Posted on 02/14/2014 1:18:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Years ago, I advocated that the best way to protect the traditional definition of marriage was to get government out of the business of it. Many traditionalists objected to it, and there are good arguments for conserving the tradition in law as the basis to keep families and children prioritized over the desires of adults seeking government recognition for their own non-traditional relationships. That argument relies on the moral force of law in the culture, but the momentum of the culture clearly has accelerated in the opposite direction, and moral force in the definition of marriage with it.
The greater issue for traditionalists, and the bigger risk, will be that religious institutions will find themselves trapped by the changing definitions. We’ve already seen evidence that participants in the wedding industry will find themselves under fire for sticking with their own values in choosing when and how to participate in the market. Ministers occupy a rather unique position in the confluence of state and church, operating in an official capacity as an agent of the state to certify marriages. Even though advocates of same-sex marriage insist that they don’t want to force churches into performing these ceremonies, it’s not going to be long before such challenges arise, and will push churches out of the marriage business instead of government — which is a big reason for getting government out first. And if you doubt that this will become an issue, just look at the HHS contraception mandate and their treatment of religious organizations.
Francis Beckwith disagrees, calling such an arrangement unworkable, and insists that traditionalists need to keep fighting to retain the historical definition of marriage instead:
Imagine, for example, as one of my former doctoral students once suggested in a dissertation that defended this idea of privatization, that marriage becomes exclusively the domain of “the church.” Suppose Bob and Mary, both devout Catholics, marry in the Church under the authority of canon law. Over the next decade, they have three children. Mary decides to leave the Church, however, to become a Unitarian and seeks to dissolve the marriage. Because the Church maintains that marriage is indissoluble, and Mary has no grounds for an annulment, the Church refuses her request.
Mary then seeks the counsel of her pastor at the Unitarian Church. She tells Mary that the Unitarian Church recognizes her marriage with Bob, but maintains that divorcing him is perfectly justified, since the Unitarian Church holds that incompatibility is a legitimate ground for divorce. So, Mary now requests a divorce from the Unitarian Church, and it is granted. The Church also grants her full custody of her children, since, according to Unitarian moral theology, what Bob teaches their children about contraception, abortion, and same-sex relations are “hate sins,” and thus is a form of child abuse.
So, who wins in this case? Suppose you say that because it was originally a Catholic marriage, it should remain so, even if Mary changes her religion. But who has the authority to enforce such a rule? The Catholic Church? The Unitarians? What if the Catholic Church agrees to it, but not the Unitarians?
Suppose Mary, on the authority of the Unitarian ruling, simply takes the children and moves out of state. Is that kidnapping? Can a Catholic ecclesial court issue an order to a local Knights of Columbus office to return Mary and her children to their original domicile so that she can be tried in an ecclesial court for violations of canon law? And if she is convicted, can the Church put her in an ecclesial prison or fine her?
Suppose that Mary not only leaves with all the children, but also empties the couple’s bank accounts and donates their contents to the Unitarian Church? Is it a crime? Who decides? Imagine that all these issues were addressed in private contracts that Bob and Mary drew up and signed upon the commencement of their marriage in the Catholic Church. Who has the power to make sure these breaches are remedied and compensation given to the wronged parties?
The problem with all of these scenarios is that they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what privatization means in this context. The issue is not who gets jurisdiction over the secular consequences of relationships, but the definition and recognition of what a marriage actually is. Disconnecting the government from the authority to define and certify “marriage” does not involve moving all of the jurisdictions for the consequences of marriage to the church, synagogue, or temple. Privatization basically says that the government has no role in “certifying” or promoting relationships between consenting adults, but rather is limited to the enforcement of contract law in disputes between them. The status of “marriage” then becomes a strictly voluntary matter of recognition by one’s faith community, based on the tenets of the faith.
The legal and property issues of cohabitation in any form would still lie with the state. Government still has the jurisdiction and the competence for enforcement of contracts, both explicit and implicit. Cohabiting couples who never marry at all would have to resolve their property and custodial arrangements if and when they part ways, assuming they have children at all. If they can’t resolve those interests amicably, they go to court regardless of their marital status.
This would be no different if recognition of marriage were left to the churches. The state would still settle the contract issues in a dissolution of the partnership; the only issues left to the churches would be the religious implications of the end of the marriage, and that would be on a purely voluntary basis, as is faith now. To use Beckwith’s example, a Catholic who got married in the church but later ended the relationship and started another would have to deal with the Catholic Church on his/her eligibility to remain in communion, not on custody of children or property. If the Catholic became a Unitarian, it’s no longer the Catholic Church’s issue. (That happens already, by the way.)
This is all academic, because few in this debate want to give up state control of marriage, although a few lawmakers in Oklahoma are considering it. There are good reasons for traditionalists to stay engaged (if you’ll pardon the pun), but this argument isn’t one of them.
That’s how it worked in Communist Poland as well as I understand it.
Oh yeah, and sticking it’s nose in where it is not wanted, not needed, and has no Constitutional power to mess with.
Don’t forget that...
If you don’t care whether your marriage is recognized by the state, then what is the problem?
If you are Mormon, or Muslim, or gay, or Catholic, just have your own religious ceremony at and be married to your wives, or gay friends.
Privatized marriage is, and always has been available.
Well, we could always stick with your idea and let government force acceptance of gay marriage down our throats at the end of a Federal Rifle...
How’s that workin’ out for us Sparky?
If you don’t care whether your marriage is recognized by the state, then what is the problem?
If you are Mormon, or Muslim, or gay, or Catholic, just have your own religious ceremony at and be married to your wives, or gay friends is what you propose.
As silly and unrealistic as your supposed position is, that is what you propose, I want to fight gay marriage and polygamy, you do not.
Um... Because people like you want government deciding who gets “married” and who doesn’t. You Religions Official version...
“Because government has always done that. It’s tradition...”
Well, the Dems are using that to force us to accept their perversion.
Thanks for nothing...
People like you are pushing for gay marriage and polygamy, and to end marriage by removing any definition of it.
As silly as it is for you to try and pretend that you think America is just going to remove all laws related to marriage, it is sinister for you to promote the most radical leftist efforts to destroy marriage.
Well, no.
But I stopped expecting honesty from you a long time ago.
” The government has a tremendous interest in keeping marriage as the fundamental cornerstone of society”
Yea, they’ve done a bang up job of that. Government f**** up every single thing it touches.
Idiot.
One thing that never changes, you never address the issues, and personal attacks and cracks is all you make.
You haven’t offered anything worth while or relevant to this thread.
You war against marriage, but won’t explain why, or discuss it.
You mean having gay marriage and polygamy when the nation was founded was the better solution, and would have prevented gay marriage today, and the polygamy that is coming?
You are the one attacking me. I want traditional marriage uninterferred with by government.
You want the fag-Nazi’s FedGov normalizing them.
Piss off troll.
>> I’ve tried some of these same arguments here over the years.
As have I. The govt should stay out of the marriage business...
But the Marxists in power would find another way to stain the Country. So, I’m not sure that manipulating the conditions alone would matter.
The MSM is largely responsible for the failures, but hopefully new media will change that.
Another thing, homo-marriage is being promoted by other Western countries too. I believe this is indicative of a larger Progressive agenda we as Americans need to be aware of.
Agreed.
It’s a contagion...
Listen sonny. Marriage worked fine in this country for over 200 years. If you don’t think we can or should even try to restore marriage to what it used to be, then you are part of the problem.
The govt was also less intrusive. Now it’s forcing the citizens to support and service homosexuality. It’s statism.
“Listen sonny. Marriage worked fine in this country for over 200 years”
And none of them were “licensed” by any governmental agency until well into the 20 century. You silly losers who can’t live without some government stamp of approval are the problem. More government isn’t the solution. But your too blind, stupid, or prideful to see that.
The best I can tell, is you want individuals and religions to just make up their own marriage rules and not worry about whether a government calls it legal or not, is that correct?
I understand your problem. You are a liberal and you cannot endorse any type of healthy marriage no matter how much it benefits the nation. As I said earlier you are part of the problem and entirely to blame for the sorry conditions we now face in this country.
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.