What if the government was to get out of the marriage business altogether?

[danxt]

I would identify myself as a conservative orthodox Catholic. I love the Church and find great wisdom in all her teachings (at least the ones that I’ve been able to study and understand). I am trying to reason through the implications of taking the position that the government should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
If we look at the LGBT position, the main thing that they want (as far as marriage is concerned) is equal rights to heterosexual couples. The civil (legal) rights that currently accompany a marriage license are tax benefits, the ability to adopt, the rights to make end of life decisions and rights for inheritances (am I missing any?).

So, what if those “rights” or benefits went away for heterosexuals?
One implication would be that the government would need to get out of the adoption business too (which the Church does a much better job of handling anyway).

What do you think? Is this a defensible position to take?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I would identify myself as a conservative orthodox Catholic. I love the Church and find great wisdom in all her teachings (at least the ones that I’ve been able to study and understand). I am trying to reason through the implications of taking the position that the government should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
If we look at the LGBT position, the main thing that they want (as far as marriage is concerned) is equal rights to heterosexual couples. The civil (legal) rights that currently accompany a marriage license are tax benefits, the ability to adopt, the rights to make end of life decisions and rights for inheritances (am I missing any?).

So, what if those “rights” or benefits went away for heterosexuals?
One implication would be that the government would need to get out of the adoption business too (which the Church does a much better job of handling anyway).

What do you think? Is this a defensible position to take?

Personally, I have been thinking the same thing for a while now. Why is government involved in marriage at all? Leave it to the churches which handled these types of things for centuries without needing the government to be involved. The government isn’t involved in Baptism, why are they a part of this Sacrament?

 

[ProVobis]

I’ll have to agree with both your positions.

There will be contract and tax issues, to be sure, but in the end, it would be better for the churches to do the witnessing and the marrying.

 

[aux1]

It is not that the gov’t is in the Church’s business, it’s that the state recognizes church marriage as a legal contract, which means that the Church is in state business.

Back when my country had a strict separation of church and state (and it was a good thing, let me tell you) the marriage in Church was not recognized by the state. As far as the state was concerned, it didn’t exist. The Church, likewise, didn’t recognize state marriage. (The Church however required the marriage candidates to present paperwork saying that they are not married to someone else in the eyes of the state to prevent abuse.) The upside was that the Church could marry whoever it wanted (or not marry whoever they wanted), and the state couldn’t care less. The downside was causing was that you had to do two ceremonies… but most people were doing them on the same day anyway.

Simple solutions are often best.

 

[edwest2]

There is no “marriage business.” I think the question that needs to be asked is, why did “same-sex marriage” appear on the ballot. Trust me. Nobody has called me - ever - to get my permission to live how they want.

In 2011, the following happened to me:

1. I ended up in the emergency room and my straight male friend sat next to me for hours. No one asked what our relationship was.
2. I put him down as beneficiary on my retirement account in 5 minutes over the phone. No questions were asked about our relationship.
3. Had I gotten sicker, I would have gotten durable power of attorney so he could make medical and end of life decisions.
4. Had things looked worse, I would have filled out a simple will leaving everything I owned to him.

Why do gays want government approval to live how they want?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Deltadeliquent]

The reason the government is inthe marriage business is that marriage is a legal contract, subject to law.
As a stay at home Mom for much of my adult life, if I hadn’t been married to my first husband I would not have gotten a dime after 17 years. It is a bad idea to rely on the good will of a former husband or partner.

I have lived in the UK also, and they presently have no laws to protect live in partners. Live in partners are very common there and women tend to get little when they are turned in for younger models. I believe this is the position of most, if not all of the states.

In BC, where I live now, after living together for two years each partner has property rights as if they were married.

I chose living in a traditional family, it is very important to have these rights. My marriage is my only security as I am not eligible for any state pension in any of the three countries I have lived.

For those of us who have made their living by loving others, given the weakness of marriage these days, it is VERY important that the government stay in the marriage business.

I wonder how many SSmarriages will be actually contracted when they realise that saying " I do" means half.

 

[devoutchristian]

If you mean that the government should not be involved in granting marriages then that is a valid idea, if however you mean that the government should ignore the institution of marriage then that would be morally problematic.

 

[danxt]

Deltadeliquent,
as a previous poster pointed out, all of the contractual bits of marriage could very easily be carried out by a contract which both parties sign.
If both parties enter into the contract knowing that if they terminate the relationship, each gets half of the combined wealth of the two of them, then that issue is resolved. In that scenario, the government is only involved if it goes to a legal proceeding to sort out the terms of the contract.

Right?

 

[Fairwinds]

Deltadeliquent,
as a previous poster pointed out, all of the contractual bits of marriage could very easily be carried out by a contract which both parties sign.
If both parties enter into the contract knowing that if they terminate the relationship, each gets half of the combined wealth of the two of them, then that issue is resolved. In that scenario, the government is only involved if it goes to a legal proceeding to sort out the terms of the contract.

Right?

still a bad idea. a marriage also creates an economic entity with rights and duties relative to the rest of the world. you’ve got have a way of enforcing those rights short of a lawsuit.

 

[devoutchristian]

Deltadeliquent,
as a previous poster pointed out, all of the contractual bits of marriage could very easily be carried out by a contract which both parties sign.
If both parties enter into the contract knowing that if they terminate the relationship, each gets half of the combined wealth of the two of them, then that issue is resolved. In that scenario, the government is only involved if it goes to a legal proceeding to sort out the terms of the contract.

Right?

The problem though is that not all of the legal benefits of marriage can be acquired by contract.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

The problem though is that not all of the legal benefits of marriage can be acquired by contract.

Sure they can. In the eyes of the state that is all marriage is anyhow, a contract.

 

[devoutchristian]

Sure they can. In the eyes of the state that is all marriage is anyhow, a contract.

Tax benefits?

 

[livingwordunity]

Legislation creating “same-sex” marriage: What’s at stake?

At the beginning of the New Year, 2013, a law is being proposed in the General Assembly to change the legal definition of marriage in Illinois to accommodate those of the same sex who wish to “marry” one another. In this discussion, the Church will be portrayed as “anti-gay,” which is a difficult position to be in, particularly when families and the Church herself love those of their members who are same-sex oriented. What’s at stake in this legislative proposal and in the Church’s teaching on marriage?

Basically, the nature of marriage is not a religious question. Marriage comes to us from nature. Christ sanctifies marriage as a sacrament for the baptized, giving it significance beyond its natural reality; the State protects marriage because it is essential to family and to the common good of society. But neither Church nor State invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Nature and Nature’s God, to use the expression in the Declaration of Independence of our country, give the human species two mutually complementary sexes, able to transmit life through what the law has hitherto recognized as a marital union. Consummated sexual relations between a man and a woman are ideally based on mutual love and must always be based on mutual consent, if they are genuinely human actions. But no matter how strong a friendship or deep a love between persons of the same sex might be, it is physically impossible for two men, or two women, to consummate a marital union. Even in civil law, non-consummation of a marriage is reason for annulment.

Sexual relations between a man and a woman are naturally and necessarily different from sexual relations between same-sex partners. This truth is part of the common sense of the human race. It was true before the existence of either Church or State, and it will continue to be true when there is no State of Illinois and no United States of America. A proposal to change this truth about marriage in civil law is less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible. The Legislature might just as well repeal the law of gravity.

What is, then, at stake in this proposed legislation? What is certainly at stake is the natural relationship between parents and children. Children, even if they are loved and raised by those who are not their biological parents, want to know who their parents are, who are their natural family. The fascination with genealogical tables and the opening of adoption records are evidence of this desire to find oneself in a biological succession of generations. No honest “study” has disproved what we all know. Stable marriage between a husband and wife has safeguarded their children, surrounding them with familial love and creating the secure foundation for human flourishing. This natural desire, already weakened in a seemingly more and more promiscuous society, will no longer be privileged in civil law. It will be no more “normal” than any other “family” arrangement. If the nature of marriage is destroyed in civil law, the natural family goes with it.

As well, those who know the difference between marriage and same-sex arrangements will be regarded as bigots. This is where the religious question does come into play. Including “religious freedom” in the title of the proposed law recognizes that religious teaching based on natural truths will now be considered evidence of illegal discrimination and will be punishable by law. The title of the law is ironic if not disingenuous. Those who know that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the sake of family will carry a social opprobrium that will make them unwelcome on most university faculties and on the editorial boards of major newspapers. They will be excluded from the entertainment industry. Their children and grandchildren will be taught in the government schools that their parents are unenlightened, the equivalent of misguided racists. Laws teach; they express accepted social values and most people go along with societal trends, even when majority opinion espouses immoral causes.

The legalization of abortion is a good example of how an immoral procedure that kills babies in their mother’s womb is first permitted legally in limited circumstances as a necessary evil and then moves in forty years to become a condition of human freedom, necessary to be preserved at all costs, an essential part of “reproductive health care.” We are on the same trajectory with marriage. Model laws creating same-sex unions as civil marriage have been part of legal education for decades. The media have engaged in a campaign on this issue for almost as long a time, desensitizing people to accept as normal something that had previously been recognized as problematic. We are at the end of a tremendous propaganda effort by those secure in their conviction that they are at the cutting edge of human development. But what we’re seeing is not particularly new. Two thousand years ago, the Church was born in a society with the values now being advanced as necessary for a fair society today.

Source:
See full article

 

[Z_Ninja]

I would identify myself as a conservative orthodox Catholic. I love the Church and find great wisdom in all her teachings (at least the ones that I’ve been able to study and understand). I am trying to reason through the implications of taking the position that the government should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
If we look at the LGBT position, the main thing that they want (as far as marriage is concerned) is equal rights to heterosexual couples. The civil (legal) rights that currently accompany a marriage license are tax benefits, the ability to adopt, the rights to make end of life decisions and rights for inheritances (am I missing any?).

So, what if those “rights” or benefits went away for heterosexuals?
One implication would be that the government would need to get out of the adoption business too (which the Church does a much better job of handling anyway).

What do you think? Is this a defensible position to take?

I can see your point, but once concessions are made, would those activists continually seek more. Another poster gave the example of granting power of attorney and other contractual instances which would allow someone of the same sex certain “rights” but that is not enough it seems. Another example, I purchased a home with my brother, both our names were on the deed and we both benefited from things such as first time buyers discounts and such. We both filed taxes separately and was able to use the tax form from the purchase of the home.

It just seems the whole agenda is against the sacrament of marriage. As trying to undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage. The “civil-rights” aspect seems to be a by-product of this current movement.

but I may be wrong.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Tax benefits?

Why not, have the tax law so that people that are in a “contract relationship” etc get these benefits as long as the contract remains in force. Or get rid of the tax benefits altogether, close a bunch of loop holes in fact and make the whole system fairer and make more sense.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I can see your point, but once concessions are made, would those activists continually seek more. Another poster gave the example of granting power of attorney and other contractual instances which would allow someone of the same sex certain “rights” but that is not enough it seems. Another example, I purchased a home with my brother, both our names were on the deed and we both benefited from things such as first time buyers discounts and such. We both filed taxes separately and was able to use the tax form from the purchase of the home.

It just seems the whole agenda is against the sacrament of marriage. As trying to undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage. The “civil-rights” aspect seems to be a by-product of this current movement.

but I may be wrong.

But if the government got out of marriage, and it was strictly done by the Church and anything on the legal side was just contract law, there would be no “civil rights” issues right?

 

[Z_Ninja]

But if the government got out of marriage, and it was strictly done by the Church and anything on the legal side was just contract law, there would be no “civil rights” issues right?

Possibly, no “civil rights” issue with regard to the government. The target would solely become the Church at that point, I think there would still be arguments that why can’t there be same sex marriage, just like the complaints of no women priests et al… Those who are against the Church will continue to be against Her no matter what it seems.

 

[aemcpa]

Tax benefits?

Congress could simply eliminate all filing statuses except single on Form 1040. For all those pairs of taxpayers who wish to pool their incomes and expenses on a single return, they could file the new Form 1050, US Return of Domestic Partnership Income. They would previously have to had registered all the SSNs that they wish to be included in the domestic partnership, and classify those SSNs as either a “participant” in the partnership (of which there must be exactly two) or a “dependent” of the partnership.

 

[Joe_5859]

I can understand why one might be tempted to embrace this position. We see the cultural battle taking place. We also see that the Christian view of marriage is steadily losing ground. This seems like a solution that would – in effect – make the battle unnecessary. It also seems like it could side-step any future battles over forcing the Church to acknowledge or celebrate such “marriages”.

However, I feel very strongly that this approach is short-sighted and counter-productive. This is simply the foot-in-the-door position towards normalizing same sex relationships.

First, the government cannot “get out” of the marriage business anymore than the government can “get out” of the business of protecting its citizens. It’s simply part of the responsibilities it has by virtue of being the government.

Second, even if the government did attempt to do so, they would basically be forced to do exactly what they are doing now – except to simply call it anything other than marriage. But since the government has obligations to foster the good of society, they have to protect society’s fundamental buiilding block: the family. They will need contracts and legislation to protect the rights of individuals in these relationships and the children that result. Call it something else, but it’s still marriage.

Third, when you look at documents coming from the Vatican, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, the Church is arguing against any legal recognition for same sex couples. They are not just arguing against using the word marriage.

As Ed pointed out, all of the legal “benefits” of marriage can be obtained through a thousand other far less complicated ways using the legislation that is on the books right now. The only purpose in either allowing same sex marriage or reducing everyone to the level playing field of “civil unions” is because those in favor of same sex unions/marriage want the world to agree with them that the two types of relationships are identical.

Further, I don’t think that this approach really considers the potential long-term consequences of such a historically momentous shift in language. We will have even less Catholics even bothering to get married in the Church because they’ll think it is superfluous and unnecessary. Marriage Tribunal offices will have to explain to the Protestant converts coming in that their former “civil unions” really are considered valid marriages and thus they would need to petition for a declaration of nullity.

I think that sometimes we forget that marriage pre-dates the Church. Marriage is something. When Jesus came, He raised it to the level of a sacrament, but it still existed before then. And it still exists today for those who are non-baptized as valid natural marriages. We cannot and should not reduce marriage to solely a religious term. It’s not. This course of action will only lead us further down the path of privatizing religion.

 

[aemcpa]

But the fact is that marriage is first and foremost a natural institution created by God in the beginning of time. Only in the Church age did Christ raise it to the dignity of a sacrament, to endow the natural institution with supernatural grace. Not only does it uniquely benefit civil society, it is the very foundational unit of civil society. It is not something that the civil society can just toss away without unraveling its own fabric.

EDIT: See what Joe said above for a more compelling version of my statement.