The State and a Definition of Marriage

[rossum]

Only some licensed drivers actually do drive at any one time. Being licensed to drive means that the state has determined that a person has the capacity to drive. The state does not force the driver to actually drive if a license is issued.

Similarly, a marriage license would be issued to those who have the capacity to procreate and care for children. The state would not require them to actually do so, just that the state has determined their capacity to do so and allows that to occur should the couple choose to begin what they have been licensed, I.e., been approved, by the state to undertake.

So, women who have passed the menopause, and wounded military veterans who no longer have the “capacity to procreate” are to be denied marriage licences?

The great majority of homosexuals also have the “capacity to procreate”, and so would be eligible for one of your licences.

There is no other justifiable reason for the state to be involved. If you can provide one, please do.

Taxation. It is justifiable for the state to be involved in taxation: “Render unto Caesar…” Taxes on married people are different from the taxes applying to single people. This is exactly what one of the cases before the Supreme Court, Windsor v US, is about – taxation.

This is not much of an objection, really. No one is claiming that marriage only starts at consummation.

In a sense Catholic marriage does. The marriage can be annulled before consummation.

That the state licenses a couple to be married only means that the couple have been approved by the state to begin procreating and raising children.

Given the adoption laws, and that infertile couples can marry those two can be separate. Someone else may procreate while the childless couple does the raising. Indeed, encouraging adoption is one way to help reduce the number of abortions.

Since same sex couples, and singletons, can adopt then your “raising children” applies to more than just the usual heterosexual married couple.

Real life is more varied than the rather rigid ideal you seem to want to force everyone into. Gays exist; single parents exist; orphans exist; adoption exists; infertile people exist. None of those seem to have a place in your, “Dick and Jane get married,” ideal world.

A state has to deal with its people as it finds them, not as it would like them to be. Hence the state has to shape its laws to allow for gays, single parents, orphans, adoption, infertile people and all the rest.

rossum

 

[philial]

The state can’t get out completely because the rights of children to be responsibly raised by their biological parents would be at risk. As it stands, this would seem to be the only reason for the involvement of the state in licensing a marriage, so redefining the legal term to be a “loving commitment between two people” essentially nullifies the state’s involvement completely, leaving biological offspring completely at the mercy of “feelings,” because responsibility for them will have been completely removed by definition.

I do agree! It will also mean that biological offspring will be mere by-products of a union that begins & ends with the happiness of two people. Non-essential add ons that we can get sentmiental about once they’re born, but shed no tears if they’re aborted because, well, they’re just by-products! Sadly, ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable, here in the UK. But then it was an english king who redefined marriage in the first place, so how can we expect anything else?

and since that re-definition of marriage is inevitable then i would prefer the word is done away with in regard to the partnerships of happiness that the state is about to endorse!

 

[Slavonic]

The point being that the sole reason the state has a definition of marriage in the first place is to license and control a particular power, the power to procreate. To redefine the legal term that disregards that power is using the same logic as redefining the legal term “driver” to not include the actual power to drive a vehicle that the license is for.

Under your scenario, how does the state handle ‘unlicensed’ procreation? Is it treated like an unlicensed driver? A couple does not have to be married to produce a child. In fact, the man and woman do not even have to a be a couple to produce a child. As long as a certain act is carried out by any man or any woman of sufficient capacity, a child might result with no marriage necessary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nonsense, I defend this position and I am most certainly not a moral relativist. I’ll need a real argument as to why the state -which supports the destruction of marriage- should be in charge of defending the institution.

That’s great, but the state is not the Church.

To protect the children of a marriage because they were not part of nor had any say in the original “marriage” agreement. The state has an obligation to protect the vulnerable from harm. Marriage laws are needed to do this, just as laws licensing drivers are needed to protect others (passengers, pedestrians, other drivers) from being harmed if no licensing requirements existed.

The state has a right to determine who should be allowed to execute a power if that power can create harm to innocent others. In the case, the “power” is to procreate.

Since the state has shown itself unwilling to be involved in terms of moralizing about sexual behavior, it should not, therefore attempt to impose artificial moral constructs without cause on sexual relationships that could not engender or bring about harm to others precisely because these relationships do not bring others into being.

Adoption laws could cover rearing of adopted children. There is no need to license adoptive households as “marriages” because they don’t fulfill a power to create life, only to care after the fact.

In the case of marriage, the only justifiable reason for the state to be involved is that some have a power (to procreate) that could bring about harm to innocent parties (children).

Same sex unions do not have this power and, therefore, should not be licensed. That would be the same position as the state ruling that passengers in motor vehicles should be subject to the same licensing requirements as drivers. It is an untenable position. No fault divorce laws show the state is not in the business of legislating about relationships. However, that does not absolve the state from making rules about the creation of children, a power that lies in the hands of heterosexual couples, and one that could bring about harm to innocents if improperly exercised.

 

[fix]

Nonsense, I defend this position and I am most certainly not a moral relativist. I’ll need a real argument as to why the state -which supports the destruction of marriage- should be in charge of defending the institution.

It is theState’s job just as the State must protect life. The problem is not the State. The problem is Catholics fail to live as Catholics including in the voting booth. The answer is not for the State to neglect her duty.

That’s great, but the state is not the Church.

The State has an obligation to promote the common good.
I have not even mentioned that Catholics are bound to protect marriage.

 

[lllj]

The state currently licenses drivers who may or may not ever use that ability to actually drive. The concern of the state is to determine whether they are “fit” to drive and don’t pose a menace to others.

By licensing marriage, the proper role of the state is to determine whether the couple are “fit” to create and raise children. The criteria bears some flexibility, but capacity for procreation would be a necessary condition, just as having a body and mind capable of handling a vehicle would be a necessary condition for a person to drive one.

The reason that procreation would have to be a necessary criteria is precisely because the only interest of the state in the marital union is for the protection of the innocent parties to the agreement - any resulting children. Why would the state need to issue a license to anyone else except if this potential harm could come about? It wouldn’t and shouldn’t because a license for any other reason would be imposing some incidental moral position on citizens.

Could you just clarify what exactly you’re arguing regarding heterosexual infertile couples? I’m not sure you answered my question here. I think you’re saying that the state should have no interest in their marriages, but I want to make sure before we further our discussion.

 

[epan]

The whole thing would be a lot simpler if the state got out of the marriage game completely. All unions should be regarded as civil unions, with churches referring to their rites as marriage, or sacramental marriage, if their theology allows. That ways gays are nullified and churches content.

I have advocated this position for some time. All legal unions should be “civil unions” under the law. Marriages are performed by churches or religious organizations, and have no legal status.

This would provide equal treatment under the law, would not undermine the meaning of “marriage”, nor would it interfere with religious freedom.

 

[lllj]

Likewise (@Peter Plato), what is your stance on unmarried couples that have children?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have advocated this position for some time. All legal unions should be “civil unions” under the law. Marriages are performed by churches or religious organizations, and have no legal status.

This would provide equal treatment under the law, would not undermine the meaning of “marriage”, nor would it interfere with religious freedom.

That is not my position because the state does have an interested in protecting the rights of vulnerable offspring, so marriages with the potential to produce children require state licensing whereas civil unions where that is not possible would not. Marriages performed by churches would require legal status if procreative possibilities existed.

Your position is not what I am advocating here, unless I am missing a point.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Could you just clarify what exactly you’re arguing regarding heterosexual infertile couples? I’m not sure you answered my question here. I think you’re saying that the state should have no interest in their marriages, but I want to make sure before we further our discussion.

To say the state would have “no interest” does not mean the state wouldn’t care. That is not the same thing. What I mean is the state would not “license” this kind of marriage because procreation is not a possibility, just as the state would not license a driver, if a driver could not, in fact, carry out the functions required to drive a vehicle. That does not mean the infertile couple could not live together or form a “civil union” of some kind because the state could not legally be involved in licensing that.

For income tax purposes they could declare some kind of legal partnership.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Likewise (@Peter Plato), what is your stance on unmarried couples that have children?

The same as an unlicensed driver taking control of a vehicle. They would not have the legal right to do so precisely because the state’s interest should be to guard children from potential harm.

Certainly, that would entail enforcing greater responsibility for child bearing, but is that not what is at stake here? Are we not concerned for how children are responsibly produced and cared for?

That does not necessarily entail a jail sentence or a fine, but it would entail that both parties provide evidence to the state that appropriate long term care for the child would be in place.

The main difficulty here is that the position could be conducive of abortion, so what is required is a consistent definition of what a child is under the law and a consistent application of what that entails in each circumstance.

As it is, the law is just a mess regarding the rights of children to proper care should the couple be inclined otherwise.

 

[lllj]

To say the state would have “no interest” does not mean the state wouldn’t care. That is not the same thing. What I mean is the state would not “license” this kind of marriage because procreation is not a possibility, just as the state would not license a driver, if a driver could not, in fact, carry out the functions required to drive a vehicle. That does not mean the infertile couple could not live together or form a “civil union” of some kind because the state could not legally be involved in licensing that.

For income tax purposes they could declare some kind of legal partnership.

Okay, I think I understand what you’re saying.

Basically, you’re asking for marriage as a license that would form a union that could potentially produce children, civil unions in other cases.

1. How do you enforce this? There are countless accidental pregnancies. Unless you ban premarital sex (for straight couples with the ability to have children), how can you ensure that children aren’t born to unmarried couples?
2. This isn’t the way things currently are. Politically, I doubt that marriages between infertile straight couples would ever be banned. In which case it does become discriminatory to ban homosexual marriage, from my point of view.
3. I’m unclear of what exactly ends up being a sin for the voter who is not actually engaging in any of said behaviors. Are all Catholics who support (civil) marriage between infertile couples sinning? Or just those who support homosexual (civil) marriage?

 

[Bradski]

As to a fertility test, perhaps that should be required…

Perhaps? Haven’t you thought this through? What if they refused? Do we make it compulsory? What if it’s a treatable problem (like being Gay)?

What about a couple who don’t think they want children? Marriage or no marriage? No marriage until they decide they do? How about a lie detector test to see what they really want? What if they’re found to have lied? What if they get married then he has the snip?

That does not mean the infertile couple could not live together or form a “civil union” of some kind because the state could not legally be involved in licensing that. For income tax purposes they could declare some kind of legal partnership.

How generous of you.

‘Dear Dick and Jane, you are invited to marriage of John and Mary at St Michael’s on Saturday (please note that if the fertility tests come back negative, the wedding will be replaced by a civil union of some kind, followed by the signing of legal partnership papers at Duck, Drake and Partners on Main Street’.

 

[epan]

That is not my position because the state does have an interested in protecting the rights of vulnerable offspring, so marriages with the potential to produce children require state licensing whereas civil unions where that is not possible would not. Marriages performed by churches would require legal status if procreative possibilities existed.

Your position is not what I am advocating here, unless I am missing a point.

So, would you deny legal recognition to all unions which could not produce children? What about marriages which reach the point that they are no longer procreative? I suppose legal status goes away, at that point in time. Who will police this? Annual fertility tests, and quizes on sexual practices? What if a couple uses contraception? Should it be illegal to manufacture, prescribe, or sell any contraceptive device or drug?

 

[epan]

We all love are own “liberties”, and agree that the ones that we approve of, should be conferred on others. After all, we live in a semi-libertarian society. It is at the root of our political heritage.

The very idea that there should be such inalienable rights, as the pursuit of happiness, and freedom of religion, were radical… in fact revolutionary ideas, at one time.

As time has gone by, we have expanded what we consider liberty to be.

The idea of the state so closely controlling marriage, which is a private relationship between two people, and NOT a public one, as some would like to assert, is anathema to the founding principles of our country, and antithetical to the principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence, and in our Bill of Rights.

When men who authored the Declaration of Independence, used the word, “inalienable right”, they did not mean a right which could not be taken away; they meant a right which could not be given up.

I see it as a dangerous idea, to further restrict the liberties of people who want to marry. That is my bottom line with this stuff. I don’t approve of gay marriage. As a secular society, and as a person who has sworn to put my life on the line to protect our LIBERTY, I am very cautious about wanting to restrict another American’s liberty, just because I disagree with them.

 

[epan]

And… of course there is the problem of in vitro fertilization. Is that straight couple fertile, or not? Should they be allowed to be married, if it can be shown that in vitro MIGHT work? What if they marry, and it doesn’t work… say when they try it after 15 years of marriage, and have adopted kids? Annul the marriage?

Imagine the bureaucracy to keep track of all this. Maybe a new department. Let’s call it Department Marital Fecundity & Procreative Sexual Relations Protection. The DMFPSRP.

 

[Slavonic]

The same as an unlicensed driver taking control of a vehicle. They would not have the legal right to do so precisely because the state’s interest should be to guard children from potential harm.

They would not have the legal right! So the state is the entity that grants the right to procreate. Talk about trumping natural law. It’s simply outrageous. Would unmarried couples be required to use contraception every time they are intimate or otherwise risk the possibility of being subject to investigation by the state?

I think it worth noting the Drivers Ed teacher’s favorite phrase, “Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.” Is marriage, then, a privilege? According to US Supreme Court rulings, marriage is a right.

 

[Giants]

The point being that the state has no business issuing licenses to these couples precisely because the state has no legal or justifiable interest in doing so. Basically, it is like issuing a driver’s license to someone who doesn’t drive or is incapable of doing so.

No, the point is that, whether the State has, in your mind, any business licensing or recognizing these marriages, they do license and recognize these marriages. And as far as anyone can tell, they’ve always licensed and recognized these types of marriages.

This entire specific argument against gay marriage rests on a false assumption that the government’s definition of civil marriage only exists to license and control the power of couples to procreate. We know this is a false assumption because the government routinely (as in, every single day) recognizes marriages where procreation is either unlikely or impossible. But to read your thoughts on the subject, it’s like you don’t even realize this fact - "In the case of a couple that can’t have children, they wouldn’t need a state license but still could have a ceremony of some kind and proclaim a kind of social marriage, but it simply would not need to be a legal designation." They “wouldn’t need” a State license or a legal designation? They already have a State license and a legal designation. They’re married. This isn’t even a straw man argument. It’s more like a ghost argument.

Notwithstanding all that, even if the State’s interest was solely about making sure there’s a next generation of healthy, well-adjusted citizens to help perpetuate the State, then the logical step (from a conservative Christian perspective) would be to ban gay adoption. Keep them from warping the minds of orphaned children, those better left in state care. But nobody’s making that argument.

 

[JamesATyler]

Here’s a link that gives a brief history of the marriage license.

ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html

I can’t find a webpage that gives a better history. If anyone finds something please post a link.

 

[rossum]

Should it be illegal to manufacture, prescribe, or sell any contraceptive device or drug?

Contraceptives would only be illegal for married couples to use with each other. Single people would be free to use them at any time, while married people would be free to use them with any partner they were not married to.

rossum