I agree with you 100%. The government needs to be out of the marriage business this country and really the world are heading down a very dark path in regards to marriage. Today it is gay marriage, tomorrow plural marriages then who knows how some group will define the institution.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
Also, we can see the idea of involving the state smells of Protestantism:One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts. During the Middle Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth, and these early pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different royal families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms. The church resisted these imposed unions, and increased the number of causes for nullification of these arrangements.[284] As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages, the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and spread with it.
I will admit however that the issue that I’m having trouble with is gay adoption. I think marriage privatization best fits Catholic history and subsidiarity, but if anyone can find a solution to the gay adoption question I would appreciate it.As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther’s view that marriage was a “worldly thing”.[305] By the 17th century, many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage.
:clapping:let’s get something straight…
First, neither the state nor the church “created” marriage.
Marriage is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs in a similar way that language is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs.
No one at the dawn of time sat down with a blue-ribbon committee of sociologists, religious leaders and politicians to create marriage.
Marriage grows out of a natural affinity and complementarity of male and female – in other words, the ways in which one gender completes the other emotionally, spiritually and physically.
While the state/government did not create marriage it is vital for the state/government to recognize and defend the institution of marriage because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage.
Society, and the government it creates, has a legitimate responsibility to protect and regulate the institution of marriage. This responsibility exists, at least in part, to protect the vulnerability that arises, especially for women, when a man and a woman have an intimate relationship that of its nature has the potential for children. What sets the sexual union between a man and a woman apart from any other union – sexual or non-sexual – is the potential to bring forth new human life or lives. This makes the relationship uniquely vulnerable for everyone involved.
The state must have the responsibility to protect women and children and at least set a reasonable age for marriage.
Additionally, pre-existing, incurable physical defects and incapacities which render a party unable to consummate the marriage, are, under most statutes, (secular and religious) grounds for annulment.
Thank you Peter…that means a lot…coming from you. :thankyou::clapping:
An additional resource for you to refine your case…Thank you Peter…that means a lot…coming from you. :thankyou:
Agree with all of that but the state will say that is the Catholic Church’s teleological meaning of marriage. The state’s teleological meaning (of the good life which includes the institute of marriage) does not include procreation but only a loving commitment between individuals. It does not include procreation because the current practice of marriage by the state does not require it. Heterosexual couples are not asked by the state of their ability or intention to procreate. Fertility is not a condition for marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce.Let’s get something straight…
First, neither the state nor the Church “created” marriage.
Marriage is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs in a similar way that language is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs.
No one at the dawn of time sat down with a blue-ribbon committee of sociologists, religious leaders and politicians to create marriage.
Marriage grows out of a natural affinity and complementarity of male and female – in other words, the ways in which one gender completes the other emotionally, spiritually and physically.
While the state/government did not create marriage it is vital for the state/government to recognize and defend the institution of marriage because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage.
Society, and the government it creates, has a legitimate responsibility to protect and regulate the institution of marriage. This responsibility exists, at least in part, to protect the vulnerability that arises, especially for women, when a man and a woman have an intimate relationship that of its nature has the potential for children. What sets the sexual union between a man and a woman apart from any other union – sexual or non-sexual – is the potential to bring forth new human life or lives. This makes the relationship uniquely vulnerable for everyone involved.
The state MUST have the responsibility to protect women and children and at least set a reasonable age for marriage.
Additionally, pre-existing, incurable physical defects and incapacities which render a party unable to consummate the marriage, are, under most statutes, (Secular and religious) grounds for annulment.
Watched this video and that’s exactly right - it’s all about social approval. Prestige should be given to a man and a woman because of the procreative factor that is necessary for the survival of the species. Prestige should be given priority until it is no longer necessary that everyone who marries reproduce in order to ensure the survival of the species. One could argue that is now the case, and according to the state, it really has nothing to do with procreation (see Goodridge vs. Dept of Public Health 2003).
That was in Massachusetts. Some states require the marriage to be consummated before it becomes legal. Many states hold that non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for annulment.Agree with all of that but the state will say that is the Catholic Church’s teleological meaning of marriage. The state’s teleological meaning (of the good life which includes the institute of marriage) does not include procreation but only a loving commitment between individuals. It does not include procreation because the current practice of marriage by the state does not require it. Heterosexual couples are not asked by the state of their ability or intention to procreate. Fertility is not a condition for marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce.
Btw, that was not my line of reasoning but the ruling by justice Margaret Marshall in the Goodridge v Dept. of Public Health Supreme Court case back in 2003.