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.
I want people to stop telling churches what definition of marriage they must support under threat of force. I want businesses to be free to not do business with those they have a religious qualm about working with.
Do you have a problem with that? Becuase, if you do... Then you are by default supporting what the government is currently doing.
See, that didn’t say anything.
You want churches, Mosques, and gay churches, and whatever religious cults to all make up their own definitions of marriage?
Can’t they already do that, as long as they don’t care if the government recognizes it?
That isn’t what they are doing though, is it...
You know it. You’d just rather lie about your motivations. Keeping that government whip hand is all you care about.
Disgusting.
That isn’t what who is doing?
If you don’t want the government to recognize your marriage, then why are you asking them to recognize it?
The problem with those of the Libertarian bent, folks who have been heavily influenced by Ron Paul and others, who are trying to surrender the fight to defend marriage and the natural family for us, is that they utterly fail to recognize a number of critically important things:
1) The fundamental nature of the marriage bond and its character as the basis for all human civilization, governance and economy.
2) The moral depravity that the homosexual idea represents.
3) The fact that if you give government over to moral depravity you will have destroyed the possibility of republican, constitutional self-government.
Our first President:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
— George Washington
Our second President:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
— John Adams
Our third President:
“No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Our fourth President:
“The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
— James Madison
Marriage is of a unique, sublime, ineffable nature. It is a God-breathed mystery. It is among His greatest gifts to mankind, the nexus of His eternal plan and all true, lasting, earthly riches. It is the foundational building block of all decent civic, governmental institutions. It is the basis of all true economics. It breeds peace and prosperity. It is the great stabilizer of civilizations. It is the well-spring and nursery of posterity. It must be protected, or America will fail and fall.
Marriage is the familial, societal, governmental, and economic building block of our civilization, our country, and our communities. It is a God-ordained, God-given institution, the first and most important one. It is fundamental to the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of the ultimate stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.” It must be fiercely defended on every front from any and all who would pervert it or subvert it, or America cannot possibly survive. The attack on the natural family represents an existential threat.
100% correct
bookmark
Dittoes to post 46 and 47. As I always say; As goes the American family ~ so goes America.
That why we must have direct government involvement in protecting marriage. Our nation’s future depends on marriage. But simply because the liberals want to redefine marriage is no reason to surrender.
Well, I for one am not surrendering.
Your type are the ones who demanded Governent get involved in the first place. Well, you got what you wanted. Now shut up and take it.
L
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.