Posted on 09/05/2012 4:39:02 AM PDT by TigerClaws
Joun Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the US, said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The fIght to redefine marriage has implications for every church in America. If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it's tax-exempt status. This situation would be analogous to cases where churches post Civil Right refused interracial marriage. The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.
Pastors refusing to perform these ceremonies which go against the clear word of God could also be sued personally for damages and attorney fees under Civil Rights law. Homosexuals have tried to make their campaign analagous to the struggle of African Americans. A host of legal protections is what they truly want.
These are just two obvious legal consequences facing every American church and minister. Every church in America will either be in the gay marriage business or shut down. Thats the fight being waged right now.
They were too closely related by blood. This still applies today.
Henry IV of France
As a Protestant who was in a common law marriage with the same mistress both before and after his marriage to Margaret, he clearly was not in a Catholic marriage with her.
Louis VII of France
He was forced, before he reached the age of consent, by his cousin who - as king - held the power of life and death over him, to marry an eleven year old girl so his cousin could cement his own power.
There many, many more.
Apparently not, since of the three you came up with, two are very clearly legitimate cases of annulment. Henry IV didn't even pretend to be serious about his marriage and Louis VII was clearly coerced.
These are clearly not your "happily married for 20 years with kids until one party wanted out" stories.
Eleanor's case is less sympathetic, but consanguinity was a known impediment to marriage and she ignored it. Rather than the Church inventing a loophole for her, she deliberately entered into an impeded marriage knowing that she could demand an annulment and the Church would have to give it to her, since the law of consanguinity was not ambiguous.
Source or is this a vanity?
P4L
Bump for later read and archiving.
Oh boy, oh boy.
These were all political marriages. Made possible, where necessary, by dispensation by the Pope, then when politically inconvenient suddenly made not possible by the same means.
By your criteria few if any of the political marriages of the Middle Ages and early modern period were valid. I quite agree, as they were by definition made for reasons the Church quite rightly today (and in theory at the time) considers reasons for annulment. Child, even infant, marriages were common. Women were quite literally sold to the highest bidder, as the King would often do when he had the guardianship of a wealthy heiress.
In theory marriages were freely entered into. In practice this was seldom the case. The partners very often met for the first time at the altar, and in many cases were married by proxy before they even met.
This was absolutely necessary at the time. Great international alliances and trade deals, etc. rode on the backs of these marriages. You just couldn’t leave such issues to the whims of young people. It’s as if whether we allied ourselves today with UK or China were to depend on the dating preferences of Obama’s daughters. The entanglements of marriage with politics meant that by definition those marriage could not strictly meet the Church’s theoretical requirements.
BTW, don’t get me wrong. The Church very honorably spent a great deal of effort, especially during the early Middle Ages, in taming the Germanic warlords who were used to marrying and discarding wives at convenience, and even to polygamy. It went toe to toe with great kings on the behalf of deserted women.
My point is that the marriages I cited were not annulled because a flaw was suddenly found, as with possible exceptions these flaws were known from the beginning. They were annulled because they became politically inconvenient, which is exactly what I said from the beginning.
In Elanor’s case, the suddenly discovered “impediment” was that they were third cousins, not exactly an issue today, except possibly for the church. In most, but not all, states first cousins are prohibited from marriage, but nobody at all cares about second, much less third cousins.
In Louis’ case, his claims of forced marriage and being underage fell apart in court, and he took the remarkably ungentlemanly course of claiming his wife was physically malformed and intercourse was not possible. He also claimed she had committed witchcraft against him.
Despite the fact that forced marriage was the norm at the time for people at this level, the virtuous Pope Alexander ruled that in this case it allowed for an annulment, and he accordingly granted it. The lovely Louis then (suddenly losing his distaste for forced marriages) forced his predecessor’s window into marriage.
His rejected bride retired to a convent and was eventually made a saint.
The case was widely considered, even at the time, one of the seamiest court cases of the era.
That would be John Marshall
Way too many duplicates and vanities. Please read - again. (Welcome Newbies)
That should be Louis XII whose annulment was granted by Alexander VI (the Borgia pope). Louis VII was king in the 12th century (he took part in the Second Crusade) and had his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine annulled.
The first Chief Justice was John Jay.
Correct. I'm not sure why that's relevant. Family alliances were still required to abide by the canons, like any other marriage.
By your criteria few if any of the political marriages of the Middle Ages and early modern period were valid.
The criteria, then as now, were few and clear: the parties could not be too closely related, they could not be impotent and had to be physically mature and mentally fit, they had to enter into the covenant willingly (not necessarily a love match, but not under duress either), they had to understand the purpose of Christian marriage, desire to have children, and acknowledge the obligation of fidelity for life.
In Elanor’s case, the suddenly discovered “impediment” was that they were third cousins, not exactly an issue today, except possibly for the church.
Third degree is still an impediment to marriage today.
In Louis’ case, his claims of forced marriage and being underage fell apart in court
No they didn't. His annulment was granted on grounds of coercion.
His attorneys, however, made every possible claim they could to make it stick - like alleging consanguinity (not provable and highly unlikely), physical deformity to the point of infertility, etc. Which is what attorneys do.
Despite the fact that forced marriage was the norm at the time for people at this level
Not really. Arranged marriages - where grooms and brides married in order to please their families - were the norm. This was acknowledged by the parties as "the way the world works" and the marriages were usually performed at a canonically appropriate age.
With Louis XII, the situation was different. At the age of 3 his father died and his mother was bundled off into internal exile. As a potential claimant to the throne, his cousin the King made sure he was married to someone whose family he controlled and he forced 13 year old Louis to marry an 11 year old girl without even consulting Louis' mother in the matter.
There was a reason why his cousin the King was known as "the Universal Spider."
he lovely Louis then (suddenly losing his distaste for forced marriages) forced his predecessor’s window into marriage
He didn't force her. Anne was Duchess of Brittany in her own right and could have negotiated a marriage with anyone she chose to. She agreed to marry Louis XII because he was willing to legally guarantee the autonomy of Brittany in exchange for her hand.
The case was widely considered, even at the time, one of the seamiest court cases of the era.
So says Wikipedia. In point of fact, Alexander VI (despite being an infamous Borgia pope) followed canon law in this matter and did not pay attention to the scurrilous claims but ruled on the substantive claim of coercion.
Just as his successor, Clement VII (despite being an infamous Medici pope) also followed canon law and refused Henry VIII an annulment on the merits.
You wrote earlier:
Made possible, where necessary, by dispensation by the Pope, then when politically inconvenient suddenly made not possible by the same means.
Marriages were rarely conducted with dispensations - for the reason that Eleanor's wasn't. And there cannot be a "dispensation" to make a marriage "not possible." A dispensation, by definition, is a relaxing of canonical law due to extenuating circumstances.
(I know.... you can quote me).....
I can think of no faster way to start a religious war in this country. Think sabotage, arson, propaganda campaigns . Followed by Priests & ministers of various denominations being arrested & jailed in the name of tolerance & diversity.
Then things start getting real ugly.
“First they came for ....”
Why can we just shut up and stick to fiscal issues that matter? /SARC!!!
That is not a status to be given or revoked by any government. Churches are tax-free - period.
X, V. What’s the difference?
I actually knew this, but thanks for the correction. I was talking about both kings and got them mixed up, which isn’t easy when they’re 300 years apart.
Too many Louis’s. BTW, what’s the plural for Louis?
The title of this vanity says it all: Just the fact that this would be a very serious concern as has been proven in Canada and Great Britain, shows what a far, far cry this has become from the LIE of “we only want tolerance, not to change society in any way.”
You got me.
Louie, Louie?
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII about 130 years ago.
The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it.
Freegards
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.