Marriage privatization

[Illmatic15]

Recently, the Supreme Court has been talking a lot about same-sex marriage, so I thought I would voice my opinion. For a little while I myself have been a proponent of marriage privatization. Today, state control of marriage is considered so normal and has caused so much controversy, but during the Middle Ages, a time where the Catholic Church dominated society, marriage was a private contract between two individuals. Marriage wasn’t a state institution, it was a religious one. But the rise of Protestantism helped to give the state more power than it previously had, as the power of the Church to limit the powers of these states decreased, and the state took it upon itself to regulate marriage. However, why do we need the state to define marriage for us? Has not the Church already done that for us? This is why I believe privatizing marriage would be the best idea. We would be putting marriage back in its rightful place: the Church. Canon law would regulate marriage for Catholics and people of other religions would be married in their own religious institutions. And same-sex couples will call their union “marriage”, but they would have no state recognition. What are your thoughts on this? Has the Church made any official statements on marriage privatization?

Pax Christi

 

[phil19034]

While it is a interesting concept, it will never happen. The problem is that back in the Middle Ages, Canon Law was also secular law. Today, this isn’t the case.

For example: the only reason why the Church defines legitimate vs illegitimate children is due to inheritance laws (mostly for royalty and nobility).

Governments are not going to want to get out of the marriage business due to inheritance law and child custody reasons, just to think of two (both of which the Church would have assisted with in the Middle Ages)

God Bless

 

[SuperLuigi]

Recently, the Supreme Court has been talking a lot about same-sex marriage, so I thought I would voice my opinion. For a little while I myself have been a proponent of marriage privatization. Today, state control of marriage is considered so normal and has caused so much controversy, but during the Middle Ages, a time where the Catholic Church dominated society, marriage was a private contract between two individuals. Marriage wasn’t a state institution, it was a religious one. But the rise of Protestantism helped to give the state more power than it previously had, as the power of the Church to limit the powers of these states decreased, and the state took it upon itself to regulate marriage. However, why do we need the state to define marriage for us? Has not the Church already done that for us? This is why I believe privatizing marriage would be the best idea. We would be putting marriage back in its rightful place: the Church. Canon law would regulate marriage for Catholics and people of other religions would be married in their own religious institutions. And same-sex couples will call their union “marriage”, but they would have no state recognition. What are your thoughts on this? Has the Church made any official statements on marriage privatization?

Pax Christi

Well, I’m open to the idea for damage control reasons. Especially in the First World, we need to be practical where are our lines are to be drawn and how to fend off attacks against traditional marriage and defend it.

The negative consequence is if the state recognition of marriage goes away, we lose on the incentive end and the state loses because it’s not promoting the best environment for children on an active basis.

But given the entitlement culture, that noble motive is blunted and twisted.

If state recognition of marriage goes away, it could take some of the momentum away from the gay and emerging polygamous “marriage” trend, although many would still argue for those “rights” since those really are about entitlement and looking good.

However, traditional, Christian, prayerful marriages would have an even more decisive advantage over playing house, relationships that violate natural law and even other marriages that frankly have more selfish motives that require state help often just to have a chance.

So I’m all in favor of evening the playing field. I’m just not sure if the exact morality of that would be okay.

 

[DrTaffy]

Today, state control of marriage is considered so normal and has caused so much controversy, but during the Middle Ages, a time where the Catholic Church dominated society, marriage was a private contract between two individuals. Marriage wasn’t a state institution, it was a religious one.

I would say the opposite. Even the word ‘marriage’ comes from the ancient roman Latin, where marriage was very definitely a civil legal affair. And very definitely regulated by the State. State regulation of marriages predates Christianity beyond all sane doubt.

Throughout much of the history of Christian culture, marriage was if anything explicitly non religious with the wedding taking place outside the church before a simple blessing ceremony within, as it was a carnal worldly affair. Only around the 12th century did a priest start officiating.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would say the opposite. Even the word ‘marriage’ comes from the ancient roman Latin, where marriage was very definitely a civil legal affair. And very definitely regulated by the State. State regulation of marriages predates Christianity beyond all sane doubt.

Throughout much of the history of Christian culture, marriage was if anything explicitly non religious with the wedding taking place outside the church before a simple blessing ceremony within, as it was a carnal worldly affair. Only around the 12th century did a priest start officiating.

It is not true to claim that marriage was “explicitly non religious” until the 12th century when priests started officiating. Marriage was considered a sacrament in the Church from the earliest times. In fact, even at the beginning of the second century in the epistle of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, he writes: “It becometh men and women, when they wed, to marry with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord and not after concupiscence”.

The religious significance of marriage was clearly explicated by Paul in Ephesians 5. It is not clear how Paul using the marriage between a man and a woman to be a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church makes marriage a “carnal, worldly affair.” Paul is holding up the marriage between two human beings to be a sign of God’s love for humanity.

Admittedly, that is a “carnal” affair since Christ gave his body and blood to mankind by incarnating and becoming flesh and blood. I think you are confusing the Church with Gnosticism, if you want to insist that the Church will have nothing directly to do with the physical, biological reality that is central to humanity. God became flesh and redeemed it - he didn’t eschew or lock it out of the Church.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is not true to claim that marriage was “explicitly non religious” until the 12th century when priests started officiating.

It is certainly true to say that we have no evidence of Christian priests being involved at all until then, and that the actual wedding was held outside the church. I believe they did not ‘officiate’ until a century later, and that marriage was not proclaimed a sacrament until the 15th century.

Marriage was considered a sacrament in the Church from the earliest times.

Well, that is the essential assertion, which flies in the face of everything I know of the actual history of marriage. What evidence do you have for this assertion? For that matter, do you claim that the institution of marriage began with Christianity, or did it precede it? Where do you think the word ‘marriage’ comes from?

Marriage was considered a sacrament in the Church from the earliest times. In fact, even at the beginning of the second century in the epistle of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, he writes: “It becometh men and women, when they wed, to marry with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord and not after concupiscence”.

How does that make it a ‘sacrament’?:ehh:

The religious significance of marriage was clearly explicated by Paul in Ephesians 5.

Again, nothing in that makes it a sacrament. In fact, Paul seems quite clear that marriage is at most second best to virginity.

It is not clear how Paul using the marriage between a man and a woman to be a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church makes marriage a “carnal, worldly affair.”

I never used Paul’s comparison to argue that. It is the fact that the wedding had to take place outside the church that was used to illustrate how marriage was seen as carnal and displaced from the church.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is certainly true to say that we have no evidence of Christian priests being involved at all until then, and that the actual wedding was held outside the church. I believe they did not ‘officiate’ until a century later, and that marriage was not proclaimed a sacrament until the 15th century.

Well, that is the essential assertion, which flies in the face of everything I know of the actual history of marriage. What evidence do you have for this assertion? For that matter, do you claim that the institution of marriage began with Christianity, or did it precede it? Where do you think the word ‘marriage’ comes from?

How does that make it a ‘sacrament’?:ehh:

Again, nothing in that makes it a sacrament.

Augustine:

“Undoubtedly the **substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, **nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).
“In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously” (ibid., 1:17:19).

 

[AyJSimon]

Recently, the Supreme Court has been talking a lot about same-sex marriage, so I thought I would voice my opinion. For a little while I myself have been a proponent of marriage privatization. Today, state control of marriage is considered so normal and has caused so much controversy, but during the Middle Ages, a time where the Catholic Church dominated society, marriage was a private contract between two individuals. Marriage wasn’t a state institution, it was a religious one. But the rise of Protestantism helped to give the state more power than it previously had, as the power of the Church to limit the powers of these states decreased, and the state took it upon itself to regulate marriage. However, why do we need the state to define marriage for us? Has not the Church already done that for us? This is why I believe privatizing marriage would be the best idea. We would be putting marriage back in its rightful place: the Church. Canon law would regulate marriage for Catholics and people of other religions would be married in their own religious institutions. And same-sex couples will call their union “marriage”, but they would have no state recognition. What are your thoughts on this? Has the Church made any official statements on marriage privatization?

Regardless of whether marriage was first conceived as a sacrament by Christian theology, or as a legal contract overseen by the State, I agree that marriage privatization would be the cleanest solution, in principle. The State should stop recognizing the validity of “marriages” and only recognize civil unions (as it relates to conferring benefits that were formerly given to marriages). Anyone who wants the State-conferred benefits formerly given to married couples would simply sign a civil union contract and file it with the appropriate State agency. Anyone who wants to be “married” need only find a Church willing to perform the ceremony. Outside of that, you correctly point out that same-sex couples (and pretty much all traditional couples) will call their own unions a ‘marriage’ whether or not they ever set foot inside a Church.

To me, this solution satisfies both the 14th Amendment Constitutional questions, and any legitimate “freedom of religion” concerns that actually exist.

 

[SMH_2015]

Politically, I am a conservative/libertarian, & have felt for several years that government has no “business” being in the marriage…well, business.

So, any couple who wants to be “married” or otherwise have their relationship blessed, goes to a church/temple/synagogue willing to do it.

Additionally, for protection of property rights, inheritance, custody of children, etc. etc., the couple also completes a contract specifying these details. Maybe this is done by a lawyer, maybe the couple goes to Legal Zoom (or similar) & does it themselves.

Done & done.

I won’t argue “it will never happen,” I’m just saying this would get Big Brother out of deciding who can “marry” who, & potentially forcing the govt’s decisions down the throats of churches.

JMHO.

 

[DrTaffy]

Augustine:

So, totally new evidence, totally new argument.

Not going there. Individual theologians have held all sorts of views, which prove nothing but could occupy pages of dispute.

But I will point out that it does nothing to change the fact that marriage was not regulated by the Church and indeed had to take place outside. Further, as it is you who are demanding that others (the state, indeed, so pretty much everyone) stop using the word ‘marriage’ and leave it to you, the burden of proof should be on you, surely?

Well, why? Evidence, please. Otherwise why should you not be the ones to find a new term as you are the ones who are apparently unwilling to share?

 

[DrTaffy]

Regardless of whether marriage was first conceived as a sacrament by Christian theology, or as a legal contract overseen by the State, I agree that marriage privatization would be the cleanest solution, in principle. The State should stop recognizing the validity of “marriages” and only recognize civil unions (as it relates to conferring benefits that were formerly given to marriages).

Except that if marriage originally referred to the legal civil arrangement, this means that you are ramming your (religious?) beliefs down my throat. Why should I accept this?

On the other hand, if the state merely recognises same sex marriage, nothing is being forced on you. No more than state recognition of remarried divorcees, or other religions’ marriages, or other religions in general, forces you to accept their validity. It just means that the state represents everyone, not just you, so should be impartial.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Except that if marriage originally referred to the legal civil arrangement, this means that you are ramming your (religious?) beliefs down my throat. Why should I accept this?

On the other hand, if the state merely recognises same sex marriage, nothing is being forced on you. No more than state recognition of remarried divorcees, or other religions’ marriages, or other religions in general, forces you to accept their validity. It just means that the state represents everyone, not just you, so should be impartial.

So somewhere along the line, the “state” decided that men and women should “get together” by legal fiat and produce children, look after those children and be a part of a long lineage of descendency that the state invented because… well… some state somewhere writ a law saying it should be so. That is the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard. Well, aside from the claim that two men or two women can be married.

 

[AyJSimon]

Except that if marriage originally referred to the legal civil arrangement, this means that you are ramming your (religious?) beliefs down my throat. Why should I accept this?

On the other hand, if the state merely recognises same sex marriage, nothing is being forced on you. No more than state recognition of remarried divorcees, or other religions’ marriages, or other religions in general, forces you to accept their validity. It just means that the state represents everyone, not just you, so should be impartial.

I have no religion, so my view isn’t based in that. Likewise, I have no problem if the State does recognize SSMs as equal to traditional marriages, and I agree that nothing of consequence is being forced on those who do have a problem with it.

I was merely pointing out that, even if we were to grant the rather ridiculous assertion that “marriage” was originally a religious institution, and even further grant that only religious entities have the right to decide (for everyone) what the definition of marriage is, there’s still a simple legal solution that satisfies all relevant Constitutional concerns. Just get government out of the ‘marriage’ business. Let the religious folks have it - they’ve been claiming all along that they own it, anyway. Meanwhile, the State can legitimize and recognize civil unions for all eligible couples who want access to the rights and benefits formerly conferred on “marriages.”

One additional point: The test of whether one given legal solution is better than another can’t be something like whether it “shoves one persons beliefs down another person’s throat.” I would argue that most (if not all) laws do this, almost by definition. Rather, the test should be what consequential changes (if any) to one person’s life result from one given law being enacted rather than another. This is why, when it comes to the SSM debate, arguments from Christians about violations of “religious freedom” hold no real weight, while arguments from gay people about being unjustly treated as 2nd class citizens actually matter.

Even to the extent that I believe the government should get out of the marriage business in favor of civil unions for all, I don’t see how it impacts your life whatever. Yes, it would be a historical departure - as I agree that the State did oversee what marriages were and weren’t before the Church got involved. But so what? Why must history be our decisive guide here? The same history would also show us that few, if any, societies have ever recognized SSM until recently, and fewer still saw them as equal to traditional marriages. When the religious raise this point, we have to remind them that what happened previously needn’t always happen presently - that it’s possible for certain semi-literate, superstitious societies have been wrong on questions like these. Or, at the very least, that it’s possible to have more than one answer that’s right.

 

[phil19034]

So, totally new evidence, totally new argument.

Not going there. Individual theologians have held all sorts of views, which prove nothing but could occupy pages of dispute.

But I will point out that it does nothing to change the fact that marriage was not regulated by the Church and indeed had to take place outside. Further, as it is you who are demanding that others (the state, indeed, so pretty much everyone) stop using the word ‘marriage’ and leave it to you, the burden of proof should be on you, surely?

Well, why? Evidence, please. Otherwise why should you not be the ones to find a new term as you are the ones who are apparently unwilling to share?

If your argument was true (which it is not), then why does the Assyrian Church of the East, which separated from the Catholic Church after the First Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, have 7 sacraments and matrimony is one of them? Same with the Oriental Orthodox who separated the the Catholic Church after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Plus, the Eastern Orthodox who separated from the Catholic Church in 1054.

All of these Churches have 7 sacraments and marriage is one of the .

So your argument that the church has nothing to do with marriage until later is simply false.

 

[DrTaffy]

So somewhere along the line, the “state” decided that men and women should “get together” by legal fiat and produce children, look after those children and be a part of a long lineage of descendency that the state invented because… well… some state somewhere writ a law saying it should be so. That is the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard. Well, aside from the claim that two men or two women can be married.

Well, I imagine that men and women were getting together long before the state existed. As, probably, were a smaller number of men and men or women and women. For reasons which are less obvious but for which many explanations have been proposed. And even same sex couples end up raising children.

Not my business. But regulating the affairs of such people living together or raising kids is the business of the state. Whatever their gender.

Hence marriage. Hence my objecting to you demanding that I withhold that legal institution from same sex couples apparently to comply with your religious beliefs. Which neither I nor they (presumably) share.

 

[DrTaffy]

I have no religion, so my view isn’t based in that.

Fair enough. Clarification (and a recurrent bugbear of mine): “you” in that sentence was not intended to refer to you personally.

So my point was that your alleged solution actually validates the anti gay position by effectively granting that they have some ‘ownership’ of the term marriage. Which I don’t believe to be true.

One additional point: The test of whether one given legal solution is better than another can’t be something like whether it “shoves one persons beliefs down another person’s throat.” I would argue that most (if not all) laws do this, almost by definition.

Again, depending on nuance we may not disagree. But actually I think that finding a set of laws that imposes other beliefs on others to the minimum extent necessary is a very good legal maxim.

Consider anti discrimination laws. These have come up here repeatedly. To what extent should Christians be forced to not discriminate against homosexuals? I would say to the minimum extent necessary to protect gays from unfair discrimination.

 

[DrTaffy]

If your argument was true (which it is not), then why does the Assyrian Church of the East, which separated from the Catholic Church after the First Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, have 7 sacraments and matrimony is one of them?

Why shouldn’t they? It is not as though the different Christian churches evolved in a vacuum- there has been continual intercourse between them.

But this is something of a red herring. Please forget whether or not marriage is or was always a ‘sacrament’ - my point was whether it was regulated by the Church. Or not.

 

[phil19034]

Why shouldn’t they? It is not as though the different Christian churches evolved in a vacuum- there has been continual intercourse between them.

But this is something of a red herring. Please forget whether or not marriage is or was always a ‘sacrament’ - my point was whether it was regulated by the Church. Or not.

It was regulated by canon law until the Protestant Revolution. Remember, that the state and Church were closely intertwined. There was a true Christendom for centuries.

The state sometimes acted as agents of the Church, and sometimes bishops/priests of the Church acted as agents of the state.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why shouldn’t they? It is not as though the different Christian churches evolved in a vacuum- there has been continual intercourse between them.

But this is something of a red herring. Please forget whether or not marriage is or was always a ‘sacrament’ - my point was whether it was regulated by the Church. Or not.

Well all sacraments have a specific set of guidelines regarding who and how they are to be administered and received. If that isn’t “regulated” please provide a definition of what you mean by the term.

If you are claiming that Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, and Anointing of the Sick were not “regulated” by restrictions on who and how they were to be received, you don’t really understand what a sacrament is and how the Church has always had regulations around each of them. If nothing else, the Church has always viewed sacraments under the rubric of her stewardship and administered them as an aspect of the keys which open and close the storehouse of graces which form an important part of the unique administrative endowment with which she is tasked.

 

[AyJSimon]

Fair enough. Clarification (and a recurrent bugbear of mine): “you” in that sentence was not intended to refer to you personally.

So my point was that your alleged solution actually validates the anti gay position by effectively granting that they have some ‘ownership’ of the term marriage. Which I don’t believe to be true.

Maybe so, but again, so what? For all practical purposes, claiming to own the concept of “marriage” is like owning “air.” South Dakota can say they own the air we breathe, and we can even pretend to agree with them, but for all practical purposes, they don’t. We’re all breathing it, regardless of what South Dakota has to say about it. Same with marriage - no Christian church really owns it, but even if we said they did, they have no authority to decide it for anyone else outside of their own walls.

Again, depending on nuance we may not disagree. But actually I think that finding a set of laws that imposes other beliefs on others to the minimum extent necessary is a very good legal maxim.

Consider anti discrimination laws. These have come up here repeatedly. To what extent should Christians be forced to not discriminate against homosexuals? I would say to the minimum extent necessary to protect gays from unfair discrimination.

That’s all fine. What I’m arguing is that getting government out of the “marriage” business and giving it back to the Church is equivalent to expanding the government’s definition of marriage to include gay couples, in terms of imposing one set of beliefs on others to the minimum extent necessary.