Why Privatizing Marriage Can’t Work

The Catholic Thing ^ | February 14, 2014 | Francis J. Beckwith

[NYer]

 

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

[NYer]

Ping!

[trisham]

Good article.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[Gluteus Maximus]

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.

[SumProVita]

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.

;-))))

[discostu]

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.

[RightOnTheBorder]

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.

[dfwgator]

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

[SampleMan]

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?

[SampleMan]

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

[RichInOC]

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

[discostu]

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.

[Viennacon]

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.

[SampleMan]

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?

[discostu]

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.

[SampleMan]

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

[SampleMan]

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.

[jwalsh07]

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.

[old and tired]

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.