Taking Marriage Private

[Digitonomy]

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.
Source

I have mixed feelings about the idea of “disestablishing” marriage as a state institution. But it would minimize the entanglement of the state in what is at its core a sacrament.

 

[SeekerJen]

I have mixed feelings about the idea of “disestablishing” marriage as a state institution. But it would minimize the entanglement of the state in what is at its core a sacrament.

Ditto. On one hand, it would ensure that the government could not encroach upon the rights of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. to marry who they see fit; i.e., the government would not be able to force the Catholic church to preside over gay marriages. On the other hand…

 

[kentuckyliz]

The opinion piece does not mention that the Church administered marriage as a sacrament and the state had nothing to do with it; and that the Protestant Reformers did not believe marriage was a sacrament, and wanted to strip the power from the Church, so they made it a government function (and merely a contract).

That move has backfired…now the State can say the contract can be given to two men, or two women, or ???

My reaction to this op-ed piece is, why give legal, financial, and other benefits to co-habs (POSSLQ’s) who can marry? Why treat their relationship more seriously than they do? If they want those benefits and protections, get married.

 

[Digitonomy]

the government would not be able to force the Catholic church to preside over gay marriages.

That’s no real risk of that anyway (in the US), I am more bothered by the state imposing restrictions on who can marry, and by the state granting official equivalence to marriages which the Church would strongly repudiate.

 

[SeekerJen]

That’s no real risk of that anyway (in the US), I am more bothered by the state imposing restrictions on who can marry, and by the state granting official equivalence to marriages which the Church would strongly repudiate.

There’s not risk of that NOW. 50 years ago, do you think anyone thought that gay couples would receive domestic partner benefits in this country?

Give it time.

 

[Digitonomy]

There’s not risk of that NOW. 50 years ago, do you think anyone thought that gay couples would receive domestic partner benefits in this country?
Give it time.

If you foresee a complete or partial repeal of the First Amendment, requiring approval by 3/4 of the states, then this could happen. Your analogy falls flat because the example you give required no constitutional change. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Congress pass federal recognition of gay marriage, or even plural marriage, in coming decades. But without a constitutional amendment conservative states like Oklahoma probably won’t be forced to marry gay couples regulation of marriage is generally reserved to states, though there may be wiggle room here- they may be forced to recognize weddings from other states. There will certainly be no gay wedding at the cathedral in Oklahoma City without such an amendment.