Is ending civil marriage an option?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AaronsStaff
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AaronsStaff

Guest
Taking into consideration the advances made by same-sex marriage proponents, and the dim prospects for abolishing same sex marriage outright, is ending civil marriage in the US an option from a Catholic perspective?

Consider this:

The government recognizing marriage between people of the same sex doesn’t just affect them, it affects all of us, because when the government does this, it changes the boundaries of who gets particular legal advantages.

So for example, employers now are being sued for not wanting to perform things that would seem to lend support to gay marriage. The situations of the bakery refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, and the photographers refusing to photograph a gay wedding come to mind. The court has ruled against both of these businesses, saying that they must render these services.

Additionally I doubt it will be long before gay marriage is put on a pedestal in our public schools as a shining example of the civil rights movement, your kids will be taught that it is a good thing, after all, why not? The state has incorporated gay marriage into its definition of marriage.

I believe employers will be forced to extend spousal benefits to gay couples if one of the members of the “marriage” works for the employer.

Additionally I believe the state is trying to coerce Catholic adoption institutions to put children in the custody of gay couples.

Taking all of this into consideration, and the increased popularity of gay marriage, should a political strategy here from a Catholic perspective be to try and do away with civil marriage in order to salvage the work of those who support the Catholic vision of the family?

I don’t see bright prospects for gay marriage ever being outlawed, it seems to be increasing in popularity in this country, so I wonder if by doing away with civil marriage the Church and all others who support the traditional family can consolidate our stake in the society. It might also have a benefit of bringing fallen away Catholic back into the fold, where unable to get a justice of the peace to perform a civil marriage, they might return to the Church to get married.

My other concern here is the religious liberty issue. The Bishops have been outspoken about religious liberty when it comes to the contraception mandate, but what about when it comes to marriage? Jews accept divorce and remarriage, as do some protestants, Catholics don’t, some religions believe in polygamy. And considering we live in a pluralistic society where we all are not simply going to agree on a definition of marriage, how about eliminating civil marriage from this perspective? Because by the state giving its own definition of marriage that runs contrary to so many peoples’ religious beliefs, it is in a way violating the 1st amendment by taking what is a religious doctrine to so many people and giving a state definition.

So what do you all think about this? Is there anything definitive on this issue in Church teaching? Can we try to disassemble civil marriage in order to try and save God’s plan for marriage in our society?
 
First of all, I love your signature. And, I have to make a similar disclaimer to this post. I’m not a legal expert.

However, I have seen I think articles on Fr. Z’s blog, and others, in which this idea was thrown around. Certain circles of the clergy are reflecting on whether this is a way to go. And, just so we’re clear, they’re talking about the Catholic Church simply no longer recognizing civil marriages.

They’re not talking about changing the laws of the country to take away civil marriage. That is as out of our reach as defeating gay “marriage” in this country. Look, we’re simply going to have to realize that we are entering a time of persecution.

Catholics lived under Cromwell and Henry VIII in England. Catholics lived in the Roman Empire. And, we’re going to live in this country as well, no matter how secular it gets. Even if Federal Laws are passed forcing gay “marriage” on all 50 states, as well as legalizing marijuana in all 50 states.

We need to convert the culture, and convert the people of this nation.

We’re not going to win political battles in this nation for a long time to come [IMHO]. I’ve studied political science btw. I’m not saying there’s no hope. I’m simply saying we should not place our hope in the political process. The Catholic Church isn’t going to do well in the political sphere in this country, probably for the rest of my life (I’m in my 20’s :D).

We need to pick our battles. We should fight for the salvation of souls, not to change the laws of this country. The laws reflect the people, and the people need to be converted.
 
Marriage, by its very nature, is a public institution. You cannot have a “private” marriage unless you live on a desert island away from all others.

In the United States, at least, the public authorities recognize marriage as fundamentally contracted by two individuals. The state documents the marriage through the marriage license procedure, but doesn’t claim to create the union. It then then bestows special rights and privileges on a properly documented union, to provide incentives and stability to the union’s members.

Currently, these rights apply even when the underlying marriage is nonexistent (invalid) in the case of attempted remarriages following divorce, etc. Eliminating “civil marriage” from both a legal and social theory perspective doesn’t really make any sense. The state will instead of recognizing “marriages” would recognize “civil unions”. This is nothing more than semantic shenanigans.

Further, as a Catholic, I would never enter into a “civil union” with a women. This would insult both of our innate dignity. I would pursue only a true marriage by exchanging my vows before a duly appointed representative of God’s Church. I, however, have no qualms of additionally registering my marriage with the civil authorities through the marriage license procedure, as is current practice.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church teaches that it is fundamentally impossible for anyone but **one **unmarried man and **one **unmarried woman to enter into a marriage union. Creating a separate classification of union, a “civil union”, does not address this fundamental problem. Eliminating civil recognition of “marriage” altogether, replacing it with the artificial “civil union” would be a deeply flawed policy altogether.
 
runningdude said:
Eliminating civil recognition of “marriage” altogether, replacing it with the artificial “civil union” would be a deeply flawed policy altogether.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re the one who posited that civil marriages would be replaced with civil unions.

I think the OP is referring to a time when the state had no involvement in marriage at all. The history of civil marriage is a short one, and was not widespread until the 1800s. It seems like that’s what the OP is asking. Why does the state have to have civil anything, in regards to marriage?
40.png
runningdude:
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church teaches that it is fundamentally impossible for anyone but one unmarried man and one unmarried woman to enter into a marriage union
Click to expand...
Quite right. There hasn’t ever been a gay marriage, and there never will be. It’s impossible. That’s why I put in quotations… they support gay “marriage”, because it isn’t actually marriage.

Also, sorry for briefly deviating from the topic… 😛
 
I’m not advocating for civil unions, I didn’t even mention them in the OP. I’m not even directly advocating for the position I’m laying out here, I’m presenting it and asking if anyone knows whether or not this could be a viable strategy going forward in this battle for marriage.

My concern is this, do we allow an infected limb to potentially spread the infection throughout the whole body? Or do we amputate, cut our losses, and save the body by sacrificing a limb?

Government involvement in marriage is one of the primary means being used to use the force of government to persecute those who do not believe in homosexual marriage. We can combat this primarily in two ways, keep fighting an uphill legal battle where the society and government both seem against us, consequently the prospects of winning this battle look dim to me. Or we can try to end government involvement in civil marriage for the foreseeable future in order to protect people of faith and believers in traditional marriage from government persecution.

Perhaps at a time when distortions of God’s plan for marriage are not so rampant and widely accepted we could reincorporate civil marriage back into the civil law under this proposal of ending civil marriage. But to me, this is the question as I see it, which is worse, a government that has nothing to say on marriage, or a government that defines marriage in opposition to God’s law and uses this definition as a basis for persecuting those who disagree with it?

The motivation behind such a proposal isn’t to de-emphasize marriage, it’s to try and save marriage from being hijacked in the minds of the public by the government.
 
AaronsStaff said:
I’m not advocating for civil unions, I didn’t even mention them in the OP. I’m not even directly advocating for the position I’m laying out here, I’m presenting it and asking if anyone knows whether or not this could be a viable strategy going forward in this battle for marriage. …

Government involvement in marriage is one of the primary means being used to use the force of government to persecute those who do not believe in homosexual marriage. We can combat this primarily in two ways, keep fighting an uphill legal battle where the society and government both seem against us, consequently the prospects of winning this battle look dim to me. Or we can try to end government involvement in civil marriage for the foreseeable future in order to protect people of faith and believers in traditional marriage from government persecution. …
Click to expand...
It is not a viable strategy.

It would still have the authority to fight discrimination, as good authority. It would also have sill have the ability to abuse this authority to litigate and harass those who do not provide services to putatively married couples.
 
AaronsStaff said:
…
I don’t see bright prospects for gay marriage ever being outlawed, it seems to be increasing in popularity in this country, so I wonder if by doing away with civil marriage the Church and all others who support the traditional family can consolidate our stake in the society. It might also have a benefit of bringing fallen away Catholic back into the fold, where unable to get a justice of the peace to perform a civil marriage, they might return to the Church to get married. …

Or they could go to a “wedding chapel” and get “married” or have their uncle witness their putative vows. Without civil marriage, it becomes a total free for all.

Registering marriages in a central, public database is a morally positive action. It helps maintain the sanctity, but giving potential spouses the ability to verify that no prior marriages exist. Without this registry, records would be scattered at best; paper napkins issued at backyard picnics, print outs in “Klingon” from the internet, etc. Every time a wealthy person dies, putative spouses will pour out of the woodworks claiming to have married him or her at some point.

Abolishing civil recognition of marriage makes even less sense than replacing it with an artificial “civil union”.
Click to expand...
 
runningdude said:
Without civil marriage, it becomes a total free for all.
Click to expand...
As I said, Civil marriage does not have a long history in the western world (and it originated in the western world alone). It began in a small way in the 1750’s, and it didn’t become more popular until the 1860’s, in the wake of Europe’s wars of revolution.

My basic question, is: was it total free for all for roughly 1750 years of human history Anno Domini?
running dude:
Registering marriages in a central, public database is a morally positive action. It helps maintain the sanctity, but giving potential spouses the ability to verify that no prior marriages exist. Without this registry, records would be scattered at best; paper napkins issued at backyard picnics, print outs in “Klingon” from the internet, etc. Every time a wealthy person dies, putative spouses will pour out of the woodworks claiming to have married him or her at some point.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you’re beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Civil marriages don’t exist for any of those reasons. Those are marginal benefits at best. Civil marriages exist so th state can provide benefits to married persons. That’s why they were created anyways. So the government could get involved in marriage, because it wanted to provide financial incentives to increase populations devastated by war.

Again, while they were popularized in the late 1800s, they probably only eclipsed religious marriages in the wake of WWI.

In short, civil marriage is simply just one more area of life where the government has no business being.

As for records… are you claiming the Church couldn’t keep up with Sacramental records?
 
RC_Sojourner said:
I have seen articles in which this idea was thrown around. Certain circles of the clergy are reflecting on whether this is a way to go. And, just so we’re clear, they’re talking about the Catholic Church simply no longer recognizing civil marriages.

They’re not talking about changing the laws of the country to take away civil marriage. That is as out of our reach as defeating gay “marriage” in this country.
Click to expand...
I found the links that I was referencing here.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/11/the-crisis-of-a-second-obama-administration
ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/should-the-church-preemptively-withdraw-from-the-civil-marriage-business

From the first article: “If the Church were to take this dramatic step now, it would be acting prophetically: it would be challenging the state (and the culture) by underscoring that what the state means by “marriage” and what Catholics mean by “marriage” are radically different, and that what the state means by “marriage” is wrong. If, however, the Church is forced to take this step after “gay marriage” is the law of the land, Catholics will be pilloried as bad losers who’ve picked up their marbles and fled the game”and any witness-value to the Church’s withdrawal from the civil marriage business will be lost. Many thoughtful young priests are discussing this dramatic option among themselves; it’s time for the rest of the Church to join the conversation.”

From the second article: " Finally, I think it’s again important to remember that, in the battle for Marriage in this country, the front line is not the legal one.

Here’s the deal: This ship has been wrecked for decades.…and it’s like we’re arguing over whether floating debris should be defined as a lifeboat or not. This confusion on civil definition is not the root problem, it’s a product of the wreckage. People aren’t really changing how they feel about Marriage based on the civil definition.** They are changing the civil definition because their hearts have already long changed about Marriage.**"

I would agree with the second one. The Church isn’t going to be winning political battles in the country for a long time. The Church shouldn’t even fight political battles if it doesn’t have a likely chance of winning. It needs to fight the moral battles. The battles for men’s souls.

I understand that you want to avoid persecution. But, it is coming, and it would be better to accept that its coming and prepare for it, then try to avoid until it comes, and you’re completely unprepared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top