Separation of religious and civil marriage

[Rau]

That might be true as far as a religious ceremony goes. The couple are simply making a public declaration of their commitment. In a church or before a priest. Or in the eyes of God, if you prefer. But the state, as you say below, binds the two together in a legal sense as well.

That the Church and the State “witness and declare” - they don’t “do” anything to the parties - is true in all cases. The legal position arises as a consequence of the marriage (when it is accepted by the State). Your marriage is not created by the legal provisions that the State applies. After all, these evolve overtime.

And what do most jurisdictions call such a legal arrangement.

When there was a one to one mapping between the legal arrangement and the Marriage, using the same term appears entirely natural. It’s when two men (or some other grouping) want to assert marriage that problems arise. For if they can, so can Father and Son, Mother and Daughter, Sister and Sister, 3 best friends, and so on. Now I see no issue whatsoever with groupings such as these - and indeed others - incurring the same/similar legal provisions as the State today applies to people who are Married.

In an earlier post I made the point that the essence of marriage is the underlying bond between man+woman, which is a unique sexual bond arising from our very nature, our very bodies even, that no other grouping can replicate. It is clear to me that the potential bonds in the prior paragraph are simply not the same, though the State may see fit to layer on the same or similar legal provisions. But to reuse the existing notion of “marriage” amounts to the State asserting something about the nature of the underlying bond that is absurd.

By the way, from your posts, you appear to regard the use of the term marriage for all these relationship types as a mere convenience, or somewhat arbitrary. I assume therefore you would personally be entirely relaxed if “Marriage” was kept for the “man+woman” relationship and another term used for the others?

I think this point [that the marriage bond is distinct from the legal framework] is the one flying under the radar of most Catholics. Same sex couples would like to use the term marriage because it implies a lifetime commitment – which they feel they are making.

If you lean to the pre-eminence of the State’s dictates, “lifetime commitment” is an odd thing to highlight, given divorce is a straightforward State procedure! Far more prominent I would have thought is the idea that marriage connotes an exclusive sexual union of huge significance to future generations. That is the case in the pairing of “man+woman” - but that is the only grouping for which that can be said.

 

[1newcatholic]

Again, a trenchant question: why should gov’t be involved in 2 men wanting to make a lifetime commitment?

For the same reason that it gets involved with any two adults who want to form a legal union.

 

[Rau]

For the same reason that it gets involved with any two adults who want to form a legal union.

Do you mean like a business partnership?

 

[1newcatholic]

Do you mean like a business partnership?

Yeah I know a few marriages that are like a business partnership.

 

[Rau]

Yeah I know a few marriages that are like a business partnership.

In the context of this thread - I don’t know what point you are making.

 

[SMGS127]

But why should the government be in the business of recognizing lifetime commitments?

We no more need this than we need a government registry for best friends.

Again, a trenchant question: why should gov’t be involved in 2 men wanting to make a lifetime commitment?

Because it provides an actuarial benefit to society. Married people live longer and healthier, give adopted children better homes, and use public services less. It provides a ton of health to society, even when sex has no involvement whatsoever in it.

 

[1newcatholic]

In the context of this thread - I don’t know what point you are making.

Excellent.

 

[Bradski]

By the way, from your posts, you appear to regard the use of the term marriage for all these relationship types as a mere convenience, or somewhat arbitrary. I assume therefore you would personally be entirely relaxed if “Marriage” was kept for the “man+woman” relationship and another term used for the others?

If you lean to the pre-eminence of the State’s dictates, “lifetime commitment” is an odd thing to highlight, given divorce is a straightforward State procedure! Far more prominent I would have thought is the idea that marriage connotes an exclusive sexual union of huge significance to future generations. That is the case in the pairing of “man+woman” - but that is the only grouping for which that can be said.

Yes, the term ‘marriage’ is a convenience. It means different things to different people. It can mean a lifetime commitment, a legally binding arrangement between two people, a vow made before God. What I mean by it is certainly different to what you mean by it. You may not consider me married if you knew my personal details but if I say I am, then it’s a shorthand method of explaining my relationship with my significant other. Nothing more.

Therefore, I don’t consider your definition to be exclusive to all others so I would be far from relaxed if you were to tell me that I could only use it in a way that you proscribe. I will use it as I see fit and I will allow, indeed I will insist, that you use it in any way you find suitable.

 

[Rau]

Therefore, I don’t consider your definition to be exclusive to all others…

That the uniqueness in all creation of the exclusive bond between 1 man and 1 woman could be denied…that it would not be glaringly apparent…is remarkable.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it provides an actuarial benefit to society. Married people live longer and healthier, give adopted children better homes, and use public services less. It provides a ton of health to society, even when sex has no involvement whatsoever in it.

Then should the government be in the business of registering friendships?

Friendships are also beneficial to society.

 

[frobert]

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.

You would loose that bet. The separation of state and religious ceremonies is a good idea, I can not imagine any circumstances in which the state gives up their right to define a civil marriage and call it a marriage.

 

[frobert]

No, its a new institution with a new purpose. Marriage is a sexual union which only makes sense in the context of man + woman. This is inescapable.

I can point out that the State speaks nonsense when it seeks to broaden marriage to that which it plainly is not. The two unions in question aren’t the same thing. I understand you want them to be., and that desire goes beyond some mere access to civil/legal outcomes. But the requirements and demands of nature can’t be overcome. Same sex couples or other groupings who wish legal rights and protections to be afforded to them (as a couple or a group) should seek the appropriate accommodation.

My “attitude” is that:

1. Sexual relationships are only moral between man+woman who are commited via Marriage; This is a matter for individuals personally, however, and not a matter for the State to take any position on.
2. Only man+woman can marry - as dictated by its, and our, very nature. Any other groupings are at liberty to live together, share assets, care for each other mutually and so forth, and I have no objection to the State providing legal support as required.

You seem to be referring to the “concept” of marriage between one man and one woman as an indisputable fact when in reality it is a religious value judgement. Where the many cultures that have held varying concepts of marriage throughout the ages speaking nonsense?

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to be referring to the “concept” of marriage between one man and one woman as an indisputable fact when in reality it is a religious value judgement. Where the many cultures that have held varying concepts of marriage throughout the ages speaking nonsense?

It is no more a religious concept than the Church declaring that rape is wrong is a religious concept.

 

[shockerfan]

You would loose that bet. The separation of state and religious ceremonies is a good idea, I can not imagine any circumstances in which the state gives up their right to define a civil marriage and call it a marriage.

Not sure if you are getting my point: Those in favor of redefining marriage to be “any 2 people” as opposed to our historical definition of 1 man + 1 woman, would be against any type of change that does not contribute to man+man or woman+woman not being equal to man+woman. This is why they will (mark my word) use the power of the state to go after churches who hold to man+woman as being the only real definition of marriage. (Actually, its already starting. The Mayor of Houston tried to subpoena speeches and sermons from ministers who opposed her Equal Rights Ordinance. We also have the two Christian ministers who own a for-profit chapel being told they must perform gay weddings.

I say lets stop the fight over redefining words…let every citizen have a primary beneficiary…give everybody the exact same rights as beneficiaries…and call it a day.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12524248:

If you were trying to say that homosexuals may not describe their feelings for each other as ‘love’ and should come up with another word because you ‘own’ the word ‘love’, then yes.

Thankfully, no Catholic teaching has ever proposed that homosexuals can’t describe their feelings as 'love".

Were you operating under some weird misapprehension that Catholic teaching declares that homosexuals can’t describe their feelings as “love”?

Are you operating under some weird reading disability that prevents you from understanding the first, two-letter word in my sentence? :ehh:

If you are saying that your example was a silly one, of course it was.

It is no more possible to re-define marriage

Sure it is. The State defined it in the first place, so it can redefine it.

For that matter, the allegedly ‘traditional’ definition relies on Christians having redefined it in almost every civilisation they have taken over, from ancient Rome to the modern Native Americans. So if the State cannot redefine it, then your redefinition is null and void and we revert to the original, same-sex inclusive, definition.

than it is possible to decide:

we are now going to call this is a circle!

Can we call it a ‘polygon’, or does that offend you because triangles are also polygons?

 

[PRmerger]

Can we call it a ‘polygon’, or does that offend you because triangles are also polygons?

As long as your description is consonant with truth, we say

You just cannot call it a circle, re-defining it to mean whatever you wish it to mean.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure it is. The State defined it in the first place, so it can redefine it.

LOL!!! The State defined marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you operating under some weird reading disability that prevents you from understanding the first, two-letter word in my sentence? :ehh:

If you are saying that your example was a silly one, of course it was.

Excellent.

So you can disabuse yourself of the ga-ga, la-la nonsense that the Church has forbidden homosexuals from describing their feelings for each other as “love”.

If you were trying to say that homosexuals may not describe their feelings for each other as ‘love’ and should come up with another word because you ‘own’ the word ‘love’, then yes.

 

[SMGS127]

Then should the government be in the business of registering friendships?

Friendships are also beneficial to society.

I don’t understand this “let’s register friends or my mom!” argument conservatives use. There is a clear actuarial benefit of committing one’s entire life to another person. There is no actuarial benefit of having a single friend or having a mom. Having a single friend or a mom does not drastically improve one’s life expectancy and health in the same way that having a spouse (or life partner if you can’t stand that term) does. There is a reason insurance companies fell over each other to recognize same-sex civil marriages when they were legalized, and this is also why businesses and colleges are so willing to recognize them as well.

Personally, I don’t think that the government should be in the marriage business at all, but since they define their purely actuarial institution as “marriage,” then of course gay marriage is going to be legalized. There is no requirement of a civil marriage (as opposed to a Catholic marriage) that a gay person is incapable of achieving.

 

[Rau]

There is no requirement of a civil marriage (as opposed to a Catholic marriage) that a gay person is incapable of achieving.

Well of course that is true as it invokes circularity by accepting that the marriage is the thing the state defined to bring about inclusiveness.

For me, the marriage is the purposeful sexual union (which can only be man+woman) not the legal provisions attached. That is not a religious idea as some have suggested.

I have no problem with the State attaching relevant legal provisions to all manner of groupings when it makes sense, actuarial considerations included.