There seems little reason in logic for the current legal position. There might be something to be said for insisting on monogamous heterosexual marriage as a way of privileging the country’s traditional Christian culture (if that is what you want to do). But once the state recognises homosexual couples it has abandoned any pretence that it is upholding Christian marriage. Whether churches and other religious bodies choose to recognise gay marriage, to the extent of holding ceremonies to honour it, is a matter for them. Unlike heterosexual marriage, they are not able to conduct legally binding partnership in any case. So why stop there? Why not recognise polygamous marriages, and indeed any other form of intimate union that people wish to enter into?
In a liberal society, it is no business of the state’s how people conduct their private lives. Some object to polygamy out of the belief that it disadvantages women. But that is not necessarily the case. Some women may actively prefer to be part of a polygamous household, which can have distinct advantages (for example, sharing the burden of childcare) over the standard monogamous unit. As long as there is no coercion involved, the most serious downside may well be in the state’s refusal to recognise polygamy and thus give all partners equal rights.
Another group in need of inclusion. Now it will be GLBTP rights. If you have no regard for scripture or tradition, this is the next step.
If people who drag out their lives outside the teachings of the Church want to make their lives even worse by making such complicated partnership contracts, I don’t see why they couldn’t, so long as it doesn’t cost the government and society any more money. In other words, no one should be required to subsidize such silliness with their tax dollars, which we would one way or another be forced to do.
Actually, now there is no reason for the State to recognize marriage at all. What principled reason is there for the State to give special benefits to couples or groups that are not afforded to singles?
Once you dispense with the fact that males and females produce children then you dispense with marriage completely.
I agree with Br. Michael completely. In fact, I would predict that state-recognized marriage will simply disappear within the next hundred years or so. Or it will become effectively meaningless. There *is* no principled reason for the State to arbitrarily give special benefits to groups or couples that are not afforded to singles.
I hate to say “we told you so” but…
Another step down the slippery slope – or should I say in the hand basket?
I suspect that the “P” movement will meet little resistance.
Why not the right to marry your pet?
I would think the State has a keen interest in regulating the dispositions of property between married people and between a couple and the outside world. The issue of care and support for minor children is also a legitimate state interest. These two elements are the reason, I assume, that the State is in the marriage business and will be for some time. For Christians, the state’s role is not particularly central or interesting, given the spiritual importance we attach to marriage. Our rites and requirements can and must exist with or without the coincidence of the State’s interests.
Sure, but gay people can adopt children. Two single women with children whose fathers are not in the picture (sperm donors?) can live together and raise children. I can live together with my sister and raise/adopt children. I can live together with my mother (as many women do) and raise children. I can live by myself and raise children. This is only tangentially related to marriage and increasingly is unrelated in the sense that the state doesn’t care whether you’re married or not in terms of regulating the “care and support” of minor children.
As far as establishing and enforcing the legal contract that you enter into when you get married — the state can do that whether it’s called marriage or “thinga-ma-giggy.” If you and some other person or people want to sign a “thinga-ma-giggy” contract, then the state will be involved in enforcing it, just like any other civil contract.
The only real thing that sets Christian marriage apart is:
1. It is exclusively between a man and a woman
2. It is for life
Except that many Christian churches have completely undermined that last one (for the exact reasons that some have permitted gay marriage — pastoral generosity, acceptance of human weakness, etc. etc. etc.). So what we have is actually serial monogamy. IMHO, what the churches need to do is not worry excessively what the state and the world do, but put their own house in order so that people can actually tell the difference between the world and the Church.
9, as you see from Catholic Mom’s response, the issues you raise could be resolved between singles by contract. In addition the disposition of property between marrieds, goes away if there is no marriage, just two (or more) singles living together sharing property. Absent some contractual provision the state really has no concern as to property distribution. Certainly the State has no interest in granting them special status.
As for children, the State has already declared that irrelevant. Same sex unions are 100% sterile. The State can satisfy any legitimate interest in minor children irrespective of the parents marital status.
The only principled reason for marriage is that men and women have children and can form a natural family. This has been declared irrelevant. Therefore the state has no business in allowing a special arrangement for couples or groups that is not available to singles.
There are very good non-religious, economic and political reasons to forbid polygamous marriage. This is essentially submitting the institution of marriage to the free market, which would further consolidate wealth into the hands of the prosperous. Polygamous societies become violent and create an underclass of angry men.
Monogamous marriage, as sanctioned by the state, democratizes sex and is a fundamental form of social welfare.
Granted, those who don’t mind our current division of wealth and prefer the free market might take heed at what the corrosive effect of the market does when it comes to sex.
I have lived with my twin sister for more than 25 years. We have adopted and raised/are raising two children (one just turned 21 – a senior in college) and one, just turned 14, taking accelerated courses and due to enter college (part time while completing high school) next year.
We own all property jointly, our life insurance is owned by the surviving sister’s revocable living trust. Our children were adopted jointly (and both our names were on their birth registration, and on their naturalization papers prior to their becoming citizens).
We do have to maintain two separate health insurances (a single for one of us, and a family for the other) and we will not receive survivor benefits on Social security. My guess is that obamacare will take care of the first problem, and the second problem will be academic since I do not anticipate that social security will be available for us, whether we were “married” or not.
By all means get the state out of marriage. Let folks “marry” whomever or whatever they please, in whatever numbers might be good to them. They can “jump the broom”, light a “unity candle” or engage in a variety of secular ceremonies like the ” rose ceremony” the “sand ceremony” whatever. No need to get a preacher involved, but if desired, there is no shortage of folks willing to preside over any such arrangement.
For ourselves we are Catholic. We recognize that we are not married. (And that’s fine). We are simply blessed to have been able to live very full and very happy lives with the companionship of people we love for what has already been quite a long time. In the fullness of time, we hope, like all Christians, to be “married” to Jesus Christ as part of His Holy Bride. That is, after all, the only marriage that really matters. Everything else is prelude.