Posted on 09/24/2004 12:24:18 PM PDT by Dogrobber
Considering that same-sex marriage seems to be the goal of the liberal courts and elitist media; is there some response the rest of us can make in the form of an act of civil disobeiance? Yes; religious marriage.
Many people do not understand that relgious marriage, marriage in the Church, was the origin of civil marriage. It was the Catholic Church which established records of births, deaths and marriages long before local Kings, Counts, Dukes and other nobles set about doing it themselves. The only reason the nobility actually took a hand in marriage was because of their own property and devise of property by will issues.
My proposal is this; if marriage means any Tom or Harry can tie the knot in civil marriage - then that marriage is cheapened to the point that it means nothing to me. My priest married my wife and me before God (and on the night of my conversion to the Faith of St. Peter) and I will be d@%ned if my marriage is going to be in any way equal to Tom and Harry's State sponsored travesty.
The civil disobeiance comes in when we, as a group of Church married persons, refuse to use marriage licenses and submit for all legal reasons Church marriage certificates which are not endorsed by civil law. Those that are already married can get a civil divorce (if they choose) to register their deep offense at being equated with same-sex couples.
In reality those that elect to follow this road can expect resistance in the legal community and rejection by the Courts. In my state, Missouri, the chance of same-sex marriage being forced upon our electorate is slim to none, yet other states and countries (Canada especially) are in the throes of this calamity now. However, if forced to choose between a State which embraces a perverse understanding of marriage and family and living apart from the endorsement of that State and its deviant principals, I go with standing together with my Faith and the principles of 5000 years of my forebearers.
I did my part.
If a couple were married in a church, but did not appeal to the state for a marriage license, wouldn't that union be just as binding and covenantal in the eyes of God?
I'm a strong advocate for getting government out of marriage, though not for the same reasons you are. However, you're going have to get some major changes at all major religious denominations before you'll get your plan realized. For reasons which I can't fathom, no major denomination will perform a marriage ceremony without the couple having first obtained a civil marriage certificate. Why these religious authorities think they should subject themselves to government regulation of their religious rituals is quite beyond me, but they do.
See my post #4. At the present time, the churches, not the government, are the obstacle to this plan.
I wouldn't even consider it an act of civil disobedience, though. In fact, it makes perfect sense for any religious couple wishing to pursue this course of action to set some interesting legal precedents with it.
Consider this logic:
If a court decides that a government cannot define the concept of marriage in such a way that it precludes certain couples from calling themselves "married" (this was pretty much the rationale of the Massachusetts court), then it stands to reason that a government must also recognize the marriage of two people who don't believe the government has any business recognizing marriages.
Now scratch your head for a while as you think that one over, and let the courts try to figure a way to deal with it.
I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that this was based purely on health issues -- since a blood test was required in order for a couple to get a civil marriage certificate.
This may not be the case anymore. Governments don't provide legal recognition for baptisms, bar mitzvahs, etc. -- so there's no reason why they should have anything to do with marriage.
No. Your lifelong committal to one another proclaimed in front of family, friends, and God himself is meaningless to the Almighty unless you and pay a $90 fee and get it notarized in triplicate by the local politico.
Or at least that's what I've heard around here.
Why do you need the government to "recognize" marriages at all? And realize that you can't give a positive answer to that question with affirming what the gay marriage advocates have been saying all along -- that they just can't manage without government recognition. A total crock, if you ask me, but it's just as much a crock for straight couples as for gay couples.
Most if not all churches still have this rule built into their official policies. Their clergy are simply not authorized to perform marriages without a civil marriage license. Their members ought to make a loud fuss about it, though churches run by strict top-down hierarchies (e.g. Roman Catholic, Latter-Day Saints) generally don't approve of or respond to such clamor from their members.
Well put!
The sad thing is, you can go down to OfficeMax and pay $90 bucks for a Business Partnership contract (in triplicate) the terms of which will be enforced by any Court of Law, without the need to obtain Prior Approval from the State.
I see no reason why Marriage Contracts could not be handled the same way -- at least 90% of Marriages could be contracted according to standardized terms, the forms for which I am sure OfficeMax would be happy to provide.
Why, then, do many Conservatives believe that it is necessary, in the case of Marriage, that one should obtain Prior Approval from the State (which makes the Government the arbiter of the definition of Marriage, with all the attendant problems that we are seeing now)? Beats me, but that's the way it is.
I have no problem keeping the government out of marriage altogether, but if Uncle Sam is going to extract Social Security taxes from me then he is sure as hell going to pay Social Security benefits to anyone I wish to define as my spouse.
I wonder what some of the traditional rites in any given religion think about this (Traditional Catholics, Orthodox Jews, etc.). I'm sure there are any number of clergy in these denominations that would willingly marry members of their congregations outside the auspices of the law.
This is a useless argument.
The churches used to be the only record of marriages and births.
We can't this for the same reasons this highly inaccurate highly fraud wrot system was abandoned.
Marriage is an institution of all society, ALL society. Society rewards the institution for the benefits the institution gives to the society. In this case CHILDREN (societies future) and inheritence property law.
Lets be clear, this BS talk of religious marriage is tied the effort to move marriage from an institution for the future of society to a contract for recreational sex between ANY adults.
I believe it stems from the deep seated, perhaps subconcious way they percieve the relationship between themselves and government.
They don't see themselves as sovereign individuals with a government that serves them. Rather, they see government as a strong father figure that watches over them and protects them, and they put themselves in the role of children. And its not proper to have a wedding without Daddy giving the bride away.
Why these religious authorities think they should subject themselves to government regulation of their religious rituals is quite beyond me, but they do.
I think the same goes for churches that become incorporated. They are essentially getting the state's approval to exist as a church.
A marriage license is NOT approval of the state as it is a means of recording the marriages.
Marriage is an institution not a contract. For example divorce laws that were in effect when people married fourty years ago have changed if they divorce today. A contract remains static.
Cohabitation agreemenst which are what you are attempting to refer to, have existed for decades. They simple are for people who just live together and they can do that now.
In the absence of a RELIABLE and CONSISTENT system of recording marriages, we a subject to fraud, intestacy arguments, and anything else you can imagine.
Marriage is about children and societies need to maximize the production of children to continue.
There's nothing "BS" about this talk at all. If you really think that's the case, then try to envision this hypothetical scenario: a perfectly normal, religious couple applies for a marriage license -- and is turned down by the State for whatever reason it sees fit.
Granted, this isn't likely to happen anytime soon -- but do really expect such a couple NOT to consider themselves "married" for all intents and purposes just because the government refuses to give them permission to get married?
Here's what is clear to me about this . . . people with religious inclinations are only willing to grant the State the authority to recognize marriage only because the State can be expected to rubber-stamp any application that comes before it. The day the State stops this practice is the day it no longer matters to these people.
If marriage were an institution instead of a contract, then we wouldn't have entire sections of law and entire legal institutions (divorce court, for example) set up to deal with all the cases in which marriages fail.
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.