Who's on the wrong side of history now?
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.
distraction
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
The reason government got into marriage in the first place was to regulate miscegenation.
“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.
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.