Posted on 05/28/2009 5:19:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I don’t agree with Douglas Kmiec often, but this may be the exception … maybe. With all of the various legal and legislative challenges to the definition of marriage in states across the nation, Kmiec tells Catholic News Agency that government should restrict itself to enforcing contract law and leave the question of marriage to the churches. Robert George, a highly respected Constitutional scholar and fellow Catholic, vehemently disagrees (via The Corner):
Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama’s presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral “civil license,” a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a “terrible idea” that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.
Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be “awkward,” it would “untie the state from this problem” by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. “Call it a ‘civil license’,” he said.
“The net effect of that, would be to turn over–quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” he said.
George counters:
“It’s a pre-political institution,” he said. “It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”
“The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce “basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill – citizens – who can take their rightful place in society.”
“Family is built on marriage, and government–the state–has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George told CNSNews.com.
“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”
Normally in any debate between Kmiec and George, I’d rely on the latter, especially on matters of faith. However, in this case, Kmiec has the better argument, mostly because the “state” gave up protecting marriage and children decades ago. The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting “integrity and well-being of the family.” In fact, I’d argue that serial marriers of the kind seen in Hollywood (or in Washington DC) do more to undermine marriage than single-gender unions would ever do.
The state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and have its citizens enter into partnership contracts instead. That might have the salutary effect of putting mechanisms into place for dissolutions that would keep divorces from dragging on through the courts, but also give the state more ability to enforce the terms of the contract than government is willing to do with marriages that lack pre-nuptial agreements, especially on penalties for abrogation. That would also give the courts an opening to finally get rid of “palimony”, that noxious avenue where the courts have to make determinations whether contractual relations exist between people who neither execute a contract or take wedding vows.
Churches could then recognize marriage along their own precepts. Catholics who want to get married in a Catholic church would still have to be a heterosexual couple above the age of consent, at least one of whom is Catholic, without issues of consanguinuity, but would have to also sign a partnership contract for the civil recognition of the relationship. It would be little different than the current requirement of getting a marriage license now, except that the agreement would have more detail on the partnership than the current marriage license provides, although even that could be more or less boilerplate for many couples.
Would the public accept the withdrawal of government from the blessing of marriages? Not at first, certainly, but the public also won’t back a revocation of no-fault divorce, either, which strongly implies that a government imposed “integrity of marriages” solution won’t be popular at all. I’d expect this to be the eventual solution to the definition-of-marriage argument.
He's right on that. You want to end the homosexual marriage debate, end no-fault (unilateral) divorce.
Once the church refuses, it’s off to court to get the church’s tax exemption removed, using the Bob Jones decision as precedent. Many believe that this is the real agenda behind the gay marriage movement—to defund all conservative churches.
This will happen whether the government recognizes marriage or not.
Why would that be, no one can do that now. You and your girlfriend cannot require any minister or church or faith to perform a marriage ceremony for you.
Soooo....doesn't it make more sense to change tax law than marriage law?
If marriage is replaced by a civil license (and no doubt, a fee) issued by the state for the unchurched, couldn’t the state re-define the legal agreement’s terms after that point as it saw fit or as some disgruntled groups petitioned Congress, especially if the state no longer is bound by contract law, as in the Chrysler negotiations? And wouldn’t that god-like power prove too irresistible a temptation to wield over us, the people?
yes yes...and if you cut off your foot, you wont have to put up with ingrown townails....
Same logic...
Toe nails even....*grin*
There should be a way to enter into Holy matrimony without the state, without a license from the state, only permission from the church. Those would leave govt out of it. But I don't see govt getting out of it, our government is too entrenched in it. Social Security, for one thing. Marriage penalties are another. There are many ways.
What is needed is for marriage to be separated from “civil rights” it isn't one. Nor is it an inalienable right. Pursuit of it is, but marriage is not. And for all the homosexuals, NEITHER IS SEX! When courts allowed the equal protection clause to be co opted, that is when all the trouble started.
Here Here!!
OK you do have a point there. I know a few elderly couples, who have been forced to divorce in order not to lose their homes and stay out of nursing homes. I feel for them. It happens a lot.
How did he respond?
Yip yip yahoo. 5,000 years of Western Society thrown over by people with an American Idol attention span. Maybe it was the fluoride in the water. Maybe it was public education. Whatever it was, it was toxic.
Hard to imagine the government would get out of the dissolution of marriage business.
Whenever liberals dangle the bait, libertarians always grab it, and always get hooked.
I think it struck him as a unique idea. He thought about it and noted that the state wouldn't recognize Church weddings. I responded that such recognition was rarely beneficial anyway, as the state puts a penalty on marriage.
He then cocked his head in thought again and stated that if the State did invent a new non-Christian definition, that he thought that the Church should indeed start to marry people without a state license.
It was pointed out to me, that if they did marry people without the state license, unitarian churches and Episcopal churches would marry gays. But they have been for years. Those are just not recognized by states.
Any person with eyes and ears need only look at what the Great Socciety did to the urban family and the resultant gross expansion of government to realize just what a stupid idea this is from a conservative point of view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.