Governments and Marriage

[fix]

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.

That does not make my argument wrong. It simply means those in power abuse that power.

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.

The law is defined by those who are in power to interpret it. The point is those in power are misguided.

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?

You lawyers have ways now to secure things like property transfers for folks who desire it. Why the need to ape marriage by calling it a civil union?

 

[KarenNC]

once the marriage was not restricted to one man one woman, the mostly likely result is a loss of most marriage benefits.

On what do you base this?

Because it is part of the family plan which would go away.

First you have to establish that there is some legitimate basis to believe that the “family plan” as you call it would indeed go away.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…

You lawyers have ways now to secure things like property transfers for folks who desire it. Why the need to ape marriage by calling it a civil union?

first, I’m not a lawyer.

second, I used the term “civil union” as shorthand for a practice that already exists, not as a formal name. call it what you’d like.

you have to make a clear distinction between what the Church defines as marriage and how the civil government sees it. in the eyes of the government, marriage IS an arrangement of property rights and civil obligations: pick up any family code in any state in the union and see for yourself.

I’d never call a “civil union” a marriage, because the Church (indeed, most Christian churches and the Jewish faith) have defined it otherwise for thousands of years. but on the other hand, I don’t see how you could legislate against what has already happened (the civil unions) without the cure being much worse than the disease.

 

[fix]

first, I’m not a lawyer.

Are you sure?

second, I used the term “civil union” as shorthand for a practice that already exists, not as a formal name. call it what you’d like.

That same sex people live as if they were married does not mean the state should codify it.

you have to make a clear distinction between what the Church defines as marriage and how the civil government sees it. in the eyes of the government, marriage IS an arrangement of property rights and civil obligations: pick up any family code in any state in the union and see for yourself.

Do you deny that marriage has a deeper understanding in society than how it is defined in any particular legal statute? If it is simply a mtter of legal definition then way do so many want to change that definition?

I’d never call a “civil union” a marriage, because the Church (indeed, most Christian churches and the Jewish faith) have defined it otherwise for thousands of years.

My point is those who wish to change morality want that mantle of legitimacy.

but on the other hand, I don’t see how you could legislate against what has already happened (the civil unions) without the cure being much worse than the disease.

I do not see how the cure is worse. Approbation by the state carries tremendous weight in society.

 

[KarenNC]

the government has a legal obligation to recognize Marriages conducted by the Church as valid.

No it doesn’t, actually. The fact that a couple can be legally married by a representative of their chosen religion has basically nothing to do with whether the religion considers the union valid or invalid. It has to do with whether the particular religious representative is duly and legally deputized or licensed in some manner to act as a representative of the state in which the marriage is taking place at the same time. “By the power vested in me by the state of…” sound familiar?

marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/officiants.htm

Any religious group can provide or deny a religious marriage to anyone it chooses. That does not determine whether the marriage is legally binding and entitles the couple to state and federal benefits given to married couples.

Even when acting as a representative of state, the no religious group is required to provide a religious marriage to anyone it does not choose to do so for. Catholic clergy, for instance, are able to provide legal marriage, but not required to do so for divorced people. Baptists can refuse to marry couples who are interracial, interfaith or are living together. Neither of these means that these folks cannot have a legal marriage performed by some other entity.

Now, whether someone who is acting solely as a representative of the state, such as a justice of the peace, can cite religious objections as a reason not to provide a marriage to anyone who is legally entitled to one is another matter. I do not believe that that is possible unless the justice refuses to perform any marriages for anyone.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

No it doesn’t, actually. The fact that a couple can be legally married by a representative of their chosen religion has basically nothing to do with whether the religion considers the union valid or invalid. …

I think you’re inverting my position. the government can delegate its authority to officiate at a wedding, but it cannot refuse to recognize a Catholic (Lutheran/Jewish/Islamic, etc.) marriage. I’m presuming the validity of the religious service. not making this presumption is a different discussion.

I was invited to preside at my niece’s wedding under California’s “minister for a day” program. that took about a second’s thought to decline.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

That same sex people live as if they were married does not mean the state should codify it.

Do you deny that marriage has a deeper understanding in society than how it is defined in any particular legal statute?.

not at all. this is true for any religious person. for the non-religioius, it basically means what the statutes say it means.

If it is simply a mtter of legal definition then way do so many want to change that definition?.

everyone wants to play in the Big Leagues.

My point is those who wish to change morality want that mantle of legitimacy. .

agreed.

I do not see how the cure is worse. Approbation by the state carries tremendous weight in society.

this is from my prior post to Other Eric …

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.

on a separate note, why am I having problems including my own quotes as subquotes within the quote function? I’m used to a slightly different board format …

 

[mapleoak]

I’d never call a “civil union” a marriage, because the Church (indeed, most Christian churches and the Jewish faith) have defined it otherwise for thousands of years. but on the other hand, I don’t see how you could legislate against what has already happened (the civil unions) without the cure being much worse than the disease.

Hard to imagine a cure worse than the disease in the case of same sex unions. There is a historical account of an entire city being destroyed by fire and brimstone for such atrocities.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

On what do you base this?

First you have to establish that there is some legitimate basis to believe that the “family plan” as you call it would indeed go away.

Karen
It might help you a great deal to read on the subject of Natural Law. All Lawyers read and are taught Natural Law Theory. Once that is in place the issues may well properly line up for you. If I go around marrying all the critically ill people over 80 in the hospital do you really think the government is going to pay me hundreds of survivors benefit checks monthly? If marriage is not one man, one woman, how could they prosecute me for polygamy? Similarly Natural Law says men and women decided marriage is needed or desired and thus they will do it with or without a government. The exclusion of other shared benefit scenarios is not a marriage issue at all. If two guys named Jake bond they currently have no (none) legal benefits as a result of their mutual bond. Once they are granted any legal benefit a precedent is set. What if any benefit the two Jake’s should share is not a marriage issue unless they are grouped into the marriage category. Grouping them into the marriage category will not work because these benefits are designed for children, and will not be extended to the Jakes. This extending of such benefits is an abuse and should be, must be, will be stopped. Please understand I have nothing against the two Jakes. It is improper to demand employers, insurance companies, property laws, etc, to treat Jake #2 in the manner of child, or a child bearing woman. Jake #2 is neither and will not be treated as either.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Hard to imagine a cure worse than the disease in the case of same sex unions. There is a historical account of an entire city being destroyed by fire and brimstone for such atrocities.

cure: the government – this means someone like you or me, or an “examiner” – reviews every contract, every grant deed, every insurance policy, every general partnership, every business entity, every social arrangement, every living arrangement for Correctness. and Correctness is down to the subjective level, because how else are you going to determine that two gays who jointly own property are doing so for investment or cohabitation purposes?

do you really want someone examining you at this level, all the time?

and where Correctness is missing, the contracts are terminated, the chain of title interrupted. too bad if you’re a junior lienor, too bad if you’re a contract assignee, too bad if your security disappears because someone above you wasn’t Correct.

think this through. do you want the government doing this?

this is a receipe for a soviet-style gulag, or a country living under islamic sharia. personally, I’d rather take a chance on the possibility that there are gays living in the neighborhood.

am I correct is assuming protestants would be somewhere in line for this treatment?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

not at all. this is true for any religious person. for the non-religioius, it basically means what the statutes say it means…

please consider the Church’s position on Natural Law, we may be born with marriage in our plans

…
this is from my prior post to Other Eric …

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)?

try naming him as your spouse and you’ll find the difference

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?

Is this the first time you heard of the IRS? or the word Audit? The government looks at these issues everyday, again try to place one man’s assets in to another man’s account then file bankruptcy and reverse the scenario. Is it strictly between them and the IRS?

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. …

Gay’s can receive legal benefits outside of marriage rights and that is a reasonable objective. Even the Church accepts gays as fishing buddies, etc. The Church is not anti-gay it’s position is sex is restricted to marriage

 

[JimG]

Actually, one could argue that in a society where marriage no longer provides the benefits of social stability and education and socialization of children that it once did, the government should NOT provide any federal benefits to marriage.

In the past, marriage provided societal benefits. Government recognized that by providing some economic benefits and incentives to the institution.

In a society with no-fault divorce, general contraception, and where government acts in loco parentis both economically and socially in so many ways, it may be that the institution no longer merits government benefits and recognition.

 

[Other_Eric]

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

To answer your question about whether or not we should acquiesce your so-called repugnant level of government intrusiveness, the loss of whatever convenience or private accommodation we might see must be weighed against the social upheaval the intrusiveness is meant to prevent. We already expect that the government will investigate certain business relations in the interests of public welfare and to extend this oversight to private individuals who, left unhindered, could jeopardize the social fabric, is justified by the state’s compelling interest.

If you buy into all of this “rights” nonsense the militant homosexual activists want you to believe, then you concede far too much. Never forget that rights are recognized, not for the benefit of the individual, but ultimately for the good of society. The Church teaches that, left unchecked, those with same-sex attraction will destroy society and therefore society must secure its rights against them.

 

[KarenNC]

I think you’re inverting my position. the government can delegate its authority to officiate at a wedding, but it cannot refuse to recognize a Catholic (Lutheran/Jewish/Islamic, etc.) marriage. I’m presuming the validity of the religious service.

We may be talking about two different issues. They do recognize a wedding which was performed legally in another state or country. However, an ordained clergyperson cannot necessarily simply show up and perform a legally binding ceremony anywhere without fulfilling the legal requirements of the state in which the marriage is to take place, including restrictions on whether s/he has to register in advance, and following the laws on filling out and returning the marriage license.

Restrictions are most often related to clergy who do not reside in the state in which they are to perform the marriage, but some states require all clergy to obtain a license to perform (different than the marriage license) or otherwise register. There are also issues with marriages performed in foreign countries (ehow.com/how_7961_find-foreign-marriage.html)

So, no, just the fact that an ordained clergyperson performed a sacramentally valid marriage does not automatically make it a legally valid one according to US law. Just because Uncle Joe is a Catholic priest in another state doesn’t necessarily mean he can marry you legally in your state without jumping through some hoops and if he fails to file the marriage certificate within the specific state guidelines (which range from less than a week to a month or more), there could also be problems.

usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

Some examples (not comprehensive):
Arkansas: Ministers must have their ordination credentials filed by the county clerk who will then issue a certificate to the minister.

Hawaii: Ministers must obtain a license from the department of health before performing marriages.

Kansas: Ministers are required to file credentials or ordination with the judge of a probate court before performing marriages.

Massachusetts: Out-of-state clergy need to obtain a Certificate of Authorization from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth before the wedding ceremony.

Kentucky: Ministers must be licensed before performing marriages.

Louisiana: Ministers must register with the clerk of the district court of the parish or with the health department if in New Orleans.

Massachusetts: Before performing marriages, ministers are required to apply for a certificate from the state. You must file a copy of your ordination certificate and a statement from the church saying that you are in good standing.

Missouri: A clergyman or clergywoman, active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in Missouri; A religious society, institution or organization in Missouri of which either marriage party is a member, in accordance with the organization’s regulations and customs.

Nevada: Ministers are required to complete a complicated procedure to obtain a certificate of permissions to perform marriages. Among other requirements, the applicant’s ministry must be primarily one of service to his congregation or denomination and his performance of marriages must be incidental to such service.

New Hampshire: An ordained clergyman, who is not a resident of New Hampshire must obtain a special license which can be used only for that particular marriage;

Ohio: Before performing a marriage, ministers must present their ordination credentials to the probate judge of any county. The judge will provide the minister with a license to perform marriages. The minister must then present his license to the probate judge in any county in which he performs a marriage.

Oklahoma: Ordained ministers of the gospel of any denomination who are at least 18 years of age may perform marriages. Ministers must file a copy of their credentials with the county clerk before performing marriages.

Oregon and Pennsylvania: Ministers of any church organized, carrying on its work, and having congregations in this state may perform marriages in this state if authorized by their church to do so. Before performing marriages, ministers must file their credentials with the county clerk of the county in which they reside or in which the marriage is to be performed.

Rhode Island: Ministers must obtain a license from the city or town clerk before performing marriages.

Vermont and Virginia: Ordained ministers residing in this state may perform marriages. Non-resident ordained ministers may perform marriages with the permission of the probate court of the district within which the marriage is to take place.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

We may be talking about two different issues. They do recognize a wedding which was performed legally in another state or country. However, an ordained clergyperson cannot necessarily simply show up and perform a legally binding ceremony anywhere without fulfilling the legal requirements of the state in which the marriage is to take place, including restrictions on whether s/he has to register in advance, and following the laws on filling out and returning the marriage license. …

I qualified my remarks by saying a valid marriage in the Church. as for filling out forms, paying fees, all that is ministerial – crossing t’s and dotting i’s – and involves no exercise of discretion on the part of the county official. in other words, if the few requirements are met – and they are trivial – the clerk of the county has **no right to decline **to process the marriage papers of an otherwise valid marriage conducted by clergy.

the paperwork in CA to become a minister for a day takes all of five minutes to fill out. on line. as long as I’ve filled in all the blanks and paid the fees, the clerk of the county I’m applying in can’t refuse me.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

To answer your question about whether or not we should acquiesce your so-called repugnant level of government intrusiveness, the loss of whatever convenience or private accommodation we might see must be weighed against the social upheaval the intrusiveness is meant to prevent. We already expect that the government will investigate certain business relations in the interests of public welfare and to extend this oversight to private individuals who, left unhindered, could jeopardize the social fabric, is justified by the state’s compelling interest.

if you’re happy with the government investigating every and I mean every contract, deed, lease, sale, at home and between citizens and those abroad, to ferret out the possibility that gays are involved and you think this is just a matter of “convenience”, all I can say is I’m glad the US isn’t a religious theocracy.

so let me ask you, since, let’s say, a lot of business transactions are between not individuals but business entities, what percentage equity interest of a business would have to be gay-owned before you’d rescind the transaction?

and if someone denies being gay, how, exactly do you extract the TRVTH?

If you buy into all of this “rights” nonsense the militant homosexual activists want you to believe, then you concede far too much. Never forget that rights are recognized, not for the benefit of the individual, but ultimately for the good of society. The Church teaches that, left unchecked, those with same-sex attraction will destroy society and therefore society must secure its rights against them.

who says that civil rights are for the benefit of society primarily and the individual secondarily? the USSC has consistently held that critical rights guaranteed by the first amendment are personal rights.

I don’t “buy” into anything. I understand the system as it is, how it works, how to work it, and do not hold any unrealistic expectations about what it could be if somehow we could hand wave any law into existence.

while I live my life according to the teachings of the Church to the best that I can, I know full well we live in a pluralistic society that would spin apart if civil rights are not guaranteed for everyone to the greatest extent possible – that’s historical fact – even if they conflict with Church teachings. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to live with it, although maybe I can set an example for someone and divert him from going down the wrong path.

turning Canon Law into the Civil Code would be the biggest and probably last mistake Catholics would make.

name a theocracy you’d like to live in, then review life in europe during the Thirty Years War.

JF

 

[Other_Eric]

if you’re happy with the government investigating every and I mean every contract, deed, lease, sale, at home and between citizens and those abroad, to ferret out the possibility that gays are involved and you think this is just a matter of “convenience”, all I can say is I’m glad the US isn’t a religious theocracy.

so let me ask you, since, let’s say, a lot of business transactions are between not individuals but business entities, what percentage equity interest of a business would have to be gay-owned before you’d rescind the transaction?

and if someone denies being gay, how, exactly do you extract the TRVTH?

who says that civil rights are for the benefit of society primarily and the individual secondarily? the USSC has consistently held that critical rights guaranteed by the first amendment are personal rights.

I don’t “buy” into anything. I understand the system as it is, how it works, how to work it, and do not hold any unrealistic expectations about what it could be if somehow we could hand wave any law into existence.

while I live my life according to the teachings of the Church to the best that I can, I know full well we live in a pluralistic society that would spin apart if civil rights are not guaranteed for everyone to the greatest extent possible – that’s historical fact – even if they conflict with Church teachings. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to live with it, although maybe I can set an example for someone and divert him from going down the wrong path.

turning Canon Law into the Civil Code would be the biggest and probably last mistake Catholics would make.

name a theocracy you’d like to live in, then review life in europe during the Thirty Years War.

JF

I could really care less what the United States Supreme Court or any of our robed masters has to say on the subject of individual rights. Understand that I am not making a legal argument here, but a philosophical one. Furthermore, arguments that hinge on avoiding morality-based legislation in the name also avoiding “theocracy” are the bread-and-butter of militant homosexual activists such as Andrew Sullivan. I think his use of that logic tells the rest of us Christians everything we need to know.

As for what specific policies we would have to enact to enforce this standard, I can comfortably say I am not sure. Offhand, for instance, I might argue that an avowed homosexual could not have any legally enforceable interest in any business. In any case, those are scenarios that must wait to be hammered out only after society has been trained to recognize same-sex attractions for the deviancy that they are.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I could really care less what the United States Supreme Court or any of our robed masters has to say on the subject of individual rights.

that seems myopic, to say the least, considering that the USSC has, basically, the final say on the matter. also given the fact that you reside in a country that guarantees freedom to practice our Faith (there are many placesl in the world where you could be jailed or banished for this reason alone), the issue of individual rights should be paramount.

Understand that I am not making a legal argument here, but a philosophical one. Furthermore, arguments that hinge on avoiding morality-based legislation in the name also avoiding “theocracy” are the bread-and-butter of militant homosexual activists such as Andrew Sullivan. I think his use of that logic tells the rest of us Christians everything we need to know.

I have no idea who AS is, as I don’t follow the arguments of any militants. as a practical matter, I’d rather avoid what purports to be morality based legislation because this only works as long as its my morality that’s being legislated. how on earth you can make a “philosophical” argument divorced from real world consequences is beyond me. you might as well rewrite Utopia. then there wouldn’t be any argument from anyone.

As for what specific policies we would have to enact to enforce this standard, I can comfortably say I am not sure. Offhand, for instance, I might argue that an avowed homosexual could not have any legally enforceable interest in any business. In any case, those are scenarios that must wait to be hammered out only after society has been trained to recognize same-sex attractions for the deviancy that they are.

that is an astonishing statement, an indictment of your entire position. with a few word substitutions, e.g., “Jew” or “Communist” or “Gypsy” for “avowed homosexual”, you can summarize the policies of Vichy France, East Germany, the Nazis, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia. you don’t even have to change the phrase “avowed homosexual”, for that matter.

and what if they simply disavow being gay? do you propose an interrogation by the FBI? the Spanish Inquisition? Stasi?

 

[Petergee]

“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.

That’s certainly the impression you get if you believe what they say in all the soft-focus stories in the mainstream media about photogenic “gay couples” who plead all teary-eyed “but we only want the government to recognise our love. What’s wrong with that?”

 

[fix]

not at all. this is true for any religious person. for the non-religioius, it basically means what the statutes say it means.

I disagree. It is not only a sectarian issue. Even non religious people have a conscience and grasp that a natural moral law exists. It is only very recently some try to assert that marriage is simply a matter of property rights and legal constructs.

everyone wants to play in the Big Leagues.

You mean a vocal minority want to foist their immoral ways on the society?

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)?

The procedures involved are not this issue. What is the issue is the desire to change the law so that society will change the way marriage is understood.

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?

They can do that now. Why the need to form a civil union? I can have an account with my brother if I choose. So what?

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.

Seems to be a red herring.

on a separate note, why am I having problems including my own quotes as subquotes within the quote function? I’m used to a slightly different board format …

Not sure. Perhaps someone out there can help?