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

  • Thread starter Thread starter danxt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z_Ninja said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, but if there were no “extra rights” attached to it, than they would have no legal case and could just be ignored.
 
Joe_5859 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Joe, thank you for your thoughtful response. I am not saying that I disagree with you on these things, I am just saying that I’d like some more support for some of your statements.
So, here are my questions/responses:
  1. What says that the government has an obligation to be involved in marriage? I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe it’s in our constitution. Is there an authoritative document that spells out the responsibilities of government? (again, these are honest questions, not arguments)
  2. In the scenario I’m proposing, I don’t think there is any legal recognition of same sex marriages, as there would be no legal recognition of marriages of any kind. There is recognition of contracts between people about how they intend to live, but government only recognizes a contract once there is a judicial process necessary to interpret said contract.
  3. What is the benefit of “Catholics” getting married in the Church if they are just lying about their intentions anyway? (ie. willing to accept children and bring them up in the faith… try to get each other to heaven, etc.)
  4. The term “civil union” would also disappear, as it is a nonsensical term in the proposed scenario. So, protestants who were married in a protestant church who later become Catholic would have the same issues they have now. A couple who was atheist and living in some contractual arrangement who later became Catholic, could renounce their adulterous ways, and actually get married (just as couples who are cohabitating before marriage are asked to do now).
I am genuinely interested in your thoughtful responses. Again, I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I am trying to reason through this idea.

Thank you.
 
Couldn’t the whole problem be solved if the government (both state and federal) simply changed the name “marriage” to something else? Domestic partnership or civil union are a couple of ideas. It wouldn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with sex.

I don’t see why the government should find it necessary to have a ceremony. When a few people form a business partnership, they just sign a contract. There is no ceremony involved. People who wanted to marry could do so in a church, but I’m sure that the Catholic Church would require people to do the state thing first, much like you now have to get a marriage license first.

This would be such an easy solution!
 
Listener,
I would refer you to some of the previous comments regarding that this is more than a matter of terminology (which I agree with).

Again, this thread is not to assert that my line of thinking here is correct, it is to brainstorm and bat ideas around as to whether this is a feasible solution.
 
I think that on one hand it is a matter of terminology but on the other hand it is not.

If the government stopped being involved in “marriage” but rather just allowed people to form contract based partnerships, that would take care of the legal side of things.

The churches would then be free to marry whoever they saw fit and recognize those marriages from other churches that they thought were valid.

Marriage as a Sacrament is between the spouses and God. This is the perfect area for the Church to deal with.

Marriage in the current secular sense is basically just contract law anyhow, and is the perfect area for the government/courts to deal with.
 
RE: SS Death Benefits…
Part of the original premise here is that there are no more legal/civil marriage benefits… so a SS Death benefit would no longer exist at all for anyone.

Personally, I’m a young man, and I don’t believe there will be any Social Security for me to recoup by the time I’m eligible anyway. But for those who are already in that spot, I’m sure there could be a solution… Could that not be willed to someone? Could it not be willed to someone other than a spouse in the current system? I don’t know these answers… I’ve never been through that.
 
AnnArbor said:
How do they go about ensuring that they get their partner’s Social Security death benefits?
Click to expand...
The death benefit is a grand total of… $255!

Are you referring to survivor’s benefits?

.
 
AnnArbor said:
How do they go about ensuring that they get their partner’s Social Security death benefits?
Click to expand...
This is something that would have to be addressed in the law when/if the government stopped being involved in marriage.

I am not saying that there are not complications that would have to be worked out, I am just saying that it is doable and seems to me that it would solve a lot of the issues that we are having today.
 
I agree that removing government involvement would end any civil rights argument about marriage. A “shared life” contract would be open to all. Marriage would be a religious ceremony / sacrament. Married couples would also have to have the contract as well. Seems a simple solution.

I am curious about this statement though
Joe_5859 said:
This course of action will only lead us further down the path of privatizing religion.
Click to expand...
Can you offer insight to what you mean. Religion is separate from the Government. Privatizing in other contexts means private companies do what was previously provided by the government.
 
danxt said:
RE: SS Death Benefits…
Part of the original premise here is that there are no more legal/civil marriage benefits… so a SS Death benefit would no longer exist at all for anyone.

Personally, I’m a young man, and I don’t believe there will be any Social Security for me to recoup by the time I’m eligible anyway. But for those who are already in that spot, I’m sure there could be a solution… Could that not be willed to someone? Could it not be willed to someone other than a spouse in the current system? I don’t know these answers… I’ve never been through that.
Click to expand...
No, not in the current system. I was just making the point that there is no contract that actually confers all the benefits of marriage. Inheritance taxes, Social Security, etc. have provisions in them that cannot be changed through any independent contract.

Some posters seem to assume that gay couples who desire marriage are asking for something that they could easily accommodate with another contract – and that they just want marriage in order to be contrary. In reality, there are rights for married couples that simply do not exist for gay couples.

I am not making an argument for those rights here, I am simply pointing out that we should not infer that gay couples do not mean what they say when they articulate a desire for the same rights as married couples.
 
AnnArbor said:
No, not in the current system. I was just making the point that there is no contract that actually confers all the benefits of marriage. Inheritance taxes, Social Security, etc. have provisions in them that cannot be changed through any independent contract.
Click to expand...
But these are all things that could be worked out through the legislature. Just because the solution does not exist today does not mean that it cannot exist in the future.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
But these are all things that could be worked out through the legislature. Just because the solution does not exist today does not mean that it cannot exist in the future.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Again, I am just making the point that we do not have those provisions yet. Sometimes, people posit the idea that gay couples can get all the same rights as married couples by drawing up some legal papers – as the laws currently stand, they cannot.
 
AnnArbor said:
No, not in the current system. I was just making the point that there is no contract that actually confers all the benefits of marriage. Inheritance taxes, Social Security, etc. have provisions in them that cannot be changed through any independent contract.

Some posters seem to assume that gay couples who desire marriage are asking for something that they could easily accommodate with another contract – and that they just want marriage in order to be contrary. In reality, there are rights for married couples that simply do not exist for gay couples.

I am not making an argument for those rights here, I am simply pointing out that we should not infer that gay couples do not mean what they say when they articulate a desire for the same rights as married couples.
Click to expand...
Why do they want this?

Before gay marriage: gay couple lives together, goes to work and comes home.
After gay marriage: gay couple lives together, goes to work and comes home.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Why do they want this?

Before gay marriage: gay couple lives together, goes to work and comes home.
After gay marriage: gay couple lives together, goes to work and comes home.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I would imagine for the same reason straight couples who live together choose to marry.

Before gay marriage: One partner dies, the other pays higher inheritance taxes, does not get Social Security survivor benefits.

After gay marriage: One partner dies, the other inherits and receives benefits the same as straight couples.

Just guessing.
 
AnnArbor said:
I would imagine for the same reason straight couples who live together choose to marry.
Click to expand...
Yes, but marriage has never existed simply for the benefit of the spouses. The government gives those benefits because it is in the best interest of a couple to assume the responsibilities of marriage, because it’s the unique institution that binds parents and their own biological children into a cohesive family unit. Since procreation is impossible between two members of the same sex, the state’s interest is far less compelling.
 
AnnArbor said:
In reality, there are rights for married couples that simply do not exist for gay couples.
Click to expand...
One is the right to procreate which isn’t possible for a homosexual couple unless they go outside of their partnership and do it by artificial means with a third party. But even in that case, a heterosexual biological union is still required for the conception. 🙂
 
AnnArbor said:
I would imagine for the same reason straight couples who live together choose to marry.

Before gay marriage: One partner dies, the other pays higher inheritance taxes, does not get Social Security survivor benefits.

After gay marriage: One partner dies, the other inherits and receives benefits the same as straight couples.

Just guessing.
Click to expand...
I think guesses are not going to help here. 🙂

Ed
 
aemcpa said:
Yes, but marriage has never existed simply for the benefit of the spouses. The government gives those benefits because it is in the best interest of a couple to assume the responsibilities of marriage, because it’s the unique institution that binds parents and their own biological children into a cohesive family unit. Since procreation is impossible between two members of the same sex, the state’s interest is far less compelling.
Click to expand...
As a child adopted though Catholic Charities to a traditional couple I resent your underlining and implication. Not charitable in the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top