Government getting out of the marriage business

[AkronPonderer]

Would the Church likely be cool with all American governmental units just getting out of the marriage business altogether? Legal contracts can be entered into for property rights, etc.

Churches, or ideological extities could handle all “marriages” and decide individually which units/combination to recognize and which to reject.

This has been proposed to me as a way to have peace between church and state regarding the homosexual marriage business.

 

[JimG]

But many laws treat married and unmarried differently, for example, tax laws. If government gets out of the marriage business, i.e. by no longer licensing or performing marriages, it will still have to contend with such questions as to whether or not to allow such things as joint tax returns, marital property rights, etc.

Also, marriage is a social policy issue. One reason that government is even involved in marriage, is that (at least in the past) marriage was considered good for society–so marriage was encouraged with favorable government treatment. As an institution, marriage produced and raised the next generation of citizens and taxpayers and inculcated them with good values.

The policy question to be addressed is this: Are other forms of marriage equally beneficial to society as the traditional form? Do polygamous, or homosexual, or other forms of union provide societal benefits as good as the traditional form?

As traditional family structures break down, the government increasingly takes the place of the father, or mother, or both. If marriage is no longer benefitting society, then it no longer needs special treatment. If it does benefit society, it deserves special protection.

It isn’t just about me. Or about individual rights.

 

[white]

The government should go ahead and keep interest in the marriage business, it needs to be encouraged moreso now espicially with so many people out catching stds and causing all sorts of drama because they lack the committment.

If anything, it is religion that should stay out of marriage, because it is religion that impedes marriage, religion that attempts to dictate and ideologically brand paths of living, and religion that proliferates the myth that homosexual relationships and marriages and nothing but lust and lies.

If the religious comminuty would, instead of condemning these people from their polished ivory towers, actually come back down to earth and se what these people have to offer, they can se that the homosexual community holds meaningful relationships and a feeling of emotion and attraction that many people have either not discovered or simply forgotten existed: love.

 

[tjm8]

Amen

 

[Listener]

This is a very interesting idea. I am very much against anything called Gay Marriage. However, Baptism is a sacrament, and there is nothing called state Baptism. Holy Orders is a sacrament, and there is nothing called state Holy Orders. So if the government just got out of the marriage business altogether and renamed it “Domestic Partnership,” it might solve a lot of problems. Of course, this thing called “Domestic Partnership,” shouldn’t really have anything to do with sex. It would have to be set up so you could have a “Domestic Partnership” with your mother or sister if you thought that would somehow be good for your property rights, etc. It would be the same as in some other countries where you have to have two ceremonies, one for the state and one for the church. Actually, it would not have to be a ceremony at all. It could just be the signing of a contract, much like a business partnership. Just think! If your church marriage had nothing to do with the government, then older widows and widowers could get married in the church without having a state “Domestic Partnership.” This would prevent their children from being so angry because then they wouldn’t have to worry about losing their inheritance! I have no idea what the bishops would think of an arrangement such as this, but I think they would be against it. I do remember, however, that a bishop somewhere did something exactly like this when the government required the Church to give medical benefits to same-sex couples. They just said that all employees had the choice of naming the person of their choice to be on their medical insurance, but if they were married, it had to be the spouse.

However, I don’t think that something like this will ever happen. The government does have an interest in having married couples who will be having children. They certainly want the tax dollars that the next generation can provide!

 

[Delora]

Thumbs up OP! I concur wholeheartedly.

 

[Phemie]

Would the Church likely be cool with all American governmental units just getting out of the marriage business altogether? Legal contracts can be entered into for property rights, etc.

Churches, or ideological extities could handle all “marriages” and decide individually which units/combination to recognize and which to reject.

This has been proposed to me as a way to have peace between church and state regarding the homosexual marriage business.

No, the solution is having the Churches get out of celebrating LEGAL marriages. Let the legal aspect of marriage belong to the government and the religious aspect of marriage belong to the Churches. It works in other countries.

 

[Phemie]

This is a very interesting idea. I am very much against anything called Gay Marriage. However, Baptism is a sacrament, and there is nothing called state Baptism. Holy Orders is a sacrament, and there is nothing called state Holy Orders. So if the government just got out of the marriage business altogether and renamed it “Domestic Partnership,” it might solve a lot of problems.

You’re forgetting that not all marriages are sacraments. Even a Catholic married in the Church may be in a non-sacramental marriage. I say let the State deal with the legal aspects of marriage and let the Church deal only with the religious aspect of marriage.

 

[soleddie]

Most in the government is to destroy GOD’s creations. You can see all kinds of Lies there is Propaganda, Deceptions, Manipulations.

 

[Emmanuel111]

Government and Church are working together now!

 

[Christy_Beth]

On this issue, is that so bad? Governmental involvement also protects any children of that union.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I agree. Government has no business in marriage. Civil unions, property contracts and such is all right and purely secular. Marriage is religious. Therefore, they must be separate.

 

[Phemie]

I agree. Government has no business in marriage. Civil unions, property contracts and such is all right and purely secular. Marriage is religious. Therefore, they must be separate.

You’d have a hard time convincing atheists that what they have is not a marriage just because it didn’t happen in Church. You’re setting yourselves against the Church which recognizes that as marriage, a natural marriage, but marriage nonetheless.

 

[Ruthie]

I say let the State deal with the legal aspects of marriage and let the Church deal only with the religious aspect of marriage.

Isn’t this what we already have in the US? You get a marriage license from the state, and whoever performs the rite signs it and returns it to the state. The state has nothing to do with the religious aspect, and the only thing the priest has to do for the state is sign the license.

I think this makes more sense that having to have a wedding for each authority!

Ruthie

 

[Biggie]

Lets face it, for two hundred years in this country until about 24 months ago, your question wouldn’t be sensible to anyone. Clearly the state has an interest in establishing and recording marital contracts - the distribution of property in the event of divorce and death, the rearing and custody of children and in establishing a well ordered society.

To tamper with marriage is to shake the foundations of society and invite chaos. Far from simplifying the matter, a seperate sacramental or religious blessing would simply add another tier of analysis. I could just imagine the cases rolling into family court - married by the Baptists, but not by the state: married? married to one person at the courthouse to another in church: married? Good fodder for Fox’s Gretta, but what does it accomplish?

The whole matter of marriage has been turned upside down by people who are more willing to redefine the institution and society than to redefine themselves.

 

[Newbie2]

Clearly the state has an interest in establishing and recording marital contracts - the distribution of property in the event of divorce and death, the rearing and custody of children and in establishing a well ordered society.

To tamper with marriage is to shake the foundations of society and invite chaos.
The whole matter of marriage has been turned upside down by people who are more willing to redefine the institution and society than to redefine themselves.

How can one argue with this analysis? Well said!

 

[mapleoak]

Would the Church likely be cool with all American governmental units just getting out of the marriage business altogether? Legal contracts can be entered into for property rights, etc.

Churches, or ideological extities could handle all “marriages” and decide individually which units/combination to recognize and which to reject.

This has been proposed to me as a way to have peace between church and state regarding the homosexual marriage business.

Society has an obligation to uphold and protect the sanctity of marriage.

 

[Trader]

The debate over “gay marriage” is at least a great opportunity for the Church to explain its teaching about marriage. Even among practicing Catholics, how many recognize what is meant by the three goods of marriage?

So as not to embarass the 2% of you who don’t know, the three goods of marriage are the essential elements that must be present in a valid contract of Christian Marriage. If even one of these elements is missing from the beginning on the part of the bride or bridegroom, the marriage is invalid. Those elements are:
FIDELITY
PERMANENCE
OPENNESS TO NEW LIFE

Although both the chuch and state use the same word, “marriage”
the reality could not be more different. A Christian marriage requires all three; a civil marriage requires none of the three.

For the Church fidelity is essential, for the state(at least here in Indiana) adultery is no longer a crime; it is not a tort, and it is not grounds for divorce or annullment. It is of no interest to the state.

For the Church permanence is essential; for the state either party can terminate the marriage for any reason or no reason at all. The Church says marriage is for good times and bad, for as long as you both live. The state says it is for as long as you feel like it.

For the Church openess to new life is essential; for the state it is not. Many states will pay for contraceptives or abortions for the poor. Some now accept same sex unions which by definition cannot be open the the creation of new life.

Probably the only point of agreement between Church and state is that parents have an obligation to support their children–although even that is under attack by extreme socialism. The state does not join couples in marriage, it only records the marriage, partly for the protection of the married parties, but mostly for the protection of the children who would have no protection at all if the parents fail to do their duty.