Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Privatizing Marriage Canít Work
The Catholic Thing ^ | February 14, 2014 | Francis J. Beckwith

Posted on 02/16/2014 2:27:09 PM PST by NYer

An important discussion is occurring among young Evangelicals over whether the government should even be in the marriage business. According to those who are advocating this option, the most important reason for commending state withdrawal is that it seems to promise a permanent vacation from the most contentious battle in the culture wars. You can still believe that same-sex conduct is immoral and that Christian marriage is between one man and one woman while at the same time saying that you advocate “marriage equality,” since if no marriage is legally recognized, then everyone is “equal” to pursue his or her vision of the good life without interference from the state.

In other words, you can in good conscience put an equal sign on your Facebook page, in order to announce to all your progressive college friends that you are not a dangerous bigot like the rest of your faith community, while telling the members of that same community in private that you support the biblical view of marriage. You can be, to borrow a phrase from another cultural dispute, “prochoice but personally opposed.”

It’s easy to understand why young Evangelicals find this approach so attractive. Who, in their right mind, would want to bring upon themselves the derision and marginalization that typically attends embracing views that are not in cultural ascendancy? In the age of social media, the once dreaded vice of succumbing to peer pressure, as they called it when I was a kid, has been relegated to the dustbin of history. Today, peer-pressure is now a virtue, with its own Facebook page and “like” button.

The baby-boom generation that once decried the machinations and political power of “the Man,” and called for all right thinking people to resist him, has become “the Man,” and now calls for all right thinking people to embrace his machinations and political power, or else.  The cultural avant-garde that once told its peers to open their minds and “protest the rising tide of conformity” now tell its children to set aside their critical faculties so that they are “not on the wrong side of history.”

Young Evangelicals are not stupid. They see the writing on the wall, and they don’t want to drown when the approaching cultural tsunami hits land. Their suggested compromise makes an enormous amount of sense to them. Unfortunately, it cannot work.

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.


        Who's on the wrong side of history now?

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 only way to resolve these disputes is for the state to intervene.  What to do with children, property, state residency, freedom of movement, etc. when marital relationships break down are public issues. They are not private ones. Consequently, in such a privatization of marriage scenario, the state would actually become more intrusive into ecclesial matters than it is at present.

In order to resolve these problems, it would have to spell out the limits and scope of ecclesial jurisdictions, not to mention what religious bodies are permitted to do with married citizens from different religious traditions that hold contrary perspectives on everything from child-rearing, spousal authority, and religious training  to culinary practices. 

Despite their best efforts, there is no high ground to which young Evangelicals – or any of us – can retreat that will not be covered by the cultural tsunami.


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholic; marriage
 
Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies, Baylor University, where he also is co-director of the Program on Philosophical Studies of Religion

1 posted on 02/16/2014 2:27:09 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 02/16/2014 2:27:36 PM PST by NYer ("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Good article.


3 posted on 02/16/2014 2:38:24 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He makes several incorrect assumptions.

For example, the Catholic church has long held that Catholic marriage are indivisible, except through annulment. And if Catholics divorce anyway, the church does not have to recognize that divorce so far as to permit them to remarry in a Catholic church.

That is, church rules apply within a church; but if you break those rules, the church is no longer obligated to treat you equally with those who obey the rules. But all, still, within the territory of the church.

So it is not an unreasonable proposition for the Orthodox and conservative churches to reach a “moral agreement” about marriage, if not divorce.

This moral agreement would say that they all agree on the minimum standards for marriage, to which individual religions could add criteria but not remove criteria. And as such, they would recognize only their own marriages and those of other Orthodox churches.

So “Mr. and Mrs.” would be honored terms within all of them, and mutually recognized. But important, all other marriages would be rejected as legitimate.

This would mean secular as well as liberal marriages not following the rules would *not* be recognized as “real” marriages.

There would be no problem with a religiously married couple to *also* have a secular marriage, but as far as the churches were concerned, only their “real” marriage would be recognized.

Otherwise, divorce, whether or not recognized today, would still be up to each religions’ rules. It could be done ecclesiastically, or secular, but it would be up to each religion to accept it or not.


4 posted on 02/16/2014 2:40:39 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The mistake Beckwith makes is in assuming that the state couldn't enforce contracts and neutral child custody laws without recognizing marriage. I'm an attorney and I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. The state courts enforce child custody and support laws in relation to all children within their jurisdiction, without regard to whether their parents were ever married to each other. As to property and future support between the parties, that should be based on contract.

We don't need the state in our marriage laws.

5 posted on 02/16/2014 2:48:25 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Beckwith is, per usual, a tower of common sense. As for me, I think I will begin to refer almost exclusively to the term, *Sacramental Matrimony*. Whenever the subject is brought up I will change it from marriage to Matrimony....leaving the impression that Sacramental Matrimony, as recognized by the Church, is the REAL thing and offers the couple FAR more.

;-))))


6 posted on 02/16/2014 3:09:59 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

You can’t privatize marriage because government will always want to know, and often be dragged into the decision of, who gets the property when the marriage ends (and thanks to death they ALL end at some point). That’s the reason government is in the marriage business in the first place, and you can’t get it out.


7 posted on 02/16/2014 3:14:02 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

With more kids born out of wedlock than not the state regularly decideds custody and child support issues absent a state marriage license, why would it not continue to do so? The state also settles property disputes for a number of non-married people, room mates and business partners come immediately to mind. What prevents a church married couple from having a civil contract that defines what will happen to property in the event of a dissolution of a marriage?

I have heard, and can believe, arguements to the effect of if we are a society so corrupt as to marginalize marriage and celebrate homosexual faux-marriages that we are spiraling the drain. But other than the “if we have to privitize marriage we are so far gone it doesn’t matter” arguement I have yet to have someone present a serious downside to a policy privatizing marriage.


8 posted on 02/16/2014 3:21:32 PM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

When we abandon morality, government fills the void left behind.


9 posted on 02/16/2014 3:22:36 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Count me in the camp that doesn’t think the state should be in the marriage business.

If there isn’t a penalty for not getting a license, why are we getting a license?

Marriage is a religious sacrament, so why debase it will a sodomite license?


10 posted on 02/16/2014 3:37:25 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Millions of people shacking up would appear to be proving you wrong.


11 posted on 02/16/2014 3:39:12 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Because at this point, I strongly suspect the government would never go along with it.


12 posted on 02/16/2014 3:41:30 PM PST by RichInOC (2013-14 Tiber Swim Team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Palimony.

One way or another the government winds up involved and they wind up defining the relationship. The best you can hope for is that the religious community and the legal world use different words for their half of the same thing.


13 posted on 02/16/2014 3:44:43 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I understand there are problems with the total privatization of marriage, but what alternative is there? We’ve all seen the lawsuits and such. The persecution of Christians using the legal system is only going to spread.

Obviously we’d ideally want a Russian style marriage system where there is no threat from abnormals. But it doesn’t exist here. There just isn’t the climate for it right now.

How do the Amish deal with marriage? I’d assume their marriages are totally privatized, with no input from the Ohio authorities.


14 posted on 02/16/2014 3:47:16 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I don’t follow your point. Palimony is really no different a case than a disagreement/settlement between business partners, roommates, or siblings.
I don’t need a license to be a sibling do I?


15 posted on 02/16/2014 3:59:29 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Palimony is the result of 2 people who were shacking up and then split up and couldn’t manage to divide the property without “help” from the government. If you government out of the marriage business eventually the dissolution of these “private” marriages will drag the government right back into it. Did you notice how the other entries in your list all involve some level of legal documentation to START the relationship. That documentation is there to help the government dissolve the relationship, though palimony shows they can decide the documentation is implied. This is how government got involved in the marriage business in the first place, if you try to get it out you’re just rolling Sysphus’ rock back up the hill. In short order there will be enough deaths and divorces to get government right back in it.


16 posted on 02/16/2014 4:13:22 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: discostu

To my knowledge, roommates do not require documentation, neither do siblings, and frankly neither do business partners.


17 posted on 02/16/2014 4:25:59 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: discostu

The court system currently handles the affairs of unmarried people; de facto, a marriage license isn’t required.

If the state won’t recognize my definition of marriage, then why should I recognize theirs? Any desired legal contracts can be written up without a marriage license, providing just as much benefit vis a vis the state.


18 posted on 02/16/2014 4:31:17 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He’s right. Leaving marriage to your church or a contract is ideal but somebody has to manage the breakups. Unfortunately this is what governments do.


19 posted on 02/16/2014 4:34:27 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Governments manage breakups all the time where no marriage has occurred. Child custody, property, all of it. There’s no reason that would change. In fact, there might be less government involvement if couples can work that stuff out on their own.


20 posted on 02/16/2014 4:41:09 PM PST by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

If they’re smart roommates get documentation. At the very least you have the lease agreement they both should be on if they’re renting together. And if one owns and is renting to the other one then they better have a lease agreement. Siblings have documentation, they both have birth certificates that show they have the same parents and what order they were born in. Business partners that didn’t bother to create an business or at least a contract are in for a world of hurt.


21 posted on 02/16/2014 4:41:23 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The way courts handle the affairs of unmarried people is to figure out what their relationship most clearly resembles. If it resembles a marriage they’ll handle it that way, if it resembles roommates they’ll handle it that way. And if the couple has a preferred method for the government to deal with them they’re best filling out the paperwork.

You WILL recognize theirs whether you like it or not. If you want your spouse to get you stuff when you die then there’s some sort of paperwork you need to handle. You can write it up in a complex contract that isn’t a marriage license, and get it in your will, and hopefully you dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s to get it all right, and hopefully you don’t have any estranged children, and neither of you has any kind of previous not quite a spouse, or even a business partner that could stick their nose in, and sure hope if you have surviving parents or siblings they like your not legal spouse and won’t interfere. Or you can just file a marriage license.


22 posted on 02/16/2014 4:47:46 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
So it is not an unreasonable proposition for the Orthodox and conservative churches to reach a “moral agreement” about marriage, if not divorce.

This moral agreement would say that they all agree on the minimum standards for marriage, to which individual religions could add criteria but not remove criteria. And as such, they would recognize only their own marriages and those of other Orthodox churches.

We already have a problem with the Orthodox Church in that they recognize 3 divorces vs 0 for the Catholic Church.

Did you read this article through in its entirety? Picking up from here ....

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.

... the author continues to describe the issues the would surface. You are proposing individual agreements between churches. How does that work with the 20,000 and growing independent churches?

23 posted on 02/16/2014 4:54:02 PM PST by NYer ("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: discostu

You are talking “nice to have”, not requirements. And siblings may not have a father on their birth certificate, or they may have the wrong man listed.

Point is, I can make any legal contract I want, just as useful as a marriage license, without a state mandate or license.

Write up a contract and get married in the church. Since I don’t recognize the state’s definition of marriage, I don’t have to pay the tax penalties associated with it.


24 posted on 02/16/2014 4:57:48 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I'm not Evangelical, but support getting government out of marriage. It's to protect us from forced acceptance of homo marriage.

Courts were always, and will always be involved in contract issues, as well as custody matters. They would be involved even if Bob and Mary lived in sin. That wouldn't change.

25 posted on 02/16/2014 5:00:56 PM PST by Darren McCarty (Abortion - legalized murder for convenience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is wrong.

Anybody who does not find anything wrong with the term “marriage license” has nothing to complain about when the state applies it to someone we don’t approve of.

Marriage is a spiritual, personal thing. It’s not the government’s business. But, we were brainwashed otherwise, and look what it has wrought.

Now, we have the term “homeland” brainwashing us into other atrocities.


26 posted on 02/16/2014 5:02:05 PM PST by Forgotten Amendments (I remember when a President having an "enemies list" was a scandal. Now, they have a kill list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Nothing is unchallengeable, certainly not marriage. Many a second wife has found themselves in court with the deceased husbands business associates, children, ex-wife, etc.

A legal contract is no less binding, and by nature of its specificity, is often more binding than general inheritance/divorce law.


27 posted on 02/16/2014 5:11:06 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

So true, however you and a few others are the proverbial fish upstream thing around here.....many apparently need the ‘blessing’ of the state to ‘save’ our culture. To those I ask “How are those state ‘blessings’of anything working out??”


28 posted on 02/16/2014 5:11:33 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; discostu

I still believe we could operate as a society without the government involved in marriage but you and discostu did get me thinking about end games.

Why do we wish to stop homosexuals from “marrying?” In my mind it is becuase I do not want them to use the legitimate institution of marriage to legitimize the rest of the homosexual agenda. The homosexuals want to normalize their unhealthy behavior. They want to normalize pedophilia. They want to persecute those who do not approve of their sexual deviancy. They want to adopt children, and they want to propagandize in schools for recruitment. Taking marriage away from the government might stop them from being legally defined as married but it would not stop them from using government to advance the rest of their nefarious plans.

As I said before I believe less government is almost always better but I am starting to see that even if taking marriage away from the government is feasible, it will not prevent the government advancing homosexual agenda. On the flip side legally telling the homosexuals NO might stymie some of their other efforts.


29 posted on 02/16/2014 5:11:35 PM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; ...

Dear Nyer,

Please relax. President 0bama has promised us “if you want to keep your religion, you can keep your religion.” And one “must” trust the president’s promises.

Said with 300% sarcasm toward bh0 by GreyFriar


30 posted on 02/16/2014 5:14:28 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

They’re “nice to have” all the way up until things go bad then you find out they were requirements.

The point is from the state perspective a marriage IS a legal contract. So if you go that route the best you accomplished was to spend a lot of time on paperwork to get something that works just like a marriage license.

And then when you die your wife gets nothing because you didn’t write the contract right. Or if you DID write the contract right the state will say “hey you’re actually married give us our money”.


31 posted on 02/16/2014 5:14:41 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

it’s already been proven we can’t operate as a society without getting the government involved in marriage. That’s why it is.


32 posted on 02/16/2014 5:17:13 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; ...

Whoops my post 30 was for a different ping from Nyer


33 posted on 02/16/2014 5:17:28 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Nothing is unchallengeable but when you have a marriage license a lot of the challenges go away. A lot of it depends on the state too. Here in AZ where we have a community property state things are cut and dry, since everything is ours if I die first it all becomes hers. Of course “all” includes debts and obligations which is where business associate problems come in. You’ll never manage to write a contract that’s as comprehensive as the jurisprudence surrounding marriage, and if you try you’ll make some lawyer quite wealthy, which I always thought was one of the big things married people are trying to avoid.


34 posted on 02/16/2014 5:20:24 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments

Exactly so.

And, true to their form, Catholics (and the Church) want to have the government do their bidding, because that’s what they’ve been reduced to now that we have this whole “separation of church and state” idea going on since the 1500’s.

The Catholic Church will always find a way to poke their noses into everyone else’s business by justifying government support of their positions.

At long last, those of us whose ancestors fled Europe to American to have done with this BS that the Catholic Church likes to govern from both the pulpit and the legislature would dearly like the Catholic Church to take up residence on some distant shores where they still hew to this nonsense.


35 posted on 02/16/2014 5:28:42 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Oh, tickety-boo.


36 posted on 02/16/2014 5:30:12 PM PST by Tax-chick (The future is not going to take us seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Thanks for the ping. Like it or not, the state will continue to treat marriages as contracts. Churches cannot stop the state from recognizing gay marriages, but the state must not be allowed to force churches to perform or sanctify gay marriages.


37 posted on 02/16/2014 5:53:19 PM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

We already have privatized marriage, and always have.

If you don’t want to deal with whatever constitutes “legal” marriage, then don’t.


38 posted on 02/16/2014 6:07:53 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The idea is for Orthodox and conservatives churches to agree on the tenets of marriage, and only to recognize marriages among themselves that conform to those tenets.

As he pointed out in his article, divorce does need to be secular, for legal reasons, even if some churches permit it. But in the case he cited, the current rules would still apply.

Thus Mary leaves the church and divorces Bob. All this means is that neither of them can have a Catholic wedding in church again. But their division of assets and children are not up to the church.

Bob, still a Catholic, can marry another woman, just not inside a Catholic church. Since that is outside of the Orthodox agreement, the Catholic church does not need to recognize them as married, nor give them consideration due to those married within the church.

The important thing is that the churches regain marriage as an exclusive sacrament, not available to just anyone.


39 posted on 02/16/2014 6:17:17 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Arguing over private versus state marriage is a distration from the real issue, which is that conservatives are losing the culture war with the left.


40 posted on 02/16/2014 6:31:32 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

distraction


41 posted on 02/16/2014 6:31:50 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Nothing is unchallengeable but when you have a marriage license a lot of the challenges go away...You’ll never manage to write a contract that’s as comprehensive as the jurisprudence surrounding marriage, and if you try you’ll make some lawyer quite wealthy, which I always thought was one of the big things married people are trying to avoid

Wills and prenups are written specifically to negate normal jurisprudence surrounding marriage, and they are quite common. There is nothing horribly expensive about them. If one only wished to duplicate the laws concerning marriage, the contract would be very pat. The type of thing one downloads off the Internet. Legal contracts are legal contracts, there are no "super duper legal contracts" that take precedence over standard legal contracts.

Please name one thing that is addressed by matrimonial law, that can't be better addressed in a written contract? All a marriage license offers, for now, is convenient one stop shopping.

42 posted on 02/16/2014 6:56:32 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: discostu
The point is from the state perspective a marriage IS a legal contract. So if you go that route the best you accomplished was to spend a lot of time on paperwork to get something that works just like a marriage license.

Actually, the best I would get is a contract that is tighter than marriage and a huge savings on my taxes.

And then when you die your wife gets nothing because you didn’t write the contract right. Or if you DID write the contract right the state will say “hey you’re actually married give us our money”.

Or I adopt her, using the states bazaar logic against it, and leave everything to my child. But I find your apprehension to rely on clarifying legal contracts to be odd. A well written contract/will is going to be successfully challenged far less than state considerations on marriage.

43 posted on 02/16/2014 7:04:40 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

And a good prenup is actually pretty expensive, those DL of the web ones aren’t worth the bytes they’re written on.

I’ve already named MANY things that work better in matrimonial law than you ever could hope to accomplish with a contract.

You’re grasping at straws man. Face reality state marriage IS a contract, and if you made a “new” contract so you could avoid state marriage you’re just reinventing the wheel for no good reason. Don’t knock convenient one stop shopping, it’s on of the few things government does that’s good. Only a bleeding moron would makeup their own marriage contract, and all the straws you’ve pulled to make it seem reasonable just show that it’s a fool’s errand. If you want the protections of legal marriage get the license, if you don’t get the license you’ll suffer the consequences.

So the choice is yours, suck it up or spit in the wind. We both know you’ll suck it up.


44 posted on 02/16/2014 7:06:19 PM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I’ve already named MANY things that work better in matrimonial law than you ever could hope to accomplish with a contract.

No, you haven't. You've made many incorrect assertions, and demonstrated a bewildering ignorance of contract law.

But look, your main point is that kowtowing to the state, in agreeing that a sacramental marriage is equal to the union of two goats and a leprechaun, is going to save you a few bucks, and that further, your main concern is saving a few bucks.

So, what was your point again? That state marriage is a great way of getting pro bono legal help? OK, whatever.

45 posted on 02/16/2014 7:16:41 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

“th more kids born out of wedlock than not the state regularly decideds custody and child support issues absent a state marriage license, why would it not continue to do so? The state also settles property disputes for a number of non-married people, room mates and business partners come immediately to mind. What prevents a church married couple from having a civil contract that defines what will happen to property in the event of a dissolution of a marriage?”

All this happens because adults refuse to take responsibility for their actions. They refuse to think things through, prefer to let someone else handle reality for them, and refuse to learn about the heartbreak they had in the past.

If people were realistic about people, life, and what marriage really is and who they are likelier to marry, I am certain that there would be less divorce and less government involved in our lives.


46 posted on 02/16/2014 8:06:44 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: discostu

The reason government got into marriage in the first place was to regulate miscegenation.


47 posted on 02/16/2014 9:31:24 PM PST by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

“Why do we wish to stop homosexuals from “marrying?” In my mind it is becuase I do not want them to use the legitimate institution of marriage to legitimize the rest of the homosexual agenda.”

Privatizing marriage won’t stop that; actually, it might make it more widespread.

There are already plenty of churches willing to marry gay couples, even in states where such a thing is still prohibited. The quickest way to bring gay marriage to Texas is to allow Texas churches to decide.


48 posted on 02/17/2014 2:23:44 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson