Professors Douglas Kmiec and Robert George
Posted on 05/28/2009 6:35:46 AM PDT by NYer
.- Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama’s presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral “civil license,” a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a “terrible idea” that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.
Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be “awkward,” it would “untie the state from this problem” by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. “Call it a ‘civil license’,” he said.
“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” he said.
Kmiec said that a motive for California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman, was religious believers’ “genuine concern” that the California ruling imposing homosexual “marriage” was not addressing religious freedom issues.
Saying he was among those believers who had such concern, Kmiec noted the possibility that churches which don’t acknowledge same-sex “marriage” could be subject to penalty, lose public benefits, or be subject to lawsuits “based on some theory of discrimination.”
Kmiec argued “civil licenses” would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from “the marriage business” and do licensing “under a different name” to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property.
Under his proposal, “the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community,” he added, saying that the proposal would reaffirm the significance of marriage “as a religious concept,” which has a much fuller understanding than is found in civil marriage.
Responding to Kmiec’s proposal, Princeton University professor Robert George said it was a “terrible” idea and a “very, very bad one.”
George told CNSNews.com that marriage is not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs but has “profound” social and public significance.
“It’s a pre-political institution,” he said. “It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”
“The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce “basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill – citizens – who can take their rightful place in society.”
“Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George told CNSNews.com.
“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”
By all means! Let’s do away with all of our societal norms in order to mollify a minuscule percentage of the population...after all, aberrations should have the right to rule the normal folks, shouldn’t they? That is, as long as they donate sufficient amounts to the democrat party.
Get government out of the marriage business and “family” business entirely and I am a happy man.
You should care! Children will be taught about homosexuality in schools. The rights of people who believe marriage means a man and a woman will no longer matter. We’ll have to accept gay marriage whether we like it or not. And this is just the beginning of the fallout. In Canada, the slip down the slope has led to a proposal to legalize polygamy. In Massachusetts, where gay marriage is already legal, there is a movement to reduce the punishment for bestiality. And it all began with legalizing gay marriage.
The trends are all negative and the heathen are in charge.
None the less He is in control.
congress shall make no law....respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. would that ruling not be unconstitutional? shouldn’t government get out of the “marriage” business? marriage is a religious thing, is it not? so these civil licenses apply to anyone and they are called unions or something, but a religious service is still a marriage. wouldn’t churches have the right to determine who they will allow to be married under their doctrine? i am asking because i truly wish to know, not just to be a smart ass.
The problem is that the state does have an interest in promoting stable families with a mother and a father for the upbringing of children.
“The problem is that the state does have an interest in promoting stable families with a mother and a father for the upbringing of children.”
I don’t think the state’s intrest has been too good for the institution of marriage. It has conditioned folks to see marriage as just another gubberment contract that can be broken and resumed at will. And since lots of folks are now conditioned to think that marriage comes from the gubberment, they will accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” just because the gubberment says it is cool.
Freegards
But, consider this: when a priest (or minister or rabbi or imam) signs a marriage license (a license issued by the State), is the minister not acting as an agent of the State as well as an agent of the Religious Body for whom he is a cleric?
What concerns me is that, as long as a minister is authorized (or required) to sign the marriage license, he becomes somewhat under the jurisdiction of the State and subject to the State's laws. (For example, I believe that it would be illegal for a minister to sign a marriage license if he or she was aware of a plural marriage, even if such a marriage was perfectly acceptable within the religious tradition that ordained the minister)
For example, in Maryland State Law (Family Law, Title 2, §2-406),
(a) Authorized officials.-
(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court or a United States Court of Appeals; or
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.
(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:
(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;
(ii) any clerk;
(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or
(iv) a judge.
(b) Period during which ceremony may be performed.- Within 6 months after a license becomes effective, any authorized official may perform the marriage ceremony of the individuals named in the license.
(c) Performance by unauthorized individual prohibited; penalty.-
(1) An individual may not perform a marriage ceremony unless the individual is authorized to perform a marriage ceremony under subsection (a) of this section.
(2) An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of $500.
(d) Performance between individuals within prohibited degrees prohibited; penalty.-
(1) An individual may not knowingly perform a marriage ceremony between individuals who are prohibited from marrying under § 2-202 of this title.
(2) An individual who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of $500.
(e) Performance without license prohibited; penalty.-
(1) An individual may not perform a marriage ceremony without a license that is effective under this subtitle.
(2) An individual who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500.
What happens if the courts decide that it would be illegal to not allow gay marriage (violation of the 14th Amendment or some such)?
It could be interpreted that a church official authorized in §2-406(a)(2)(i) is required to perform such a ceremony. (He is, after all, defined as an agent of the state, by virtue of his authorization to sign the license)
Think I'm crazy for saying that? Have you actually read the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade? The logic applied above is clear and plain compared to the convoluted logic applied in that famous decision. Think Maryland has got screwed up laws? (Well, it does, but that's not the point) Check your own state's laws up.
The sole advantage to what Kmiec proposes is that it takes marriage completely out of the legal picture and no longer mixes up Church and State, like I showed exists today. If "marriage" (vice a "domestic contract") is solely the purview of the Church and is not the State's business, then the protections of the First Amendment would clearly apply. Else, the State (through the courts) could assert primacy and demand compliance.
Think that this somehow dilutes the solemnity of marriage? Well, I would submit that they're not all that solemn today: with no-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements, and so on, we have a divorce rate of over 50% in this country. So obviously society doesn't hold marriage in very high esteem nowadays anyway.
Mind you, I would prefer that marriage was still a sanctified bond. I believe that it is only valid when it is entered into and kept per the precepts of Scripture...but since I am in the minority in American society (anybody divorced and remarried for any other reason than authorized by our Lord -- Matt 5:31-32 -- should check themselves before saying that they believe in the Holiness and Sanctification of the marriage bond)
Sorry about the links in post #29 (I thought they were absolute...they weren’t...they were relative)
Call it a Certificate of Union. Leave the "Marriage" to the Church.
Like a Certificate of Birth and leave the "Baptism" to the Church.
Much like a Certificate of Incorporation. Just for identification and taxes.
I don't like Kmiec because of his hypocritical support for BO but can't see the problem in this idea if it preserves "Marriage" for a man and a woman.
I could support it with one very important stipulation: NO ADOPTION OF CHILDREN !!. Lets see what Cino Kmiec would think about that.
Here come the liberaltarians out of the woodwork; drooling over the prospect.
So now we want to just do away with marriage entirely?
As part of the whole gay marriage debate, there’s one important point I never hear mentioned. And that is that the relationship of a traditional married couple raising children has more significance to society than a same-sex adult partnership. So it makes sense for government and society to treat these relationships differently.
I know the activists say that lesbians can go to the IVF clinic and can adopt children, but the vast majority of same-sex couples will never have children.
I think we get side tracked by the separate but equal arguments of the gay activists. Their relationships are not as important to society as the relationships of couples raising their children. We all have a stake in how children are raised, and it makes sense for government and society to encourage these relationships. And it makes sense that these relationships will have greater government benefits than a childless same-sex adult partnership. I wish this point was made more often. Separate but equal doesn’t matter because a homosexual relationship isn’t equal; it’s not as important to the rest of society.
This identity group rights business is the road to tyranny.
We would be better off to start publicly hanging judges. The rule of law means very little anymore...
From Obama, where else?
Obama is taking heat from the left so his favorite apostate is sent out to cut marriage in half.
I'd like to see government out of marriage. I don't like the fact that I have to get a marriage license even in this country. The only place I should have to go to get married is to my Catholic Parish.
The founding fathers who wrote the first amendment didn't seem to think so.
marriage is a religious thing, is it not?
Not exclusively. Marriage is a social institution. It predates organized religion. Some religions bless marriages, but there is a social purpose to heterosexual marraige, namely, encouraging stable families with a mother and father, that is entirely seperate from religion.
In many countries, civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage. I got married in Mexico. My wife and I had had to have a civil ceremony, presided over by a judge, in addition to our Nuptual Mass.
Heterosexual marriage serves a secular, social purpose. It's great that religions sanctify the institution, but it is not only a religious institution.
That's why the libertine proposal to "get government out of the marriage business" is so absurd.
“Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a how iron;
Forbidding to marry,....” 1 Timothy 4:1-3
how = hot
opps
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.