Getting the Government Out of Marriage: Good Idea or Bad Idea?

[Latinitas]

Hello everyone,

In the first place, I mean this thread only for faithful Catholics, in particular Catholics who hold the Church’s doctrine on marriage (that marriage is the life-long bond between a single man and a single woman, and for the baptized, a sacrament).

I’ve been thinking a bit about this question: Given the current situation with marriage, would it be a good idea for the government to cease recognizing marriage in law?

The first thing I want to say is, this is not a question of what we would want in a ideal state, but one that takes into consideration the current realities of marriage, religious freedom, and government involvement in family life. Thus, for example, same-sex marriage, which, alas, has strong public support, particularly among the young, is the current state of affairs and unlikely to go away. Factor this into your answer. Again, Christians are quickly becoming personae non gratae in discussions about morality, particularly marriage and family. Remember also that marriage status currently affects many things the government is involved in, from child custody to welfare to immigration policy.

Even conservatives seem to differ on this question, and I offer supporting and opposing opinions given by conservatives here, so that you can think about it carefully:

Supporting:
creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/03/13/to-save-traditional-marriage-end-state-involvement-in-marriage by Ben Shapiro

Opposing:
thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/5-questions-for-libertarians-who-support-privatizing-marriage/ by Stella Morabito at The Federalist.

I myself used to heavily favor getting the government out of marriage, but I have to say that the arguments presented in The Federalist article given above made me more ambivalent about it. I think Stella has a good point about marriage being a shield from government influence in domestic life. On the other hand, Ithere is something to be said for spontaneous order, and getting the government out of marriage makes it harder to compel those who do not believe in same-sex marriage (like us) recognize their marriages.

I’m interested to know your thoughts.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Peter_J]

Hold on a second … the way I see it, the government has never had any power over marriage.

Marriage licenses? It’s a good idea to get one before your wedding, but not necessary to make your marriage valid strictly speaking. (Of course, that can become complicated if a church tells you that you can’t marry without one, but the church doesn’t have to say that.)

What about couples married by the Justice of the Peace? Nothing wrong with that, but the fact that he or she is JoP doesn’t affect the validity of the marriage.

And, obviously, when the government says that two men, two women, two already-married persons, etc are married it does not make it so.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The state obviously doesn’t have any “power” over marriage in the sense that a marriage doesn’t become valid or sacramental because the state says so, neither do a marriage cease to exist after a civil divorce. But there are good reasons for marriage to be a legally regulated relationship. Married couples inherit each other, a woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of any children she gives birth to, you can visit your spouse in the hospital outside of visiting hours, and so on.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that the argument that the government should “get out of the marriage business” is an unfortunate attempt at compromise in light of the fact that we are losing the cultural battle regarding the definition of what marriage actually is.

The government certainly does not have power over marriage as though the government is the author and source of marriage (Supreme Court decisions to the contrary not withstanding). But the government does have a duty to recognize marriage as part of fulfilling its duty to protect the common good.

It’s one of those ideas that sounds like a good, reasonable idea—especially to those who feel battered and worn on the front lines of the culture wars. But to actually implement such a thing would be a catastrophe (for many of the reasons Morabito spells out in her article). And I don’t use the word “catastrophe” very lightly, nor often, but in this case it would apply. I don’t think the proponents of the idea have really thought it through.

 

[Peter_J]

The state obviously doesn’t have any “power” over marriage in the sense that a marriage doesn’t become valid or sacramental because the state says so, neither do a marriage cease to exist after a civil divorce.

Indeed. The state just registers couples as married – and will almost certainly continue to do so whatever conservatives say.

 

[mikekle]

We should not be looking to the Govt to solve these kinds of problems in the first place though (problems arising from divorce).

But I do agree, the Govt is NEVER going to get out of marriage, and really its highly likely they are going to inject themselves into more and more aspects of our lives, (actually I cannot think of anything they are not already somehow involved in, seriously…can anyone name one or two things?!!

 

[Della]

It’s not the government that ought to get out of legalizing marriage, but the Church. Let the government issue licenses to anyone it pleases, but the Church should get out of the business of representing the government. Our marriages ought to be sacramental only–that way the government can never tell the Church she must marry those whom she does not recognize as having validity to enter into sacramental marriage. Several countries already use this system, which works quite well. When the government tries to mandate that churches/religious bodies recognize marriages the government approves, that’s when we’ll have a real problem on our hands.

 

[hu324b]

Good luck - the Government will want their piece of the pie - In Canada the Government is like the mafia they generate revenue from sin tax and in every part of our lives - if the feds won’t tax it or create a fee the provincial Government will and if the provincial Government won’t - then the city or county Government will forsure - they will allow all marriage because its a revenue grab by the Government thats how it is here in Canada if it can be taxed or a fee can be charged you can count on our Government to do it.

Where money is involved the Government here is lurking to take their piece of the pie.
Our Government will never get out of marriage for this reason alone

 

[mikekle]

When the government tries to mandate that churches/religious bodies recognize marriages the government approves, that’s when we’ll have a real problem on our hands.

You are definitely right about that, but I really doubt we will see the church do or encourage any type of disobedience to secular law, whatever happens, I bet some reason and/or explanation will come to justify the church fully cooperating, and it will sound ‘reasonable’ and acceptable to most.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s an excellent idea.

Marriage is not a governmental institution.

Set the dependency exemption equal to the standard deduction and let as many people fill out one tax return together as they please.

If a “spouse” wants to inherit property upon the death of the other, then their name needs to be on the account/deed/title as well. No more than two names permissible. Everyone else pays inheritance tax for receipts.

At least in America - problem solved.

 

[Joe_5859]

You are definitely right about that, but I really doubt we will see the church do or encourage any type of disobedience to secular law, whatever happens, I bet some reason and/or explanation will come to justify the church fully cooperating, and it will sound ‘reasonable’ and acceptable to most.

Are you saying you think the Church would acquiesce to government mandates to perform same sex marriage? That’s a cynical and unwarranted presumption.

 

[Della]

Are you saying you think the Church would acquiesce to government mandates to perform same sex marriage? That’s a cynical and unwarranted presumption.

Indeed, it is. :yup:

mikekle, the very reason some countries have a split between sacramental and governmental marriage is because the Church would not kow-tow to governmental demands.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s an excellent idea.

Marriage is not a governmental institution.

Set the dependency exemption equal to the standard deduction and let as many people fill out one tax return together as they please.

If a “spouse” wants to inherit property upon the death of the other, then their name needs to be on the account/deed/title as well. No more than two names permissible. Everyone else pays inheritance tax for receipts.

At least in America - problem solved.

Reading this, my first thought was “Well even if that would be best, there’s no way we can get there in this country.”

But then it occurred to me that there could be a small number of states that would opt for that … Unless I’m mistaken, it is a matter for states to decide for themselves, right? I.e. It would not contradict SCOTUS’s decision, right?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Marriage is not a governmental institution.

That’s not entirely correct.
The Catholic or other religious concept of marriage, and who is married and who is not, is indeed “not a government institution”.

The legal concept of marriage, in a country with separation of church and state such as the USA, is indeed a government institution. The government recognizes all kinds of marriages (including remarriage after divorce, civil marriages between people who don’t belong to a church, and even “common law marriages” where the people didn’t actually go through a marriage ritual at all) as being legal marriages, where the Catholic Church would not recognize these.

This would be more clear in the US if we had a separate civil ceremony and religious ceremony as they do in some parts of Europe. I understand why the US doesn’t do this (efficiency being one reason - no need to burden the courts and government systems with millions of duplicate ceremonies) but it makes matters less clear.

I doubt the US government would ever try to tell a religious body what it has to recognize from a religious standpoint. There is no need or motivation to do this and it would be violating a number of US Constitutional principles.

 

[mikekle]

I doubt the US government would ever try to tell a religious body what it has to recognize from a religious standpoint. There is no need or motivation to do this and it would be violating a number of US Constitutional principles.

Theres not an immediate need for something like this in our times anyway, and I doubt there ever will be anytime soon, the US govt does not see the church or the laypeople as a threat at all, nearly most if not every place I have lived, the catholic churches, and really churches in general have great relationships with the secular powers.

I cannot think of one issue where the church actually teaches or encourages disobedience to ANY secular law. Personally I think its fishy that the church and state get along so great in our times, the times we are living in…it should be the exact opposite, if the state/govt saw the church or any of its teachings as remotely a threat to their control/power, they would act swiftly to put a stop to it.

 

[Della]

Theres not an immediate need for something like this in our times anyway, and I doubt there ever will be anytime soon, the US govt does not see the church or the laypeople as a threat at all, nearly most if not every place I have lived, the catholic churches, and really churches in general have great relationships with the secular powers.

I cannot think of one issue where the church actually teaches or encourages disobedience to ANY secular law. Personally I think its fishy that the church and state get along so great in our times, the times we are living in…it should be the exact opposite, if the state/govt saw the church or any of its teachings as remotely a threat to their control/power, they would act swiftly to put a stop to it.

As long as the government doesn’t mandate that churches perform gay marriage or any other aberrations, it’s fine, but when the government tells businesses who they must associate with, such a bakers and flower shops, in violation of their consciences, telling churches what they can and cannot do is something we have consider could happen, and which we have to guard against.

There have been incidents of government officials trying to get pastor to turn over their sermons for approval, as well as those who have tried to get priests to divulge what was told them in confession–these are recent incidents not ones from long ago.

We have to be vigilant, so if push comes to shove the out for churches is to separate themselves from having anything to do with the legal aspects of marriage, as is already done is some European countries. But, let’s hope and pray, and more–work to see that it doesn’t come to that.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m aware of the issues with what is said in confession. Do you have links to examples of the government trying to get Catholic priests to turn over texts of sermons for approval? I’d like to read about those.

I would also note that money making businesses are regulated under a different set of principles for “discrimination” than religious bodies, which are not considered money making businesses. The battlegrounds if any are more likely to be those areas where a religion is operating some business, such as a hospital or a shop, for profit, and trying to apply its religious principles to business decisions.

 

[Della]

I’m aware of the issues with what is said in confession. Do you have links to examples of the government trying to get Catholic priests to turn over texts of sermons for approval? I’d like to read about those.

A quick Google search shows more than one attempt at getting pastors to turn over their sermons: google.com/search?q=pastors+told+to+turn+over+sermons+by+government&gws_rd=ssl. I’m sorry for the confusion, but I didn’t say that priests had been required to do so, but I it could happen. We can’t think that we are exempt from such meddling merely because we aren’t Protestant, although you didn’t say that.

I would also note that money making businesses are regulated under a different set of principles for “discrimination” than religious bodies, which are not considered money making businesses. The battlegrounds if any are more likely to be those areas where a religion is operating some business, such as a hospital or a shop, for profit, and trying to apply its religious principles to business decisions.

But, they could try to claim such rulings as precedent to force churches to hew to the government’s definitions of gender, etc. Just because we supposedly have safeguards doesn’t mean those safeguards won’t be challenged. Challenges to churches’ autonomy has happened before and it will happen again.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But, they could try to claim such rulings as precedent to force churches to hew to the government’s definitions of gender, etc. Just because we supposedly have safeguards doesn’t mean those safeguards won’t be challenged. Challenges to churches’ autonomy has happened before and it will happen again.

There will always be legal challenges. There are many Catholic lawyers, and lawyers of a different faith who would be alarmed by a government forcing an established religion to perform its sacraments in a certain way, to stand up to them. I have faith in that.

 

[Della]

There will always be legal challenges. There are many Catholic lawyers, and lawyers of a different faith who would be alarmed by a government forcing an established religion to perform its sacraments in a certain way, to stand up to them. I have faith in that.

So do I. Our constitution is a pretty good one, after all. Still, we have to be vigilant, which is why we have lawyers to argue for religious freedom, and we need them, yes?