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

[danxt]

The original question is answered by the Catechism and has been referenced several times in this thread. The civil order has an obligation to recognize marriage, because marriages make families and families are the indispensable building blocks of society. The homosexual lobby has no right to demand that their sexual relationships be recognized as equivalent to marriage because they are not marriage.

So no, it is not a defensible position.

Thank you for the response. I must have missed the catechism references because they were in posts that were ancillary to the original question. I stopped reading all the emotional flame war stuff since it was part of the hijack. For those involved in the hijack, you should know that you do not evangelize anyone with your tangential rants.

I posted my question here because I thought maybe the members of this forum would be interested in rational, philosophical discussion that stayed on topic.

Thanks to the few people who actually addressed my question.

 

[danxt]

So, the main argument against my original question seems to be that government has an obligation to protect marriage, according to the Catechism.

Again, I’m not saying I disagree with the Catechism, but does anyone have an explanation as to WHY it makes this assertion?

Additionally, do you think there is a case to be made that, given the current political climate in the US, the best way the government could protect real marriage is by bowing out of the business of defining, granting, and incentivizing it?

Just to reiterate, I am in no way pro gay marriage/union/whatever you want to call it… Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[Joe_5859]

So, the main argument against my original question seems to be that government has an obligation to protect marriage, according to the Catechism.

Again, I’m not saying I disagree with the Catechism, but does anyone have an explanation as to WHY it makes this assertion?

Additionally, do you think there is a case to be made that, given the current political climate in the US, the best way the government could protect real marriage is by bowing out of the business of defining, granting, and incentivizing it?

Just to reiterate, I am in no way pro gay marriage/union/whatever you want to call it… Just the opposite, in fact.

Marriage and family are the building block of society. Everyone ordinarily comes into this world through a union of persons. And everyone ordinarily grows to adulthood in the context of family. The human race would not continue without marriage and family.

So the observation that marriage and family are the foundation of society is simply an observation of the reality of the way the world works. It is not necessary to even bring revelation or religion into the discussion to make that point.

Another part of the natural world is having an authority to keep order. This authority has an obligation and duty to look after the common good. It is impossible to effectively look after the common good of society while ignoring the foundational building block.

I think that’s the basic summary of why governments have a duty to protect marriage.

Your second question is an interesting one. I can see how it would seem that the government would do less damage doing nothing at all than heading down the path they are going. perhaps certain types of “incentivizing” are not inherently part of the package.

Even if that were the case that they would do less damage by the government washing their hands of the whole thing, I think that’s a bit of low hanging fruit to reach for. Let’s call that Plan ZZZ. I don’t think we’re there yet.

I still just cannot see how the government could truly disavow from marriage. Even if they say that’s what they’re doing, it seems to me that they’ll of necessity create a system of contracts and laws to protect “partners” and children. Unless they want to scale back government altogether and move towards a really bare bones type of government. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. At least not here in the U.S. Anytime someone annoys us, we want a new law to make that specific action illegal.

 

[danxt]

Thanks again Joe for the thoughtful response.

I really appreciate your explanation of the WHY. It makes sense to me, assuming that the idea of “authority is necessary to maintain order” is actually factual. Anecdotally, I would think that it is.

Isn’t the mantra of “do it right or don’t do it” the same method that the church is preaching with the ideas of closing down all the hospitals, schools, adoption centers, etc if they would be forced to cover birth control in their insurance?