Separation of religious and civil marriage

[Bradski]

Why not separate religious and civil marriages? Those who want to get married in a church, in the eyes of God, who fulfill the requirements of that particular religion, can do so. The rest can get a civil marriage.

The following is part of a proposed pledge that appeared in First Things an online magazine self described as ‘America’s most influential journal of religion and public life’. A Time to Rend | R. R. Reno | First Things

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles *articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

 

[PRmerger]

Why not separate religious and civil marriages? Those who want to get married in a church, in the eyes of God, who fulfill the requirements of that particular religion, can do so. The rest can get a civil marriage.

The following is part of a proposed pledge that appeared in First Things an online magazine self described as ‘America’s most influential journal of religion and public life’. A Time to Rend | R. R. Reno | First Things

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles *articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

How would that work? If someone got married only in a religious ceremony, would she have any civil rights as a married woman?

If someone got married only civilly, but not religiously, would she still demand to be considered part of her religious organization?

 

[Bradski]

How would that work? If someone got married only in a religious ceremony, would she have any civil rights as a married woman?

If someone got married only civilly, but not religiously, would she still demand to be considered part of her religious organization?

As far as the first goes, you’d have to get civil registration as well. The priest (in agreeing to that pledge) removes himself from the process of signing the civil documentation (I was going to say himself/herself then I remembered which forum I was on).

If you check the linked article, part of it says:

…he should simply refuse the government’s delegation of legal power, referring the couple to the courthouse after the wedding for the state to confect in its bureaucratic way the amorphous and ill-defined civil union that our regime continues to call “marriage.”

In the second, that would be a matter for that particular religion. How does it work now if a Catholic marries in a civil ceremony?

 

[Origen52]

This is how it used to be done in Italy, and I think France still has two marriages, one civil, one religious. If you only have a religious marriage, you would be considered as living common law by the state. Priests would not be allowed to issue civil marriage licenses as they do now.

 

[Lek]

Actually, I believe that the government has no right at all to declare who is married and who is not. I think a civil contract is necessary to protect the civil rights of the two adults involved, for the protection of children and to receive tax benefits, etc… This contract doesn’t constitute marriage though. Marriage is a moral contract just between the two persons involved, in the sight of God. It would still be necessary for the couple who are married in the church to enter into a civil contract for the reasons stated above, but priests, pastors, etc. would not be a part of that process.

 

[powerofk]

This is how it used to be done in Italy, and I think France still has two marriages, one civil, one religious. If you only have a religious marriage, you would be considered as living common law by the state. Priests would not be allowed to issue civil marriage licenses as they do now.

This was traditionally how it was done, period. The civil papers were signed in front of the church doors, and then the couple would enter the church to profess church vows. It’s mentioned in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in the “Wife of Bath’s Tale” (she was widowed many times, and it was hinted that she could have been a so-called “Black Widow”)

 

[twf]

This is how it is in a number of countries. I strongly support this approach, especially in light of the introduction of “gay marriage” in most of the developed world. In Mexico and France the civil marriage is a separate ceremony from the religious ceremony.

 

[twf]

As far as the first goes, you’d have to get civil registration as well. The priest (in agreeing to that pledge) removes himself from the process of signing the civil documentation (I was going to say himself/herself then I remembered which forum I was on).

If you check the linked article, part of it says:

…he should simply refuse the government’s delegation of legal power, referring the couple to the courthouse after the wedding for the state to confect in its bureaucratic way the amorphous and ill-defined civil union that our regime continues to call “marriage.”

In the second, that would be a matter for that particular religion. How does it work now if a Catholic marries in a civil ceremony?

Exactly right, the second scenario already comes up frequently. A Catholic who contracts a civil marriage, without the religious ceremony, is not truly married from the Church’s perspective. Catholics are bound by Catholic canon law regarding marriage. (This is not, however, true for non-Catholics…the Church recognizes the civil marriages of non-Catholics). A Catholic who finds him or herself in this situation can have the marriage 'convalidated" in a very simple ceremony in the Church. In extreme cases, say if one of the spouses is completely opposed to a Catholic ceremony of any sort, the bishop can validate the marriage retroactively upon the basis of the vows originally exchanged during the civil ceremony. This is called radical sanation.

 

[Rau]

How does it work now if a Catholic marries in a civil ceremony?

The State deems the person married. The Church deems the person unmarried, and by engaging in sexual relations, to be sinning. Catholics are bound to marry before a Priest (ie. in the Church).

 

[Rau]

Actually, I believe that the government has no right at all to declare who is married and who is not. I think a civil contract is necessary to protect the civil rights of the two adults involved, for the protection of children and to receive tax benefits, etc… This contract doesn’t constitute marriage though. Marriage is a moral contract just between the two persons involved, in the sight of God. It would still be necessary for the couple who are married in the church to enter into a civil contract for the reasons stated above, but priests, pastors, etc. would not be a part of that process.

You are right that the legal provisions layered onto marriage by the State are not the essence of marriage, but are attached by the State. The mutual promises between a Man and a Woman are the essential elements, and are sensibly made before witnesses. It is hardly surprising that the State sets some requirements for how this is to be done, in view of the civil/legal provisions that attach to married persons.

 

[Rau]

This is how it is in a number of countries. I strongly support this approach, especially in light of the introduction of “gay marriage” in most of the developed world. In Mexico and France the civil marriage is a separate ceremony from the religious ceremony.

The only reason I’ve heard for why the Church should give up its capacity to represent the State in the matter of marriage is due to a concern that the State may compel it to provide marriage services to “all comers”.

It is equally true that the State could take the sensible road and make clear that the criteria by which clergy determine for whom they shall officiate at a marriage is a matter for the clergy and the rules of their Church. The Church is not in the “business” of managing State processes - it does this merely to streamline the process for the couple (and for the State).

To my mind, separating the 2 “processes” achieves nothing, and may give the (false) impression that a civil marriage (eg. for non-Catholics) is a lesser marriage.

 

[shockerfan]

Why not do this:

1. remove the government from the marriage business. No more government recognized marriages for anyone
2. Allow every adult the right to declare one other adult their “government recognized beneficiary”. This will take care of all the civil aspects of the benefits of marriage, without calling it a “marriage”, a “union” or some other similar term. They could file joint tax returns, have automatic power-of-attorney, etc.
3. This would also allow, for example, two unmarried sisters to get civil benefits that they would not have otherwise been allowed to get. There should not be a governmental requirement that in order to get benefits you have to have sex with one else.
4. Marriages would remain in the realm of religious institutions…were it belongs.

thoughts?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Why not do this:

1. remove the government from the marriage business. No more government recognized marriages for anyone
2. Allow every adult the right to declare one other adult their “government recognized beneficiary”. This will take care of all the civil aspects of the benefits of marriage, without calling it a “marriage”, a “union” or some other similar term. They could file joint tax returns, have automatic power-of-attorney, etc.
3. This would also allow, for example, two unmarried sisters to get civil benefits that they would not have otherwise been allowed to get. There should not be a governmental requirement that in order to get benefits you have to have sex with one else.
4. Marriages would remain in the realm of religious institutions…were it belongs.

thoughts?

Well, the government interest in marriage is it’s interest in stability of the family-- and the care, financial support of all parties in the event of a dissolution of the marriage. That is, the kids and low income spouse not going on welfare and becoming a burden on the taxpayer. As well as upholding the rights of both parents to have custody/access to their children.

Now, you could provide for those issues via contract between the parties instead of a marriage license. Realize, a lot of legal rights and obligations are linked to the marriage license and being legally married. So if you do away with marriage as a legal term/status you eliminate the vehicle through which those are established for the parties. You could replace a marriage license with a civil partnership contract which would define on a tailored basis both the rights/obligations for that particular couple as well as the terms/conditions for a dissolution. Individuals could choose to not allow a no-fault dissolution, or dictate the terms for that type. That is, the low income spouse would not be entitled to the financial benefits they’d become accustomed to under the contract if they seek to be released from its obligations/responsibilities. Similarly, the higher income spouse could be required to continue to provide an income to the lower income should they decide they no longer wanted to fulfill the other obligations but the lower income spouse had abided by all the terms of the contract faithfully.

So, marriage would become a religious term/ceremony/status which individuals observe according to their faith and providing no legal status.

 

[shockerfan]

Well, the government interest in marriage is it’s interest in stability of the family-- and the care, financial support of all parties in the event of a dissolution of the marriage. That is, the kids and low income spouse not going on welfare and becoming a burden on the taxpayer. As well as upholding the rights of both parents to have custody/access to their children.

Now, you could provide for those issues via contract between the parties instead of a marriage license. Realize, a lot of legal rights and obligations are linked to the marriage license and being legally married. So if you do away with marriage as a legal term/status you eliminate the vehicle through which those are established for the parties. You could replace a marriage license with a civil partnership contract which would define on a tailored basis both the rights/obligations for that particular couple as well as the terms/conditions for a dissolution. Individuals could choose to not allow a no-fault dissolution, or dictate the terms for that type. That is, the low income spouse would not be entitled to the financial benefits they’d become accustomed to under the contract if they seek to be released from its obligations/responsibilities. Similarly, the higher income spouse could be required to continue to provide an income to the lower income should they decide they no longer wanted to fulfill the other obligations but the lower income spouse had abided by all the terms of the contract faithfully.

So, marriage would become a religious term/ceremony/status which individuals observe according to their faith and providing no legal status.

In my scenario, there would be a standard set of rights, currently offered to partners in a civil marriage, that beneficiaries would get. My idea would actually increase the number of people with benefits by offering them to any 2 people…not just people who sleep together. My solution also eliminates the need to debate what a marriage is, since the government no longer calls anyone “married”…you would now be a citizen with a primary beneficiary. (My terminology might need to be changed, but hopefully you can see where I’m going with this)

 

[styrgwillidar]

In my scenario, there would be a standard set of rights, currently offered to partners in a civil marriage, that beneficiaries would get. My idea would actually increase the number of people with benefits by offering them to any 2 people…not just people who sleep together. My solution also eliminates the need to debate what a marriage is, since the government no longer calls anyone “married”…you would now be a citizen with a primary beneficiary. (My terminology might need to be changed, but hopefully you can see where I’m going with this)

I see where you’re going, and I think we’re kind of on the same line of thinking.

Except, I don’t think there should be a ‘standard’ government defined responsibilities/obligations rights. I believe it should be an individual contract. In reality, it will be like any other common legal agreement with templates with most considerations included, things like making that person the ‘standard’ beneficiary for things now established by marriage, making them your advocate in medical matters, right to be informed of medical condition etc. But I think for a lot of folks getting into a partnership, having to go through what rights/obligations are include and pre-agreeing to how a dissolution would work would make them think far more seriously about the practical aspects of partnership vice the romantic notion of ‘marriage’. I think a couple of generations ago folks thought a lot more about the practical aspects of marriage and less about the romance then people do now.

 

[Thorolfr]

We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles *articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Don’t ministers/priests/pastors already have the right to preside only at those weddings which meet the criteria of their church or denomination? As it is, for example, no Catholic priest would be forced to marry a same-sex couple, but a Lutheran pastor (ELCA) could do so since the ELCA allows this.

 

[shockerfan]

I see where you’re going, and I think we’re kind of on the same line of thinking.

Except, I don’t think there should be a ‘standard’ government defined responsibilities/obligations rights. I believe it should be an individual contract. In reality, it will be like any other common legal agreement with templates with most considerations included, things like making that person the ‘standard’ beneficiary for things now established by marriage, making them your advocate in medical matters, right to be informed of medical condition etc. But I think for a lot of folks getting into a partnership, having to go through what rights/obligations are include and pre-agreeing to how a dissolution would work would make them think far more seriously about the practical aspects of partnership vice the romantic notion of ‘marriage’. I think a couple of generations ago folks thought a lot more about the practical aspects of marriage and less about the romance then people do now.

good points.

I would be willing to bet, however, that those in favor of same sex marriage would not like this idea. I think the aspect of wanting their union to be considered equivalent in society to a tradition marriage is a very strong factor.

 

[Thorolfr]

good points.

I would be willing to bet, however, that those in favor of same sex marriage would not like this idea. I think the aspect of wanting their union to be considered equivalent in society to a tradition marriage is a very strong factor.

There are more and more Protestant denominations that are willing to give same-sex couples a church wedding which is considered equivalent by those denominations to those they give to heterosexual couples.

 

[Bradski]

Don’t ministers/priests/pastors already have the right to preside only at those weddings which meet the criteria of their church or denomination?

Yes, and I support that right as well. I think they included it just as a clarification. The main point of the pledge was to assert that they wouldn’t involve themselves in the civil requirements of a marriage.

I think the reason behind it is to emphasise that they consider the religious component of marriage to be the only one worth considering. Although it comes across to me as if they are admitting that the barbarians are at the gates and there’s no stopping them, so let’s get in the church and barricade the doors. The devil can take the rest…

 

[shockerfan]

There are more and more Protestant denominations that are willing to give same-sex couples a church wedding which is considered equivalent by those denominations to those they give to heterosexual couples.

Free country…

I do expect some type of legal attack against the Catholic Church and other churches who do not capitulate. There are some people who just can’t stand that others won’t accept and celebrate same sex unions as 100% equivalent as to Marriage.