Scandal and Civil Unions

[timreg]

This is a hypothetical situation that I was debating last night with a few friends. It concerns the civil union laws that have been passed in some states including my own, NJ. First we wanted to understand what the law actually says and basically it says:

1. Civil unions give the same legal priviledges to same-sex couples that marriage partners enjoy.
2. The same restrictions as marriage apply. You can not form a civil union with a person who is a close blood relative. You can not enter into a civil union with someone who is already in a civil union with another person or married to another person. You likewise can not marry someone who is in a party to civil union with another person.

Given that we all agree that civil unions should not be allowed, the debate was about whether, since the state does allow it, there is ever a situation where one can form one with a clear moral conscience.

My friend came up with a hypothetical that supposes there was a person in a foreign country starving to death or being persecuted and you wanted to find a way to bring them to the United States. The same question could be posed for marriage I suppose. Would it ever be morally acceptable to enter into a legal marriage in order to bring that person legally to the United States? Would it make any moral difference if it was a marriage of convenience with these pretenses or a civil union instead?

One argued that it was more scandalous to have a civil union with this person than a marriage. Another said it was worse to abuse the institution of marriage for this purpose than to abuse a legal arrangement recently made up by modern culture that doesn’t really deserve respect anyway, other than a basic respect for the law.

There is at least one bishop who has said that entering into a civil union causes grave scandal. I’m not too familiar with the notion of scandal but it seems to be an action that leads other people into sin, and if you are giving acceptance to a homosexual lifestyle by doing this then I can see how that would be scandalous. But can this scandal be avoided and are there other reasons for scandal in this case, like how it affects the dignity of marriage irregardless of whether the pair is homosexual?

Is it possible to be in a civil union without demonstrating acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle? What if, for example, it was well known that the two partners were not homosexual? Perhaps they only want to enter into the arrangement to enjoy the legal advantages? It might make it very obvious to people at large that the couple was not gay if one or both partners had a relationship with a member of the opposite sex but I think that would cause other issues. A civil union arrangement means you can not get married until you disolve the civil union, so if you are discerning marriage with someone it is counterintuitive to have that legal barrier in place.

So perhaps instead there are two friends of the same sex who both discern a call to be single in order to serve God outside of a marriage commitment. They further discern that they want to serve the Lord together and live in close Christian community with one another, and that forming a civil union could help facilitate this arrangement. Neither has any homosexual tendencies so I don’t think there could be any occasion of sin inherent in the relationship itself. Is there a way to avoid the scandal that would normally result by explaining what they did and why to people, or even by just keeping the civil union arrangement secret?

Thanks for any answers, especially expert ones.

Tim

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

The primary purpose of civil unions is to provide legal recognition to homosexual couples. I would think that, this being the case, any civil union you enter into, for whatever reason, is likely to cause scandal. (If the primary purpose is not for homosexual unions, then the question may become more complicated – in some European countries, civil unions are open to homosexual or heterosexual couples and among the latter they’re becoming nearly as popular as marriage. They’re still meant as an alternative to marriage, though, so for that reason you could still cause scandal by contracting one.)

Your first hypothetical is lacking because at the moment having a civil union (or same-sex marriage) with a foreigner does not allow you to sponsor them for immigration to the US. Whether contracting a regular, legal heterosexual marriage with such a person for the purpose you describe would be sinful is an interesting question which would greatly depend on the political and legal particulars of the situation. In a country like Canada which does grant visas for homosexual partners, if for some reason that was the only way to get your friend to safety and he faced certain death otherwise, I imagine it could be done without sin.

In your second hypothetical, your civil union would serve the legitimate, if somewhat tendentious, purpose of making it impossible for you to marry. Still, the vast majority of civil unions being for homosexual couples and your intended purpose not in any sense a matter of life or death, the scandal your union would cause should dissuade you from doing it. If great numbers of people began entering into civil unions for the purpose you describe (it’s hard to imagine, although I suppose stranger things have happened), then perhaps the scandal would dissipate, but if it’s not already an established and well-known practice than you shouldn’t do it.

 

[mab23]

interesting questions!!!

im curious is accepting a homosexual lifesyle as stated above mean

accepting and taking on a homosexual lifestyle or accepting the lifestyle of gay people and treating them just the same you would any other person - with respect?

 

[thistle]

So the expression “civil union” applies only to same sexes?

Is a civil union not also a couple (man and woman) who have a civil marriage?

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

So the expression “civil union” applies only to same sexes?

Is a civil union not also a couple (man and woman) who have a civil marriage?

No, legally they’re different things, although the rights they confer are supposed to be roughly equivalent. In some jurisdictions where they exist, civil unions are open to heterosexual couples, but in most they’re only for same-sex couples.

 

[thistle]

No, legally they’re different things, although the rights they confer are supposed to be roughly equivalent. In some jurisdictions where they exist, civil unions are open to heterosexual couples, but in most they’re only for same-sex couples.

So I don’t misunderstand are you saying that a heterosexual couple who have a civil marriage are not in a civil union because civil marriage and civil union are different things?

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

So I don’t misunderstand are you saying that a heterosexual couple who have a civil marriage are not in a civil union because civil marriage and civil union are different things?

That is correct.