visa (with a few caveats). That would disappear.
- Social Security / Medicare. That is a BIG issue.
- Status