Governments and Marriage

[papaspicy]

I know that the Catholic Church has basically taken a stand against any kind of formal recognition of so-called homosexual unions or marriages. This makes sense and it is any religion’s prerogative to make a declaration on its view of morality. For the past couple of years I have been pondering the various implications and philosophies surrounding this issue. I am not anywhere close to making my mind up on it.

A point that I keep coming to however is that while a government should be informed by the natural law, and reflect to a certain degree the views of its citizens, a government that allows its citizens freedom to make their own choices, provided those choices don’t immediately harm others, could recognize such a union. Let me make this clear, I am against the practice of homosexuality, but I believe people have the free will to choose to commit that act against the design of God.

Now that I have addressed this topic as most people do, I want to turn it completely on its head.

Why does the government need to recognize marriages (holy or unholy) at all? I think this is a serious question. This societal system is based on a period of time when women interacted with the wider society through their husbands. Women didn’t vote, their husbands voted on behalf of the entire family. But our society has changed. Women are equal in citizenship. Children can divorce their parents. (Whoever came up with that?!) But essentially the fundamental unit of society is now the citizen, and not the family. There are positive and negative aspects of both systems.

A spade is a spade, and depravity is depravity, but I would like to hear any ideas about the argument for dropping recognition of marriage by governments and secular institutions. (This would not impact the Catholic Church and sacramental marriage.)

 

[Other_Eric]

Government has a vested interest in the continuation of the society it governs. To that end, it makes sense that it will provide incentives to those relationships that have historically shown they are the best able to ensure stability for society at large and as an environment best suited to the rearing of the next generation.

 

[Petergee]

I know that the Catholic Church has basically taken a stand against any kind of formal recognition of so-called homosexual unions or marriages. This makes sense and it is any religion’s prerogative to make a declaration on its view of morality. For the past couple of years I have been pondering the various implications and philosophies surrounding this issue. I am not anywhere close to making my mind up on it.

A point that I keep coming to however is that while a government should be informed by the natural law, and reflect to a certain degree the views of its citizens, a government that allows its citizens freedom to make their own choices, provided those choices don’t immediately harm others, could recognize such a union. Let me make this clear, I am against the practice of homosexuality, but I believe people have the free will to choose to commit that act against the design of God.

Don’t be fooled by the militant gay-rights lobby’s claim that all they want is for the government to “recognize” homosexual “couples”, as if it’s just about letting two people who “love” each other to have a nice certificate to show people, and a nice ceremony to invite people to. They want a hell of a lot more than that - they want to be treated exactly liked married couples re tax, superannuation, pensions, IVF, adoption, employment benefits for spouses, etc.etc.

Now that I have addressed this topic as most people do, I want to turn it completely on its head.

Why does the government need to recognize marriages (holy or unholy) at all? I think this is a serious question. This societal system is based on a period of time when women interacted with the wider society through their husbands. Women didn’t vote, their husbands voted on behalf of the entire family.

Actually that’s not true. Marriage has been around since long before civilization. And married women in ancient and medieval times interacted with society in many ways other than through their husbands. Especially in Christian societies. And it’s a little-publicised fact that women did often have the right to vote in many circumstances, eg in France before the Revolution when the supposedly “liberal” atheist revolutionaries restricted voting to men.

But our society has changed. Women are equal in citizenship.

Women have been equal voting citizens since the 19th century in my country. No-one’s ever seen that as a reason for the state not to recognise, reinforce and support marriage. In fact since women got the vote it has been the women voters, more than men, who have insisted that the State do this.

Children can divorce their parents. (Whoever came up with that?!) But essentially the fundamental unit of society is now the citizen, and not the family. There are positive and negative aspects of both systems.

A spade is a spade, and depravity is depravity, but I would like to hear any ideas about the argument for dropping recognition of marriage by governments and secular institutions. (This would not impact the Catholic Church and sacramental marriage.)

I think it stinks. The fundamental group unit of society is the family founded on marriage. A society which treated marriage as a purely private affair, reducing every person to an individual unit with no recognised connexions to anyone else, would be a nightmare even worse than even the worst dictatorships of last century, which at least in principle recognised marriage and the family, even though they tried to assert superiority over it.

 

[KarenNC]

Don’t be fooled by the militant gay-rights lobby’s claim that all they want is for the government to “recognize” homosexual “couples”, as if it’s just about letting two people who “love” each other to have a nice certificate to show people, and a nice ceremony to invite people to. They want a hell of a lot more than that - they want to be treated exactly liked married couples re tax, superannuation, pensions, IVF, adoption, employment benefits for spouses, etc.etc.

“Militant”? That would be exactly what “recognition by the government” means, for opposite sex or same sex couples. It’s a bit disingenuous to say that anyone advocating for legal same sex marriage has ever said it was “just about having a nice certificate and a nice ceremony” or that only “militant” gay rights advocates want equal treatment under the law and are being somehow deceptive because they “really” want equal treatment. The “nice certificate and nice ceremony” are already widely available through many religious groups.

 

[steveandersen]

…Why does the government need to recognize marriages (holy or unholy) at all? I think this is a serious question. …

Governments are in the marriage business for several reasons mostly related to social and economic stability. (They also generate fees for processing the records but those aren’t big revenues producers)

Marriage also determines legal things such as custody of children; inheritance rights; the privileged nature of conversations between married couples. etc
Also the spouse gets final say over health and legal matters if the other is incapacitated (superceding the rights of all other next of kin) The Shivo case was a recent example of a conflict between a spouse and other next of kin.

Marriage existed long before there were governments. Government was developed when human communities got too big to rely on individual interactions and something was needed to make sure that rights weren’t trampled and rules were obeyed. We in essence put government in charge of marriage just like they regulate real estate.

There are some who say that, with many companies offering spousal benefits like health insurance to those who are not actually spouses, a living will and a power of attorney could be a sufficient substitute legally for a marriage license.

But there are still things not covered.

That is why it is often presented as an equal protection issue.

And as a social stability issue, married couples are more stable economically (and physically) within the community than the unmarried (even with the divorce rate)
Two together can live more cheaply than one. This can raise the overall standard of living.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your ducks are out of line

1. Government exists to produce the will of the people. This requires government to act in accordance with Natural Law
2. Marriage is desired by people
3. Legal marriage allows a long series of people desired benefits as shared taxes (and deductions), shared ownership, exemptions for legal conditions as death of one, privileged speech, etc…

The legalization of homosexual marriage would undermine the current desired benefits a great deal, consider some war veterans on pension have actually as very aged men married young woman as in 86 year old man marries 14 year old girl. Thus allowing the girl to draw his pension for her remaining life. If you allow homosexual marriages the abuse will probably result in a loss of these benefits. The big loser is grandmothers who raised children but now are not allowed to inherit (tax free) grand father’s house, land, pension, social security, assets, etc

 

[steveandersen]

Your ducks are out of line

mine?

1. Government exists to produce the will of the people. This requires government to act in accordance with Natural Law

Actually that requires the will of the people to be in accordance with natural law. The government is just the product of its people.

We haven’t quite worked out what to do if The People want some darn-fool thing.

A government that denied the popular will for too long would be out on its ear.

1. Marriage is desired by people
2. Legal marriage allows a long series of people desired benefits as shared taxes (and deductions), shared ownership, exemptions for legal conditions as death of one, privileged speech, etc…

The legalization of homosexual marriage would undermine the current desired benefits a great deal, consider some war veterans on pension have actually as very aged men married young woman as in 86 year old man marries 14 year old girl. Thus allowing the girl to draw his pension for her remaining life. If you allow homosexual marriages the abuse will probably result in a loss of these benefits.

Are you saying that an 86 year old marrying a 14 year old is some great thing that must be protected?

I’m not sure that is a very good example since occurrences like that is fairly rare.

The big loser is grandmothers who raised children but now are not allowed to inherit (tax free) grand father’s house, land, pension, social security, assets, etc

I’m not sure if I follow you. What grandmothers? Why wouldn’t they be allowed to inherit their husband’s house?

 

[KarenNC]

The legalization of homosexual marriage would undermine the current desired benefits a great deal

How?

, consider some war veterans on pension have actually as very aged men married young woman as in 86 year old man marries 14 year old girl. Thus allowing the girl to draw his pension for her remaining life. If you allow homosexual marriages the abuse will probably result in a loss of these benefits.

Why?

The big loser is grandmothers who raised children but now are not allowed to inherit (tax free) grand father’s house, land, pension, social security, assets, etc

What? Why would a woman (grandmother) not be allowed to inherit her husband’s (grandfather) property and assets, whether she is raising children or not?

 

[Jack_Fisher]

in one respect, civil marriage is a default arrangement of property rights, personal rights and social obligations between two persons that govern inheritance, spousal support, child support, taxation, and other life issues. these rights can be altered in any number of ways, if the couple consents.

like it or not, gays can enter contractual arrangements (adoption, holding property as joint tenants) that closely mimic the rights and duties of civil marriage. call these “civil unions” for convenience.

on the other hand, the Church has the right to define Marriages that take place under her wing.

the government has a legal obligation to recognize Marriages conducted by the Church as valid. the government also has an obligation to recognize private contractual relations between parties that are not unenforceable for other reasons. so it seems to me that the government should not stand in the way of civil unions between gays, given the closeness in property rights between marriage and civil unions; doing so seems petty and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection or due process.

don’t call the civil union a marriage, as that term is already well defined through a few thousand years of useage.

this is a consequence of living as a Catholic in a pluralistic society where the right to worship is guaranteed at the expense of accepting other rights that we don’t always agree with.

 

[Other_Eric]

in one respect, civil marriage is a default arrangement of property rights, personal rights and social obligations between two persons that govern inheritance, spousal support, child support, taxation, and other life issues. these rights can be altered in any number of ways, if the couple consents.

like it or not, gays can enter contractual arrangements (adoption, holding property as joint tenants) that closely mimic the rights and duties of civil marriage. call these “civil unions” for convenience.

on the other hand, the Church has the right to define Marriages that take place under her wing.

the government has a legal obligation to recognize Marriages conducted by the Church as valid. the government also has an obligation to recognize private contractual relations between parties that are not unenforceable for other reasons. so it seems to me that the government should not stand in the way of civil unions between gays, given the closeness in property rights between marriage and civil unions; doing so seems petty and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection or due process.

don’t call the civil union a marriage, as that term is already well defined through a few thousand years of useage.

this is a consequence of living as a Catholic in a pluralistic society where the right to worship is guaranteed at the expense of accepting other rights that we don’t always agree with.

One must remember that rights to due process and property exist insofar as they anchor social stability. Arrangements such as those between members of the same gender that attempt to replicate the goods of marriage undermine the society that those rights were originally established to uphold. In this way, it doesn’t matter what you call it, be it marriage, civil union, joint tenancy or private contract, the result is the same: the breakdown of the social order. The society’s interest in self-preservation far outweighs whatever paltry claims individuals with same-sex attraction might have towards such rights. We must not allow the government to passively assist in the same-sex genital activity by consenting to enforce any contract whose sole purpose is merely to facilitate that intrinsic evil.

 

[steveandersen]

… doing so seems petty and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection or due process…

The problem I have with making it a 14th amendment issue is that the current marriage rules apply to everyone. In order to marry the Sate says that my betrothed must be above a certain age, not already married, able and willing to consent and of the opposite sex.* In some jurisdictions there are waiting periods, residency requirements, blood tests etc. Those restrictions are equally imposed on all.

Now possibly you could make a 9th or 10th amendment argument in favor of it but I’m not too convinced on equal protection grounds.

*As I understand it there are some legal codes that don’t explicitly call that out. The grounds on which that distinction is made could be an argument for equal protection.

 

[fix]

in one respect, civil marriage is a default arrangement of property rights, personal rights and social obligations between two persons that govern inheritance, spousal support, child support, taxation, and other life issues. these rights can be altered in any number of ways, if the couple consents.

like it or not, gays can enter contractual arrangements (adoption, holding property as joint tenants) that closely mimic the rights and duties of civil marriage. call these “civil unions” for convenience.

on the other hand, the Church has the right to define Marriages that take place under her wing.

the government has a legal obligation to recognize Marriages conducted by the Church as valid. the government also has an obligation to recognize private contractual relations between parties that are not unenforceable for other reasons. so it seems to me that the government should not stand in the way of civil unions between gays, given the closeness in property rights between marriage and civil unions; doing so seems petty and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection or due process.

don’t call the civil union a marriage, as that term is already well defined through a few thousand years of useage.

this is a consequence of living as a Catholic in a pluralistic society where the right to worship is guaranteed at the expense of accepting other rights that we don’t always agree with.

But, what is a right? Is it anything the government claims it is?

 

[Jack_Fisher]

One must remember that rights to due process and property exist insofar as they anchor social stability. Arrangements such as those between members of the same gender that attempt to replicate the goods of marriage undermine the society that those rights were originally established to uphold. In this way, it doesn’t matter what you call it, be it marriage, civil union, joint tenancy or private contract, the result is the same: the breakdown of the social order. The society’s interest in self-preservation far outweighs whatever paltry claims individuals with same-sex attraction might have towards such rights. We must not allow the government to passively assist in the same-sex genital activity by consenting to enforce any contract whose sole purpose is merely to facilitate that intrinsic evil.

I can accept that social stability argument, that’s why certain contracts are unenforceable as a matter of law, for example, contracts which discriminate among protected classes (sex, religion, race, creed).

however, consider a county recorder who receives, by messenger, a joint tenancy deed to record, “Steph and Chris as joint tenants”. do you really want the clerk, or the recorder’s “investigators” to inquire whether Steph and Chris are the same sex? or inquire if the property is being held as a “quasi-marital property” rather than as an investment asset between business partners? or require a litmus test before I can name an unmarried male as my insurance beneficiary (as I have done with a nephew)?

and let’s say two gays do hold property together, or have a joint bank account. do you really want the government inquiring whether they are doing so for “legitimate” business reasons?

that kind of government intrusiveness is repugnant to me, and, as a citizen of the US, more obnoxious and more of a threat to all of our liberties than allowing gays a few economic rights.

JF

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How?

once the marriage was not restricted to one man one woman, the mostly likely result is a loss of most marriage benefits. Think about it, if being married means nothing (legally) then who cares? Currently being married allows a man and woman to share many rights and benefits. So should we continue with these rights and benefits?

Why?

today our society expects and accepts a man’s insurance, income, property as being “family assets” this to provide for stay at home moms and children. Once “family assets” are no longer targeted for these wives and children, the “family assets” will be gone. Even you noted this with our comment about society being individual based.

What? Why would a woman (grandmother) not be allowed to inherit her husband’s (grandfather) property and assets, whether she is raising children or not?

Because it is part of the family plan which would go away. In an individual plan Grandpa’s death would bring on estate legislation ( taxes, challenges, etc) meaning his assets go immediately into third party hands, pensions stop, social security stops. Under the current plan Grandpa’s death if married does not change the ownership of assets. The assets are sole possession of Grandma, social security and pension reduces to “survivors benefit” and continues until Grandma’s death. If we allow open marriages, the result will be a stop to marriage benefits this will be followed by Grandpa’s assets being separated from Grandma.

I hope she is not to old to go back to work!

 

[Jack_Fisher]

The problem I have with making it a 14th amendment issue is that the current marriage rules apply to everyone. In order to marry the Sate says that my betrothed must be above a certain age, not already married, able and willing to consent and of the opposite sex.* In some jurisdictions there are waiting periods, residency requirements, blood tests etc. Those restrictions are equally imposed on all.

Now possibly you could make a 9th or 10th amendment argument in favor of it but I’m not too convinced on equal protection grounds.

*As I understand it there are some legal codes that don’t explicitly call that out. The grounds on which that distinction is made could be an argument for equal protection.

I was using “equal protection” and “due process” in a general way. this is really more of a due process/fundamental fairness issue.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

But, what is a right? Is it anything the government claims it is?

I believe the US constitution identifies certain rights that preexist the government and are guaranteed by the government. nobody wants the government to be the source of rights, only their protector.

the scope of rights certainly ebbs and flows over the years, but the government should not be in the business of creating new ones (I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided as it relied on the extrapolation of a right to privacy not explicitly mentioned in the constitution).

 

[fix]

I believe the US constitution identifies certain rights that preexist the government and are guaranteed by the government. nobody wants the government to be the source of rights, only their protector.

the scope of rights certainly ebbs and flows over the years, but the government should not be in the business of creating new ones (I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided as it relied on the extrapolation of a right to privacy not explicitly mentioned in the constitution).

Great, then there is no such thing as a right to homosexual sex or to a contrived union that mimicks marriage.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Great, then there is no such thing as a right to homosexual sex or to a contrived union that mimicks marriage.

you could make that argument in federal court and lose, because the USSC says there’s such a right implicit in the constitution. you’d also lose that argument in most state courts, because most states have privacy as a constitutional right.

basically, my opinion and your opinion about what the law should be, while interesting, aren’t law. this is always a major error that people make while arguing on the internet. my usual response is, if you really believe that there’s no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy, by all means, avail yourself of a lawsuit challenging the right. major changes happen because someone does this, ask rosa parks, for example.

in a prior post, I pointed out a handful of practical issues in denying property rights to gays. are you comfortable with that level of government intrusion?

 

[JimG]

But essentially the fundamental unit of society is now the citizen, and not the family.

I hope that is not entirely true, but it is certainly more true now than it has been in the past.
And that’s a problem.

The family has nearly always been the guarantor of social stability and civil order. Families produce children—the next generation—and raise and educate them, socialize them and teach them civic as well as moral values.

That is no longer universally the case. The rate of out of wedlock births has skyrocketed. Who raises, socializes, and teaches values to those children? Sometimes, a single parent, not an easy thing to do. Sometimes no one. Sometimes, a local gang, or their peers, or the mass media. How many teachers now complain about having to be social workers and not just teachers? How many of their problems relate to dysfunctional families? We pour resources into schools and social work to make up for the devastation that national policies have worked upon families.

In my view, the cost to society of removing the family as the basic social unit has been and will continue to be, social devastation. So yes, there is a civil reason for protecting the family by protecting marriage.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

Are you saying that an 86 year old marrying a 14 year old is some great thing that must be protected?

Actually I’m citing a case of system abuse. The civil war ended in 1864 but benefit payments last about (or over) 100 years due to these “marriage abuses”

I’m not sure that is a very good example since occurrences like that is fairly rare.

Actually that is the point because this is rare we do not eliminate the benefit. Once these activities become common we will eliminate the benefit, and thus hurt those intended to recieve the needed benefit