Government's Role in Marriage (U.S)

[Havard]

Regarding same-sex marriages, I have trouble with the way both “sides” view the issue.

Marriage is a sacrament, and it is a religious institution. Why do we then, as voters, empower the government to get involved in this matter in the first place? I guess I mean this in the rhetorical sense, since I am very aware of the rights an responsibilities of marriages in the U.S. But I’d sacrifice joint-filing tax returns and other perks for a more meaningful resolution of the issue, which is to say, leave the government out of it altogether.

I don’t think it’s the government’s role to be validating my marriage, let alone anyone else’s.

Is there some moral theology that I’m missing that contradicts my thinking on this?

 

[diggerdomer]

Regarding same-sex marriages, I have trouble with the way both “sides” view the issue.

Marriage is a sacrament, and it is a religious institution. Why do we then, as voters, empower the government to get involved in this matter in the first place? I guess I mean this in the rhetorical sense, since I am very aware of the rights an responsibilities of marriages in the U.S. But I’d sacrifice joint-filing tax returns and other perks for a more meaningful resolution of the issue, which is to say, leave the government out of it altogether.

I don’t think it’s the government’s role to be validating my marriage, let alone anyone else’s.

Is there some moral theology that I’m missing that contradicts my thinking on this?

Nope, no moral theology contradicting your thinking.

 

[Benedictus]

Is there some moral theology that I’m missing that contradicts my thinking on this?

Yes. Well not ‘moral’ theology strictly speaking, but theology nevertheless. Your own Church’s teaching is that a marriage can be valid without being sacramental. For example, the Church recognizes marriage between unbaptized persons, but it does not consider those marriages to be sacramental. Thus marriage isn’t strictly a religious institution.

 

[Havard]

Yes. Well not ‘moral’ theology strictly speaking, but theology nevertheless. Your own Church’s teaching is that a marriage can be valid without being sacramental. For example, the Church recognizes marriage between unbaptized persons, but it does not consider those marriages to be sacramental. Thus marriage isn’t strictly a religious institution.

I’m not sure that this is evidence (or lack thereof) that the Church views secular governments as appropriate arbiters of marital issues. The history behind Church teaching on non-sacramental marriages might be enlightening - I’ll try to look into it - but if anyone has any expertise and wants to weight in it’d be appreciated.

 

[kesa82]

Regarding same-sex marriages, I have trouble with the way both “sides” view the issue.

Marriage is a sacrament, and it is a religious institution. Why do we then, as voters, empower the government to get involved in this matter in the first place?

That has been my point exactly, for years. And not just on marriage.

To my way of thinking, when Martin Luther was allowed to get away with saying that the secular North German princes were not subject to the Pope …we had already arrived at the present point.

Limits? No secular state has ever recognized limits to power. Not really.

Let’s discuss Martin Luther and his handlers versus Charles V and Leo X.
Let’s go back to first causes and basics.

To me, so much of this discussion is like argueing over whether the hinges on the barn door should be stainless steel or cast iron ---- while the barn burns down.

 

[Jermosh]

Marriage is a sacrament, but it is also a civil covenant and a natural right. The Govt is put into place to govern civil matters. Does the Govt then intrude on our natural right? Yes, but it is the price to pay to not have to put energy into protecting our other rights.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Marriage is a sacrament, but it is also a civil covenant and a natural right. The Govt is put into place to govern civil matters. Does the Govt then intrude on our natural right? Yes, but it is the price to pay to not have to put energy into protecting our other rights.

Quite so. Like it or not, marriage has certain civil / legal issues associated with it that are the proper concern of government: property rights, inheritance rights, things like that. Were the government to totally withdraw from the regulation / recognition of marriages, we’d have polygamy in about 48 hours, with incestual marriage about a week later.

 

[kesa82]

Marriage is a sacrament, but it is also a civil covenant

usurped.

and a natural right.

so claimed.

 

[Havard]

Quite so. Like it or not, marriage has certain civil / legal issues associated with it that are the proper concern of government: property rights, inheritance rights, things like that. Were the government to totally withdraw from the regulation / recognition of marriages, we’d have polygamy in about 48 hours, with incestual marriage about a week later.

American culture is already embroiled in turmoil, with the current one-man-one-woman law in place.

I don’t think the answer to a spiritual and cultural battle is to mandate morality. I think the answer is to proclaim the Good News through our actions and words.

 

[fix]

Marriage is a sacrament, and it is a religious institution.

It is a natural institution that predates the Church.

Why do we then, as voters, empower the government to get involved in this matter in the first place?

Because the family is the basic unit of society.

I guess I mean this in the rhetorical sense, since I am very aware of the rights an responsibilities of marriages in the U.S. But I’d sacrifice joint-filing tax returns and other perks for a more meaningful resolution of the issue, which is to say, leave the government out of it altogether.

The government is us. The government ought to protect marriage not let it continue to be devolve.

I don’t think it’s the government’s role to be validating my marriage, let alone anyone else’s.

The government’s role to to protect the common good.

Is there some moral theology that I’m missing that contradicts my thinking on this?

Start here:

2207 The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially: - the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;

• the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

 

[Benadam]

The human pairbond, even the sanctifying state of a Sacrament flowed from both genders long before the nuclear family ever structured a secular society. When that secular society developed, people had long known the marital bond as the foundation of communities and a serious concern to communities because the community depends on the marital bond to continue to generate healthy vital families to survive.

It might be more accurate to say "when did the sages of ancient cultures become aware of the dignity of the human pairbond.

The pairbond has been serving reproduction of flesh since the dawn of genders. It has such deep roots in us that it is able to unite with a union that mirrors it at a higher state. In other words at our genesis, the means by which all human life began ,and remained in, a sanctified state. It was the means by which our earthly lives ended and entered into a divinized state. All encompassing as it structures our experience in the very beginning of humanity , it is the environment structured by the pairbond given and recieved by husband and wife. It is the environment that all human life begins knowing. The society that sneers at religion for understanding and teaching the dignity of the human pairbond sneers at it’s own heart. If it distorts the vision of the pairbond it crumbles and morphs into a society that is governed by it’s external sensory experience. If the male is not fulfilling the masculinity revealed by the feminity of the female and visa versa the maternal bond becomes the most powerfull and intimate bonds and in the absence of the genders gift of self, the bond that cements human life is the maternal bond. If husbands don’t love their wives the result is the rising of the maternal bond. The maternal bond untempered by the Sacrament of marriage is inherently utilitarian. This environment is exemplified by the maternity of Eve with Cain. She pronounces the birth of man as creator with divine help. The helpmeet has made God her helpmeet. " I have got me a man with the help of God. This imperfection produces an environment for human infancy where it in a certain degree experiences ‘being’ loveable only if usefull. This is due to the absence of the male fulfilling his masculinity because it is left unrevealed in the degree the pairbond is not dignified. Not the kind of masculinity that seves the urge to succesfully infuse the human genome with himself in quantity but the masculinity that infuses his genes orderly and dignified offfering humanity of his generation an environment that is open to being lifted up into a sanctifying state. When Seth was born Eve say’s God has granted another offspring" and this creation of man was the first born in the image of his father. The environment seth was raised in structure societies and cultures that recognize that the pairbond t must be protected and obeyed law that surrounded it because the community didn’t view it’self as it’s ruker but it’;s servant.

got a bit long sorry.

 

[Havard]

Thanks for all the responses, I plan on giving them a lot of thought and prayer.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Regarding same-sex marriages, I have trouble with the way both “sides” view the issue.

Marriage is a sacrament, and it is a religious institution. Why do we then, as voters, empower the government to get involved in this matter in the first place? I guess I mean this in the rhetorical sense, since I am very aware of the rights an responsibilities of marriages in the U.S. But I’d sacrifice joint-filing tax returns and other perks for a more meaningful resolution of the issue, which is to say, leave the government out of it altogether.

I don’t think it’s the government’s role to be validating my marriage, let alone anyone else’s.

Is there some moral theology that I’m missing that contradicts my thinking on this?

Forgive me if I’m repeating something that someone else has already posted; I haven’t read the whole thread.

The government has the right to regulate such things. It is in the interest of the state that marriages happen, so it makes sense for the government to incentivize it. In order to incentivize it, there must be a standard by which people do or do not qualify for the incentive. Thus, lines are drawn: one may not marry a sibling or a minor, for example. Other lines are more controversial, because they do not benefit from the nearly universal condemnation of incest and child abuse (e.g., gay “marriage”).

Since it is in the best interest of the state (as well as the populace) for marriages to happen, the government has every right and reason to place incentives such as tax breaks on the table. Now we must fight to set the boundaries where they ought to be: squarely around a man and a woman.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Carlion]

For all the reasons the Church states, I’m absolutely against gay marriage.With that said, though, I don’t see how the U.S. government can stop it unless each state takes it to the level of amending the state constitution as California just did. The reason being that the government views it simply as a contract between consenting adults, and it can only limit it the way it can limit other contracts, that is, on the issues of consent and age and fraudulent claims.

That’s why I like the idea of categorizing all civil marriages as civil unions. Then, if someone wants to enter the Church and the Church wants to recognize that the previous civil union fit Church criteria for marriage, than it can go ahead and convalidate the union and start calling it a marriage within the Church.

On the other side of things, the government would never have a problem recognizing a Church marriage, because it always meets the basics of a civil union, so those married in Church would never have to worry about the whole insurance/hospital visitation/etc. side of it.