Solution to "same-sex marriage"?

[bzkoss236]

I’ve had this concept in my head for quite a while now, and I’m curious as to the thoughts of others. I know there is the concept of “civil union” for same-sex couples, but they claim it isn’t entirely legally the same as marriage, which got me to thinking the following:

1. If people keep advocating for the separation of church (religion) and state (government)
2. If it is primarily people of religious background that are against said “marriages”
3. If same-sex couples want legal equality under a union for dedicated individuals

Then why not give everyone what they want. I believe we already have the systems in play to make this happen smoothly, because it essentially already is this way, with a few exceptions, and mostly a game of semantics and words.

Would a good solution to the issue to separate church and state and make marriage purely a religious matter so that each religion can define what it constitutes marriage, and then give the state the power over civil unions (legal “marriage”, but the term marriage will be kept to be used by religious). Then, anyone could get a civil union by the state to get the legal benefits of a dedicated relationship. This would mean, though, for those that are religious who are married by their church would also have to register for a civil union (which is essentially already done).

The idea is not completely thought out, but would this work? Why or why not? I’d like different perspectives, from Catholics, non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-religious people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Your ideas are just a cave-in to the secular culture, who wants to keep any tie-in, however tangential, to religious values, away from anything the State is involved in. (That is, you sound well-meaning, but your approach is essentially apologetic to the culture, rather than an assertion of the indissolubility of Truth.) What you’re suggesting is an impossibility (or at least an impracticality), because the State has separate and legitimate community reasons (as in Common Good) to prefer a particular marriage arrangement over just any “union.”

Number Two, to provide no State-sanctioned preference for one arrangement over another would be to provide every union “benefits,” making the legitimate privilege of traditional marriage (because of the legitimate privilege it provides to the State) moot. Thus, no unions would have tax advantages more than any other unions, regardless of the fact that only one variety of union (Traditional Marriage) has stood the test of time in benefiting the State vs. non-traditional unions.

Number Three, it would create, by elimination, a minority group – namely singles who chose not to form, or had no opportunity to form, any kind of a union with another (for economic or other advantages). That would create the practical illusion that singles without associations had “less value” to the State than others, which creates both a political problem and a legal problem. It is a subtle shift, but probably an important one. To declare a particular kind of union ™ to be of unique benefit (which it is) to the State is different from legislating in a practical way that all tindividuals in unions equally benefit the State, and only those not in unions are undeserving of status. When a category is widened so dramatically as to become mostly meaningless because it is so encompassing, then the question can arise, Why can’t others also join the group?

At the moment, that question cannot be legitimately asked by the homosexual crowd seeking marriage benefits, because the State, certainly until now, has declared TM to be of singular and exceptional benefit unparalleled by other arrangements; the very definition of marriage is confined to not just any “union,” but a union meeting certain criteria.

If those criteria are eliminated in favor of vague “unions,” then it cannot be argued that TM has a unique place in the social fabric.

Please do not confuse the societal institution of TM with the Catholic sacrament of matrimony. They are not the same thing, nor should Catholics allow the secular media and the Gay Lobby to conflate the two. The conflation is in error.

Number Four, it is not necessary or wise for the Catholic Church to marginalize itself by artificially restricting itself to the sacrament of matrimony. The Catholic Church has many, many theological and practical reasons for vigorously supporting TM as uniquely beneficial to secular society.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Number Three, it would create, by elimination, a minority group – namely singles who chose not to form, or had no opportunity to form, any kind of a union with another (for economic or other advantages). That would create the practical illusion that singles without associations had “less value” to the State than others, which creates both a political problem and a legal problem. It is a subtle shift, but probably an important one. To declare a particular kind of union ™ to be of unique benefit (which it is) to the State is different from legislating in a practical way that all tindividuals in unions equally benefit the State, and only those not in unions are undeserving of status. When a category is widened so dramatically as to become mostly meaningless because it is so encompassing, then the question can arise, Why can’t others also join the group?

Let’s say I snap my finger and magically all the gays disappear. Or turn straight. Whichever. Fact of the situation being it’d be absolutely demonstrable somehow that 100% of the population is straight with no hint of same sex attraction. Isn’t your Number Three then already in effect? As far as marriage goes there would be those straights who are, and those straights who aren’t. Making the straight singles a minority group creating the practical illusion that singles without associations had less value to the State then others.

 

[Usige]

The only solution I see is for the state to no longer recognize any form of union. Religious persons will rightly not tolerate anything equating same-sex unions with marriage. Homosexual advocates and those who pander to them will never tolerate anything that does not put them 100% on par with those they dissent against. Why? because they are not looking for equality, but rather normalization.

I see more and more married couples that are choosing the “child-free” lifestyle and successful professional single women intentionally having children via IVF that now the whole concept of the nuclear family almost does not exist. At this point I do not think there is a benefit to the state to recognizing any form of union based solely on exclusive sexual relationships. In the past it made sense, but over the last 80 years the state’s interest in giving preferential benefits for marriage have been so severely eroded that I now think it should completely divorce itself form it.

In the end those who want “marriage equality” may get it only by having the state taking the benefits away from all others.

 

[interestedman]

I’ve had this concept in my head for quite a while now, and I’m curious as to the thoughts of others. I know there is the concept of “civil union” for same-sex couples, but they claim it isn’t entirely legally the same as marriage, which got me to thinking the following:

1. If people keep advocating for the separation of church (religion) and state (government)
2. If it is primarily people of religious background that are against said “marriages”
3. If same-sex couples want legal equality under a union for dedicated individuals

Then why not give everyone what they want. I believe we already have the systems in play to make this happen smoothly, because it essentially already is this way, with a few exceptions, and mostly a game of semantics and words.

Would a good solution to the issue to separate church and state and make marriage purely a religious matter so that each religion can define what it constitutes marriage, and then give the state the power over civil unions (legal “marriage”, but the term marriage will be kept to be used by religious). Then, anyone could get a civil union by the state to get the legal benefits of a dedicated relationship. This would mean, though, for those that are religious who are married by their church would also have to register for a civil union (which is essentially already done).

The idea is not completely thought out, but would this work? Why or why not? I’d like different perspectives, from Catholics, non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-religious people.

Of course this wouldn’t work. So anyone that doesn’t have a religion would have to be in a civil union and not marriage? How about religious people don’t get married and just have “religious unions?”

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’ve been saying that forever. It doesn’t make sense to me to deny people the chance to protect their loved one legally, financially, and medically all in the name of preserving the definition of the word “marriage”. I’m an atheist, marrying another atheist. It will not be a religious ceremony, and no higher power will be mentioned at all. I would be perfectly fine getting a civil union from the government. And if someone wanted a religious marriage on top of that they can go to a church. Same with homosexuals. Of course, if they are religious and want a religious ceremony there are plenty of churches that will do that for them.

 

[nordskoven]

Didn’t Jesus say that the end times would be as in the days of Noah, giving and being given in marriage? Does that sound…bad? Could be. Noah’s time saw profane marriage in a context of rape and violence. Money talks. And homosexuals represent one of the richest demographics in the USA. So Amazon’s CEO is investing his millions in gay marriage to get wealthy homosexual customers.

The solution offered to the homosexual marriage pressure of separating civil and religious marriage sounds viable but…Gay “rights” (privilege-seeking) activists do not want civil unions, marriage lite. And courts ruling on the basis of equality and discrimination say this unfair, so the genie is out of the activist court bottle. France’s civil union law has actually reduced heterosexual marriage rates per this excerpt from The Economist:

The real threat to marriage: civil unions?
Jan 25th 2010, 16:00 by M.S.

“http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w04/gaymarrthreat290.jpgHENRY FARRELL points to an interesting statistical find on Arthur Goldhammer’s French politics and society blog: since France introduced domestic partnerships (known as PACS) in 1999, largely to accommodate same-sex unions without having to legalise gay marriage, the number of marriages has fallen, as heterosexual couples have opted increasingly for the PACS route. But, Mr Farrell writes, when you add marriages and PACS, the number of people entering legally sanctioned romantic relationships is higher than ever:
Interestingly, this is because of both a significant decline in marriage, and a significant increase in the overall number of people willing to engage in some kind of state-sanctioned relationship. While you would obviously need more finely grained data to establish this properly, the obviously intuitive interpretation of this (at least to me) is that the pacs have grown both by providing an option for people who would probably not have gotten married in the first place, and attracted a number of people who otherwise would have gotten married, but who prefer the pacs’ lower level of formality (it is much easier to cancel a pacs relationship than to get divorced). Perhaps this provides grist for the mills of social conservatives (who could claim, stretching the data a bit, that gay-appeasing civil unions are undermining the sacred institution of marriage)—but it would oblige them to face up to the question of whether they should prefer gay marriage to potentially corrosive civil unions that straight couples can take advantage of too.
There are certainly a lot of young couples in secular Europe who want the legal and emotional benefits of a committed relationship, but are put off by the religious and gender-role connotations of old-fashioned marriage.”

Gay rights/privileges activists do not want domestic partnerships, generic protection for households that would not include any sexual component. A domestic partnership could help two single mothers who want to raise their kids with greater stability by having certain legal and financial protections. But that’s out as above, it is considered unfair and discriminatory.

Sorry that Americans are so naive to think that the battering rams leveled at the gates are there to knock on the door. Promising everything to everyone gets votes: shovel-ready jobs; foreclosure protection for the poor; marriage equality; free health care; cradle-to-early-grave no-work welfare; union jobs; well-regulated banks; gun-free safety; and private companies protected from their own foolishness and free to crash their business and get bailed out. Peace and safety. Christ counseled us to judge by works, not words. May we follow Christ’s lead. If the fig tree isn’t bearing after all that care, blast it. Our votes, with dollars and ballots, will effect this.

May God enlighten the eyes of our hearts and deliver us from our acceptance of privileges for the rich and powerful. “This kind goes out not except by prayer and fasting.” May be fast and humbly pray for God to bless America. AMEN

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m sorry to tell you this but this idea is not original; it’s been around for a while now. Lydia McGrew on her blog “What’s Wrong With the World” pretty much thoroughly debunked this concept:

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/01/why_the_government_should_be_i.html

A snippet:

At the federal level, abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing all manner of tax statuses and social security connections. “Married” would no longer be a category under which you would file taxes, and “your spouse who cares for your minor children” would no longer be able to get any of your social security benefits after you die.

 

[fix]

I’ve had this concept in my head for quite a while now, and I’m curious as to the thoughts of others. I know there is the concept of “civil union” for same-sex couples, but they claim it isn’t entirely legally the same as marriage, which got me to thinking the following:

1. If people keep advocating for the separation of church (religion) and state (government)
2. If it is primarily people of religious background that are against said “marriages”
3. If same-sex couples want legal equality under a union for dedicated individuals

Then why not give everyone what they want. I believe we already have the systems in play to make this happen smoothly, because it essentially already is this way, with a few exceptions, and mostly a game of semantics and words.

Would a good solution to the issue to separate church and state and make marriage purely a religious matter so that each religion can define what it constitutes marriage, and then give the state the power over civil unions (legal “marriage”, but the term marriage will be kept to be used by religious). Then, anyone could get a civil union by the state to get the legal benefits of a dedicated relationship. This would mean, though, for those that are religious who are married by their church would also have to register for a civil union (which is essentially already done).

The idea is not completely thought out, but would this work? Why or why not? I’d like different perspectives, from Catholics, non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-religious people.

This basically says marriage is not essential to society
and anything goes. Not a Catholic idea at all.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This basically says marriage is not essential to society
and anything goes. Not a Catholic idea at all.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I’m sorry to tell you this but this idea is not original; it’s been around for a while now. Lydia McGrew on her blog “What’s Wrong With the World” pretty much thoroughly debunked this concept:

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/01/why_the_government_should_be_i.html

A snippet:

At the federal level, abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing all manner of tax statuses and social security connections. “Married” would no longer be a category under which you would file taxes, and “your spouse who cares for your minor children” would no longer be able to get any of your social security benefits after you die.

Thank you for that excellent link! Ms. McGrew articulates the reasons that well-intentioned people from the right (and, I would say from well-intentioned people on the left as well) are mouthing a simplistic slogan, i.e., that the government should get out of the marriage business, without understanding the ramifications. It is far from a solution and would lead to one huge administrative mess.

I agree with the conclusion at the end – it is all the more important for conservatives not to sidestep the defense of marriage.
,

 

[Bill_Martin]

I’m sorry to tell you this but this idea is not original; it’s been around for a while now. Lydia McGrew on her blog “What’s Wrong With the World” pretty much thoroughly debunked this concept:

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/01/why_the_government_should_be_i.html

A snippet:

At the federal level, abolishing civil marriage would mean abolishing all manner of tax statuses and social security connections. “Married” would no longer be a category under which you would file taxes, and “your spouse who cares for your minor children” would no longer be able to get any of your social security benefits after you die.

That article ignores what proponents of the government getting out of marriage suggest and only addresses a very superficial version of their ideas.

The government’s role should be to record and enforce a contract between consenting adults for legal purposes, but not to decide what kind of contract they make. Whether the people themselves call it “marriage” is none of the government’s business. This would allow for tax status, and other legal proceedings to remain unchanged because the couple can specify as part of their contract the same rights and responsibilities as our current definition of marriage. The government’s would then honor that contract, but not tell them they can’t make it.

This has the added benefit of removing an official, government sanctioned definition of marriage which they currently try to require private organizations to honor. Under the current system, if they change that definition to include same sex couples, they can then require all religious entities to honor it. “We the government recognize this couple as married and therefore you have to too”. This is a clear abridgement of religious freedom.

Under the system where the gov has no definition of marriage, they cannot require private organizations to call it “marriage” because they do not recognize it as such. The Church would then be free to uphold its own definition of marriage with no threat of the government requiring it to accept an alternate, non Catholic definition of the institution.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That article ignores what proponents of the government getting out of marriage suggest and only addresses a very superficial version of their ideas.

The government’s role should be to record and enforce a contract between consenting adults for legal purposes, but not to decide what kind of contract they make. Whether the people themselves call it “marriage” is none of the government’s business. This would allow for tax status, and other legal proceedings to remain unchanged because the couple can specify as part of their contract the same rights and responsibilities as our current definition of marriage. The government’s would then honor that contract, but not tell them they can’t make it.

This has the added benefit of removing an official, government sanctioned definition of marriage which they currently try to require private organizations to honor. Under the current system, if they change that definition to include same sex couples, they can then require all religious entities to honor it. “We the government recognize this couple as married and therefore you have to too”. This is a clear abridgement of religious freedom.

Under the system where the gov has no definition of marriage, they cannot require private organizations to call it “marriage” because they do not recognize it as such. The Church would then be free to uphold its own definition of marriage with no threat of the government requiring it to accept an alternate, non Catholic definition of the institution.

This is all well and good, but I believe one of the commenters, named “Tony”, has addressed it. He also writes articles for the blog (I unfortunately forget his last name).

**If the government stopped recognizing ‘marriage’ and instead started recognizing ‘civil unions’, it (and the body politic) would have to spend billions of man-hours hashing out the limits of who can, and who cannot, enter into this newly created concept of ‘civil union’. Can a man and three business partners form such a union? Can a circus entertainer and his horse become a civil union? Can a woman and her family limited partnership form one? Why or why not? Why should we limit it to X groups and not Y groups? What features of legal advantage do we want to grant to the new status? Taxes and child custody are just 2 out of hundreds of possible legal benefits. If we want to permit ‘civil unions’ for people whose relationship (business, hobby, pen-pal, vendetta, whatever) has no bearing on children, why would we formulate the “rights and privileges” of the status to be a set of rights that bear on children? Just for example.

Or, (on the other hand), if ‘civil union’ is just to take over the already long-hashed-out plan for legal benefits for marriage, then it really is just the government staying in the marriage business after all, but with the government formally repudiating the cultural meaning of marriage for a newly invented meaning that includes some of the old fringe elements. This purpose would have to be viewed as highly factional, highly debatable, and extremely radical.

I propose that we already have civil unions, they are also called partnerships, corporations, companies, universities, leagues, churches, associations, and a hundred more. These are all civilly recognized, they are all ways people form unions, we don’t need to group them all together under the term ‘civil union’, and we don’t need to create more government bureaucracy. Let’s just leave our unions the way they are.**

 

[Bill_Martin]

This is all well and good, but I believe one of the commenters, named “Tony”, has addressed it. He also writes articles for the blog (I unfortunately forget his last name).

**If the government stopped recognizing ‘marriage’ and instead started recognizing ‘civil unions’, it (and the body politic) would have to spend billions of man-hours hashing out the limits of who can, and who cannot, enter into this newly created concept of ‘civil union’. Can a man and three business partners form such a union? Can a circus entertainer and his horse become a civil union? Can a woman and her family limited partnership form one? Why or why not? Why should we limit it to X groups and not Y groups? What features of legal advantage do we want to grant to the new status? Taxes and child custody are just 2 out of hundreds of possible legal benefits. If we want to permit ‘civil unions’ for people whose relationship (business, hobby, pen-pal, vendetta, whatever) has no bearing on children, why would we formulate the “rights and privileges” of the status to be a set of rights that bear on children? Just for example.

Or, (on the other hand), if ‘civil union’ is just to take over the already long-hashed-out plan for legal benefits for marriage, then it really is just the government staying in the marriage business after all, but with the government formally repudiating the cultural meaning of marriage for a newly invented meaning that includes some of the old fringe elements. This purpose would have to be viewed as highly factional, highly debatable, and extremely radical.
**
I propose that we already have civil unions, they are also called partnerships, corporations, companies, universities, leagues, churches, associations, and a hundred more. These are all civilly recognized, they are all ways people form unions, we don’t need to group them all together under the term ‘civil union’, and we don’t need to create more government bureaucracy. Let’s just leave our unions the way they are.

The argument that this would create a huge bureaucracy is incorrect because it doesn’t address a key part of the argument of people such as myself, who say that the government shouldn’t create any restrictions at all over what contracts consenting adults make—just record and enforce them as they are written for legal purposes.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The argument that this would create a huge bureaucracy is incorrect because it doesn’t address a key part of the argument of people such as myself, who say that the government shouldn’t create any restrictions at all over what contracts consenting adults make—just record and enforce them as they are written for legal purposes.

Well, there are various types of contracts that people are allowed to make that have legal ramifications-Tony gave a list of them. Are you saying that marriage shouldn’t be given a special status by the government? Because that’s just repeating your premise, which the article is meant to repudiate.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Well, there are various types of contracts that people are allowed to make that have legal ramifications-Tony gave a list of them. Are you saying that marriage shouldn’t be given a special status by the government? Because that’s just repeating your premise, which the article is meant to repudiate.

I’m just saying that there shouldn’t be a set list of contracts that people are allowed to make, since people shouldn’t have to have their contracts pre-approved by the government. The government should accept any contract made between consenting adults, not merely the ones that appear on its list.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m just saying that there shouldn’t be a set list of contracts that people are allowed to make, since people shouldn’t have to have their contracts pre-approved by the government. The government should accept any contract made between consenting adults, not merely the ones that appear on its list.

How does this solve the problem of marriage being given special status by the government? Would you get rid of that status? Or would you give same-sex unions that status? Because I’m against both.

 

[Bill_Martin]

How does this solve the problem of marriage being given special status by the government? Would you get rid of that status? Or would you give same-sex unions that status? Because I’m against both.

I would eliminate the mention of marriage from the government entirely. In the cases of two people getting married, the only role I want the government to play is to record the contract that they signed for legal purposes. No marriage license, no federal or state definition of marriage, and no requirements to obtain such a status; just a record of the contract that the parties signed and enforcement of its terms during legal proceedings, taxes, etc.

 

[minkymurph]

I’ve had this concept in my head for quite a while now, and I’m curious as to the thoughts of others. I know there is the concept of “civil union” for same-sex couples, but they claim it isn’t entirely legally the same as marriage, which got me to thinking the following:

1. If people keep advocating for the separation of church (religion) and state (government)
2. If it is primarily people of religious background that are against said “marriages”
3. If same-sex couples want legal equality under a union for dedicated individuals

Then why not give everyone what they want. I believe we already have the systems in play to make this happen smoothly, because it essentially already is this way, with a few exceptions, and mostly a game of semantics and words.

Would a good solution to the issue to separate church and state and make marriage purely a religious matter so that each religion can define what it constitutes marriage, and then give the state the power over civil unions (legal “marriage”, but the term marriage will be kept to be used by religious). Then, anyone could get a civil union by the state to get the legal benefits of a dedicated relationship. This would mean, though, for those that are religious who are married by their church would also have to register for a civil union (which is essentially already done).

The idea is not completely thought out, but would this work? Why or why not? I’d like different perspectives, from Catholics, non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-religious people.

I would go with this for several reasons.

Firstly, I agree with the separation of church and state. Democratically elected representatives pf the state have the right to decide who can marry and who can’t. The church has the right to decide who marries in church.

In the second instance, a civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage. It is defined by the state, not the church. Outside what the couple may believe personally, there is no religious element in a civil marriage and as such, there is no form as with a sacramental marriage. Therefore, there is no requirement for the couple to be male and female other than a legal one.

Equal citizenship means the right to marry. It can be argued that in a democratic society, it is arbitrary to deny marriage solely to homosexuals - particularly if the only reason for denying them marriage is based on a religious belief.

 

[fix]

I would eliminate the mention of marriage from the government entirely. In the cases of two people getting married, the only role I want the government to play is to record the contract that they signed for legal purposes. No marriage license, no federal or state definition of marriage, and no requirements to obtain such a status; just a record of the contract that the parties signed and enforcement of its terms during legal proceedings, taxes, etc.

Whether you realize it or not your position is basically
the homosexualist position. Both want the government
to make marriage plastic and be seem as simply
a religious ritual. Yours is not a Catholic understanding
of marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that
predates the Church and governments.