How my View of Gay Marriage is not changed

[Joe 5859]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

I honestly don't see how marriages done by state officials are beneficial for general welfare? Why can't the Church do it like it has always done?

But marriage isn't only a sacramental institution dispensed by the Church. The natural institution of marriage existed from the very beginning of the human race. We should not lightly cast it aside in favor of a historically novel social construct with the name "civil union" slapped on it.

Marriage is something. Two non-Catholics married before a Justice of the Peace are validly married in the eyes of the Church. If those same two non-Catholics went before a Justice of the Peace, in front of family and friends, and promised their commitment to each other for life, but the piece of paper said "Civil Union" on it instead of "Marriage", it would still be marriage, from an ontological point of view. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

This is why the LGBT activists are in favor of such a compromise. It's the foot in the door. To make such a sweeping systemic change would be catastrophic.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Joe 5859

But marriage isn't only a sacramental institution dispensed by the Church. The natural institution of marriage existed from the very beginning of the human race. We should not lightly cast it aside in favor of a historically novel social construct with the name "civil union" slapped on it.

Marriage is something. Two non-Catholics married before a Justice of the Peace are validly married in the eyes of the Church. If those same two non-Catholics went before a Justice of the Peace, in front of family and friends, and promised their commitment to each other for life, but the piece of paper said "Civil Union" on it instead of "Marriage", it would still be marriage, from an ontological point of view. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

This is why the LGBT activists are in favor of such a compromise. It's the foot in the door. To make such a sweeping systemic change would be catastrophic.

I'm also not in favor of renaming it civil unions. I'm advocating the state stops doing things they shouldn't even by doing anyway, that is to meddle unnecessarily in the private life of its citizens.

What would be the difference for the Church if the secular marriage was done before a state official or before, let's say, a notary?

And yes, marriage existed in the early beginnings of the human race, but I can't remember the ancient Greeks or Romans going to a state official for their marriage. It was only done for friends and family.

[fix]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

If the state stops doing marriages, they can't possibly redefine marriages. That would be the height of protection.

You asked me how the state protects marriage. I gave you one example.

If the state were to stop protecting marriage, as you assert, then anything goes. Which is where we are headed now. The problem is not state involvement. The problem is liberalism.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Meh, with these flash divorces how stable is the foundation? One doesn't need the state to do merging of assets, there is always a notary. People choosing monogamous couplehood because the government encourages it? Would that work? I don't think so.

It has worked, though. And divorce is expensive, for both parties. In most cases (where there isn't an abuse factor), this is a good thing. In the meantime, there are many federal benefits offered to legally joined couples. You can arrange for all of them separately, or even a la carte, but I'm thinking that would be prohibitively expensive.

Calling marriage civil unions is just that, a change of names and thus useless.

I agree, actually. Which is why I think gay marriage should be legal. But short of that, and to pre-empt a long, a messy legal battle that may take decades, the alternative is much simpler and cleaner, and accomplishes the same goals.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by fix

You asked me how the state protects marriage. I gave you one example.

If the state were to stop protecting marriage, as you assert, then anything goes. Which is where we are headed now. The problem is not state involvement. The problem is liberalism.

Well, I don't see liberalism going away anytime soon, how much I'd like that to happen.

But really, in the end gay marriage will be legalised and practicing homosexuality will therefore be endorsed by the state, which represent its citizens.

Also, the state won't protect marriage anymore, it will only harm it. Better to prevent that to happen.

Originally Posted by ASimon

I agree, actually. Which is why I think gay marriage should be legal. But short of that, and to pre-empt a long, a messy legal battle that may take decades, the alternative is much simpler and cleaner, and accomplishes the same goals.

Well, I don't support gay marriage (or polygamy, for that matter) but this compromise should satisfy anyone except the extremes on both sides. But american politics, especially on this issue, is so polarised that for every side this has become everything or nothing. Quite sad indeed.

Originally Posted by ASimon

In the meantime, there are many federal benefits offered to legally joined couples. You can arrange for all of them separately, or even a la carte, but I'm thinking that would be prohibitively expensive.

That would have to go. What if one is asexual? They would be discriminated through taxes.

[Joe 5859]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

I'm also not in favor of renaming it civil unions. I'm advocating the state stops doing things they shouldn't even by doing anyway, that is to meddle unnecessarily in the private life of its citizens.

What would be the difference for the Church if the secular marriage was done before a state official or before, let's say, a notary?

And yes, marriage existed in the early beginnings of the human race, but I can't remember the ancient Greeks or Romans going to a state official for their marriage. It was only done for friends and family.

Marriage isn't a private thing, though. That's why a marriage needs witnesses to even be valid. Society is built on the family, which is the fruit of marriage. The State shouldn't "meddle" with marriage in the sense of trying to define it however they please. But the State has a responsibility to the common good, which necessarily includes protecting marriage and family. They're not a disinterested thrid party.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Joe 5859

Marriage isn't a private thing, though. That's why a marriage needs witnesses to even be valid. Society is built on the family, which is the fruit of marriage. The State shouldn't "meddle" with marriage in the sense of trying to define it however they please. But the State has a responsibility to the common good, which necessarily includes protecting marriage and family. They're not a disinterested thrid party.

Of course, let there be witnesses, but why should one of them be employed by the state? Marriages will still go on, with or without the state doing it.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

That would have to go. What if one is asexual? They would be discriminated through taxes.

I don't follow your point. There's nothing, in principle, to stop an asexual person from getting married or civil union'd.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by ASimon

I don't follow your point. There's nothing, in principle, to stop an asexual person from getting married or civil union'd.

I could say in reference to gay marriage:

"I don't follow your point. There's nothing, in principle, to stop an homosexual person from getting married or civil union'd with a woman."

Why the fuss about allowing gay marriage then?

Then again, I'm a huge proponent of the night-watchman state.

[Joe 5859]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Of course, let there be witnesses, but why should one of them be employed by the state? Marriages will still go on, with or without the state doing it.

But then what happens when a man wants to leave his wife for his mistress and leave her with nothing. Does the wife have no legal recourse? What about custody of their children? Or perhaps the woman is just claiming they were married when it's really just her nice next-door neighbor she decided to take advantage of.

I understand the desire to come up with a compromise to make everyone happy. I also understand the impulse to get the State out of anything having to do with the Church's sacramental teaching. But this is not something that could ever be considered without some serious thought. The proposal of removing the State from the marriage business is completely novel and would be a profound sociological experiment with far-reaching consequences we can likely only begin to imagine. That's not something we want to do just to end an argument and make everyone happy.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Joe 5859

But then what happens when a man wants to leave his wife for his mistress and leave her with nothing. Does the wife have no legal recourse? What about custody of their children? Or perhaps the woman is just claiming they were married when it's really just her nice next-door neighbor she decided to take advantage of.

Make contracts like that with a notary present.

Originally Posted by Joe 5859

I understand the desire to come up with a compromise to make everyone happy. I also understand the impulse to get the State out of anything having to do with the Church's sacramental teaching. But this is not something that could ever be considered without some serious thought. The proposal of removing the State from the marriage business is completely novel and would be a profound sociological experiment with far-reaching consequences we can likely only begin to imagine. That's not something we want to do just to end an argument and make everyone happy.

That's one of my first arguments. It's not novel, state marriages are novel. In Europe, at least in the Netherlands, it was forced upon us by Napoleon. Before that we were fine too.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

I could say in reference to gay marriage:

"I don't follow your point. There's nothing, in principle, to stop an homosexual person from getting married or civil union'd with a woman."

Why the fuss about allowing gay marriage then?

Because they don't want to get married to someone of the opposite sex. What they want to marry someone they could love, and receive all the same government benefits that straight couples receive.

Asexuals get married. Asexuality is pretty rare in the first place, but it's a big country, and the Internet helps people of like-minds to find each other rather easily. So it does happen. But if an asexual person isn't married and able to access the benefits of being married, then that isn't discrimination. That's exercising a choice and dealing with the understood consequences.

[Mormon_Cultist]

As I see it's a relatively simple matter, here in Britain at least.
Churches offer marriages, and have done ever since God married Adam & Eve.
The state offers unions, which it labels marriages.
The fact that each recognise ceremonies performed by the other is a relic of the time when church and state were not separated like they are now. And that, as I see it, is the confusion people have. There is this idea that to protect churches (mostly the Church of England really, though) the government will have to create two types of marriage: civil, and religious. What people forget, is that there already is two types, just both are generally accepted as the same thing.
The only issue, is that because the state is separate from religion, it has to be objective and cannot be seen to be discriminative. Employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, nor can businesses etc. therefore the state is bound to abide by its own principles and it's hands are effectively tied to permit same sex civil unions. Very little will change, other than the terminology applied to something which already exists.

[Credo ergo sum]

Asimon, I could say more, but let's stay on topic.

[Joe 5859]

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Make contracts like that with a notary present.

So the solution to getting the State uninvolved in marriage is even more bureaucratic paperwork?

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

That's one of my first arguments. It's not novel, state marriages are novel. In Europe, at least in the Netherlands, it was forced upon us by Napoleon. Before that we were fine too.

Ah, you are coming from a different locale than myself. I am unfamiliar with your historical situation, so I cannot really comment on that.

Maybe it's just my American perspective, but if our government decided tomorrow to announce "We're withdrawing from the marriage business; go handle these things for yourselves," I cannot imagine a resulting scenario that would not be massively chaotic and unsatisfying for everyone.