Should civil marriage be abolished?

[Johann_du_Toit]

Should civil marriage be abolished, as the only way to prevent same sex marriage from becoming law?

Think about it-almost all religions oppose same sex marriage and courts will not force a church to perform a marriage that violates it’s beliefs, on the principle of religious freedom.

This is not a problem for Catholics as we don’t believe in civil marriage anyway (only in sacramental marriage).

Lebanon and Israel don’t have civil marriage and they seem to be doing fine in this regard.
Marriages there are dealt solely by their respective religious denominations, with their own rules.

 

[1ke]

Should civil marriage be abolished, as the only way to prevent same sex marriage from becoming law?

“Should” or “could”?

It could be abolished civilly, but it will not be. The state has an interest in regulating marriage. The Church acknowledge this authority.

Think about it-almost all religions oppose same sex marriage and courts will not force a church to perform a marriage that violates it’s beliefs, on the principle of religious freedom.

I do not think it is accurate to say “almost all” religions oppose same sex marriage.

This is not a problem for Catholics as we don’t believe in civil marriage anyway (only in sacramental marriage).

This isn’t an accurate portrayal of the Church’s teaching or theology regarding marriage. The Church certainly acknowledges the civil marriages of non-Catholics and those marriages are valid. If they are between two baptized people, they are sacramental. If involving one or both unbaptized parties, they are valid natural marriages.

Lebanon and Israel don’t have civil marriage and they seem to be doing fine in this regard.
Marriages there are dealt solely by their respective religious denominations, with their own rules.

I’m not familiar with the laws of these countries, but culturally it would be unlikely that the US would remove civil marriage and rely on religious marriages to determine property, child custody, or other rights.

 

[AKDee]

Should it? Well, in my opinion, civil marriage should never have been allowed. Civil unions should have been allowed, but marriage should always have been under the Church’s jurisdiction.

That said- the horse has escaped the barn on that one a long time ago and I don’t see that it can be undone now. People would fight it, fearing their own marriages would be nullified. Married people don’t want to have their marriage converted to a civil union, even if legally all the rights/benefits remain the same.

What I think might be able to happen is that Churches could decline to be part of state marriage and only offer sacramental marriage- it would essentially require people to get married twice (once for the state, once for the church) which would be inconvenient but would leave the control over sacramental marriage to the Church. I have heard that in some places in Europe this already occurs.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Yes. Replace it with relationship contracts between participating adults. No more no fault- marriage law or family court. Turn it over to be covered under contract law.

Marriage reserved to being a religious ceremony or sacrament in accordance with the religion of the participants.

 

[AKDee]

One thing I was thinking of, a negative consequence of this-

Currently the Catholic Church recognizes other marriages outside of the Church. If these marriages were now to become civil unions, would not this put a great many people into a state of fornication? We might be solving one area of sin (gay marriage) but opening up a big pandora’s box elsewhere.

 

[QuestLove]

Should civil marriage be abolished, as the only way to prevent same sex marriage from becoming law?

Think about it-almost all religions oppose same sex marriage and courts will not force a church to perform a marriage that violates it’s beliefs, on the principle of religious freedom.

This is not a problem for Catholics as we don’t believe in civil marriage anyway (only in sacramental marriage).

Lebanon and Israel don’t have civil marriage and they seem to be doing fine in this regard.
Marriages there are dealt solely by their respective religious denominations, with their own rules.

That would be selfish. What about people who are not catholic or not even religious for that matter? If we abolish civil marriage to stick it to same-sex couples, what happens to them? You do realise not everyone believes in a supreme being.
Now the line will be moved. Instead of marriage between one man and woman now it will be between one man and woman who have some religious affiliation. Everyone else will get to have a civil union, I suppose. In this plan of yours, do civil unions and marriages both get the same benefits under the law?

 

[QuestLove]

One thing I was thinking of, a negative consequence of this-

Currently the Catholic Church recognizes other marriages outside of the Church. If these marriages were now to become civil unions, would not this put a great many people into a state of fornication? We might be solving one area of sin (gay marriage) but opening up a big pandora’s box elsewhere.

 

[Phemie]

Should civil marriage be abolished, as the only way to prevent same sex marriage from becoming law?

No. The more logical move, since the State has a vested interest in regulating marriage, is for the Church stops acting as an agent of the State. Separate civil and religious marriage in Canada and the US in the same way as they are separate in Mexico, France, Switzerland, Germany, etc.

 

[marymary1975]

“Should” or “could”?

It could be abolished civilly, but it will not be. The state has an interest in regulating marriage. The Church acknowledge this authority.

I do not think it is accurate to say “almost all” religions oppose same sex marriage.

This isn’t an accurate portrayal of the Church’s teaching or theology regarding marriage. The Church certainly acknowledges the civil marriages of non-Catholics and those marriages are valid. If they are between two baptized people, they are sacramental. If involving one or both unbaptized parties, they are valid natural marriages.

I’m not familiar with the laws of these countries, but culturally it would be unlikely that the US would remove civil marriage and rely on religious marriages to determine property, child custody, or other rights.

I agree with 1ke. Abolishing civil marriage at least in the US would be chaotic. I don’t see that ever happening in the US. And if some crazy comes out with a bill like that either it won’t pass or if for some crazy reason does, I can assure you that the judiciary will strike it down very fast.

 

[ctb95]

One thing I was thinking of, a negative consequence of this-

Currently the Catholic Church recognizes other marriages outside of the Church. If these marriages were now to become civil unions, would not this put a great many people into a state of fornication? We might be solving one area of sin (gay marriage) but opening up a big pandora’s box elsewhere.

Think about it: all civil marriage really is from a legalistic point of view is a contractual and economic arrangement. It’s basically a civil union but with different wording. If we abolish civil marriage, the Church would be the only organization to recognize marriage. This would also free churches to marry people with minimal interference from the state.

 

[Digitonomy]

Should it? Well, in my opinion, civil marriage should never have been allowed. Civil unions should have been allowed, but marriage should always have been under the Church’s jurisdiction.

Civil marriage predates the Church.

 

[RCbkr]

I agree with Phemie. I have lived in another country where marriage is officially a civil event and having your marriage blessed or taking sacred vows is a separate event. The priests I know are uncomfortable acting as agents of the state and would rather they didn’t have do it.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Is same sex marriage really enough of a reason that one would wish to invalidate all other civil marriages?

Even if civil marriage were abolished (which it won’t be as it would be a legal nightmare to sort out issues such as inheritance and divorce) wouldn’t it just mean more and more couples cohabiting without any form of marital commitment?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Civil marriage cannot be absolved.

But I think the Church would be wise to remove authority from any state on one of it’s sacraments. The biggest mistake in this whole marriage debacle was the Church marrying itself to the state for marriage issues. This did not have to be done and is now coming back to haunt the Church. The Church should define and govern Her own sacraments and who is in one and who can be in one. The Church should divorce Herself from the authority of the State. Any state. After, the King James period the Church should have seen this coming…

 

[IrishAm]

No. Civil marriage by virtue of the laws which accompany it has deep roots in the protection of children, women and property rights. Also royal lineage issues, should that be a concern in your country or family (not an issue around my house).

 

[Selah_KY]

Should it? Well, in my opinion, civil marriage should never have been allowed. Civil unions should have been allowed, but marriage should always have been under the Church’s jurisdiction.

And my opinion… Separation of church and state was as much for the protection of the church from the government as it was for protection of the government from churches.

 

[Sunbreak]

No, civil marriage should not be abolished. There are many people who practice no religion at all, so how will they get married?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I’m not sure why civil and religious marriage are so intertwined. Aren’t these two separate things?

For the life of me I don’t get why the Church requires couples to obtain as civil license (or certificate) in the first place. The church should push lobbying efforts to repeal laws in some states that force religious marriages to also be civil marriages too.

 

[Phemie]

I’m not sure why civil and religious marriage are so intertwined. Aren’t these two separate things?

For the life of me I don’t get why the Church requires couples to obtain as civil license (or certificate) in the first place. The church should push lobbying efforts to repeal laws in some states that force religious marriages to also be civil marriages too.

The Church in the US and Canada has agreed to act for the State. That’s why a marriage license is required to have a Church wedding.

The Church could declare that it will no longer be involved in civil marriage. In fact, Canada’s bishops did threaten that during the discussions leading up to the passing of Bill C-38 on same-sex marriage.

In most countries where the Church does not act as an agent of the State, the State decrees that the Church(es) can only celebrate a religious marriage AFTER a civil marriage has been celebrated. The Church sees no problem with that because of the civil ramifications that come with marriage so that’s why it requires a certificate of marriage before it celebrates a religious marriage.

 

[jtauke]

Should civil marriage be abolished, as the only way to prevent same sex marriage from becoming law?

Think about it-almost all religions oppose same sex marriage and courts will not force a church to perform a marriage that violates it’s beliefs, on the principle of religious freedom.

This is not a problem for Catholics as we don’t believe in civil marriage anyway (only in sacramental marriage).

Lebanon and Israel don’t have civil marriage and they seem to be doing fine in this regard.
Marriages there are dealt solely by their respective religious denominations, with their own rules.

1.) How would you treat those who are currently married civilly? Are they grandfathered in?

2.) If the state can’t regulate marriage, how can they verify if someone is actually married for tax purposes? For insurance purposes? etc, etc?

Saying it works for countries like Israel is completely meaningless, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. You can’t simply apply something that works in one country to another.

3.) If the state did not regulate marriage, who would manage the thousands of marriage records flooding in from every religious group in the country? Who keeps track of it all?

4.) How to non-religious people get married? Today they just fill out the necessary paperwork at the courthouse. However if civil marriage doesn’t exist, how would they go about getting married?

You freely admit that civil marriage is different from the Catholic sacrament of Matrimony (which no one is trying to change). So why does it matter what civil marriage law is between two consenting adults?