Why not abolish civil marriages/ unions altogether?

[levi86]

As it stands a civil marriage entitles the parties involved to a set list of predetermined legal rights. Why not replace this with individual contracts that can be personalised to the persons involved. Under such a system a Catholic couple would be married within The Church according to God’s law, then enter into a civil contract according to state law. The state would only acknowledge the conditions of the contract not the marriage itself.

This reform would…

1} Allow for complete separation of Church and state with respect to marriage. This would allow people with differing religious/ social beliefs to live their lives without state intervention. By only allowing the Christian concept of marriage the state is enforcing discrimination against non-Christian citizens.

and

2} Ensure that the Catholic concept of marriage is preserved without it being compromised by, or associated with gay marriage, polygamy or divorce.

Any thoughts?

 

[jbuck919]

I think I understand what you are proposing, but frankly only an American (of which I am, gratefully, one also) would think of such a thing. In most of the world, including and emphatically Europe, a civil ceremony is necessary before a church ceremony can take place. The USA may not be exactly alone, but it is extremely rare among countries that license ministers of the cloth to perform marriages that have civil weight.

 

[steveandersen]

other than a name change what would be the difference between the current civil unions and your proposed civil contract?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

As it stands a civil marriage entitles the parties involved to a set list of predetermined legal rights. Why not replace this with individual contracts that can be personalised to the persons involved. Under such a system a Catholic couple would be married within The Church according to God’s law, then enter into a civil contract according to state law. The state would only acknowledge the conditions of the contract not the marriage itself.

This reform would…

1} Allow for complete separation of Church and state with respect to marriage. This would allow people with differing religious/ social beliefs to live their lives without state intervention. By only allowing the Christian concept of marriage the state is enforcing discrimination against non-Christian citizens.

and

2} Ensure that the Catholic concept of marriage is preserved without it being compromised by, or associated with gay marriage, polygamy or divorce.

Any thoughts?

But the question is: Do we want complete separation of Church and state ?

I don’t.

I for one do not wish to live in a society with very few or no moral values. Where everyone is free to decide what is right or wrong for themselves. Homosexual relationships, abortion, euthanasia, etc, are all gravely wrong and must be prohibited by society.

 

[BillP]

Homosexual relationships, abortion, euthanasia, etc, are all gravely wrong and must be prohibited by society.

How then do you answer those who would say:

“The Popish religion is mere superstition and must be prohibited by society”?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I probably do not understand. This sounds foolish. Anybody who thinks they can enforce a contract between married people probably has no idea what marriage really is. There is an underlying assumption that :

Humans->Moral Natural Law->Canon Law->Social Law

Is not correct so

Humans->Moral Natural Law->Social Law

is inherently flawed?

When you marry you know what you know, which is often very little about what is to come. If you marry correctly you as a couple deal with what comes. Any outsider between the two is a big problem, even if state sent them to enforce a contract.

Hope that helps

 

[San_Patricio]

How then do you answer those who would say:

“The Popish religion is mere superstition and must be prohibited by society”?

With Ammendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof…”

The whole “separation of church and state” concept is a myth. The constitution says the state may not establish or interfere with religion, not that the Church, or churches, or church members based on their religious convictions may not influence the state.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One of the things about this proposal is that it doesn’t solve any problems. Precisely what difficulty will we avoid if this is put into practice?

At the same time, it would require every couple to re-invent the wheel. Each contract would be unique. In one family, both parents would be responsbile for the children, in the family next door, only the mother. Down the street, the grandparents would have the legal responsibility.

The same would be true of property and all other matters governed by the laws of marriage.

Given the rate of divorce in this country, courts would be swamped trying to interpret millions and millions of unique contracts.

And who would be left holding the baby? The taxpayer, that’s wnho!

 

[Tom]

As it stands a civil marriage entitles the parties involved to a set list of predetermined legal rights. Why not replace this with individual contracts that can be personalised to the persons involved.

Let’s ask the next logical question; is it constitutional to “entitle” someone with legal “rights” and benefits simply because they are married? Why should a married man (or woman) have different benefits than a single man (or woman)? Why should a single woman have to pay for the education of someone else’s child? Why should a married woman pay different tax than a single man? Why should a single woman be punished simply because she doesn’t want to raise a family? Why does the government recognize ANY marriage? It’s none of their business who I live with, or how many children I have. If we give one person a “break” we are discriminating against another.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s ask the next logical question; is it constitutional to “entitle” someone with legal “rights” and benefits simply because they are married? Why should a married man (or woman) have different benefits than a single man (or woman)? Why should a single woman have to pay for the education of someone else’s child? Why should a married woman pay different tax than a single man? Why should a single woman be punished simply because she doesn’t want to raise a family? Why does the government recognize ANY marriage? It’s none of their business who I live with, or how many children I have. If we give one person a “break” we are discriminating against another.

Is it constitutional to entitle people to certain “rights” because they are under the poverty level, or above a certain age? Is it constitutional to tax all the people to educate the children of some? Is it constitutional to tax all the people to build roads that not everyone uses at the same rate – and some use for business purposes?

Marriage is a fundamental human institution – if you don’t believe it, look at the social disaster we are coping with from out-of-wedlock children. Look at how children raised in single-parent households have a higher chance of dropping out of school, committing crimes, doing drugs, having children of their own out of wedlock, and so on.

Given that marriage is so vital to society, the regulation of marital rights and responsibilities, common property and so on, is equally vital.

 

[San_Patricio]

In most of the world, including and emphatically Europe, a civil ceremony is necessary before a church ceremony can take place.

I am pleased to inform you that in Ireland, “the church ceremony is enough and a priest’s word is more than adequate” (to quote one of my heroes, who wishes to remain annonymous {hi honey! }). There is no civil ceremony required at all. So, as you can see, not all of Europe has fallen so far from it’s Catholic roots into the heathen abyss of secularism.

 

[levi86]

Thanks for your responses guys. Let me elaborate more on my reasoning.

The focus of the argument against gay marriage is that it “changes the meaning of marriage”, the only way for the state to avoid such conflict is to abandon its recognition of any form of marriage.

As it stands the government does not merely grant “marital rights” to individuals arbitrarily, it is granting those rights based on a communal or emotional partnership they have, in this regard the government is sanctioning the nature of their relationship as one worthy of the closest of unions. Unfortunately with the advent of gay marriages various governments are sanctioning homosexual relationships.

Under my proposal the state would not be able to sanction any form of marriage (homosexual or otherwise) because such rights would be awarded based on an individuals willingness to share legal responsibilities with another, regardless of their relationship to to that other person. This may include homosexuals, polygamists (Mormons or Muslims), family relatives or even good friends.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks for your responses guys. Let me elaborate more on my reasoning.

The focus of the argument against gay marriage is that it “changes the meaning of marriage”, the only way for the state to avoid such conflict is to abandon its recognition of any form of marriage.

As it stands the government does not merely grant “marital rights” to individuals arbitrarily, it is granting those rights based on a communal or emotional partnership they have, in this regard the government is sanctioning the nature of their relationship as one worthy of the closest of unions. Unfortunately with the advent of gay marriages various governments are sanctioning homosexual relationships.

Under my proposal the state would not be able to sanction any form of marriage (homosexual or otherwise) because such rights would be awarded based on an individuals willingness to share legal responsibilities with another, regardless of their relationship to to that other person. This may include homosexuals, polygamists (Mormons or Muslims), family relatives or even good friends.

What’s wrong with simply retaining our present marriage laws? Why do we have to plunge society into chaos?

 

[The_Augustinian]

He has a point. As it is, homosexuals can marry in whatever religious community allows them to. The advocacy of gay “marriage” forces society to accept their marriages under the penalty of law. Abolishing civil marriage would deny homosexuals this power.

I don’t like the idea of a society based upon contracts, either, but as far as we are living in this society, this might be the best option.

 

[Nessie]

I am pleased to inform you that in Ireland, “the church ceremony is enough and a priest’s word is more than adequate” (to quote one of my heroes, who wishes to remain annonymous {hi honey! }). There is no civil ceremony required at all. So, as you can see, not all of Europe has fallen so far from it’s Catholic roots into the heathen abyss of secularism.

Evenin’ stranger!

There is no separate civil ceremony needed in Ireland, a marriage register is signed on the wedding day and the head of church forwards the details for you. This is true for Catholics, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, Quakers, and the Jewish community. Muslims and other faiths need a civil ceremony too.

citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/family-and-relationships/getting-married/religious_marriages

Depending on how you marry (i.e., through a civil or religious ceremony), the registration process may differ. Essentially, however, all civil and religious marriage ceremonies involve the signing of marriage register. You do not have to take any additional steps as the Registrar or Head of the Church carrying out the marriage ceremony will then make the registration returns (ensure the registration of the marriage) for you.

:irish1: