Ping!
Posted on 10/09/2003 7:56:46 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Marriage has its advantages but some think the nation
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In the ongoing gay marriage debate between Andrew Sullivan and Stanley Kurtz, score one for Mr. Kurtz, who has been arguing that the gay marriage movement poses a direct threat to the existing institution of marriage, while Mr. Sullivan argues the contrary.
FMCDH
Dammit!...I just finished cleaning my keyboard, and now this!...I hate you!...BWAHAHAHAHA!
FMCDH
I find it strange that you think standardized "marital partner contracts" would not include provisions for the legal responsibilities for child custody and support in case of dissolution.
Of course they would. To think that they would not is quite an odd naivete... as odd as thinking that the standardized Private Wills found at any OfficeMax for under $100 bucks would not include provisions for children!! Most couples expect to have children, so the inclusion of clauses regarding child custody and support in case of dissolution would be a standard feature of private contracts. And where responsibilities are contractually established in advance, the amount of wrangling over the outcome is substantially reduced (because the clauses of the contract already specify the terms)... thus you've managed to further reinforce my argument, for which I must thank you.
The bottom line in all of this is: Is marriage an institution or just a mere contract. I submit that legally it IS an institution. Remove the institutional status and all divorce case law goes away and children are OUT of the marriage institution.
Legally, Marriage is currently a State Institution -- thus delivering to Caesar a power to Define (and potentially to Destroy) a Religious Institution over which he has no Scriptural mandate whatsoever (rather, State-worshippers have merely ceded this Power to Caesar).
Biblically speaking, the normative mode for Marriage is as a Religious Institution, over which the State has only the authority to administer the Contractual Terms. Return of the Institution of Marriage to the (Biblically normative) sphere of Private Contract would allow Churches, for example, to include harsh contractual penalties on breaches of Contract which violated that Church's canonical laws for Marriage -- and the State would have to respect such contracts, as binding as any legal business agreement. By contrast, there is currently NO WAY for a Church to enjoy Civil Enforcement of their canonical standards, hence the radical watering-down of Legitimate Reasons for Divorce we see at the hands of the State.
Unless you want that, and believe that it is a "good thing", it is preferable to return Marriage to the (Biblically normative) sphere of Private Contract -- in which Churches could include their own canon-law provisions within Marriage Contracts recommended to their parishioners, which the State, not being involved in the definition of the contract, would not be in a position to devalue and water down.
If Privatized Marriage is good enough for the Patriarchs of the Faith, perhaps it is good enough for us.
Don't you see, OrthodoxPresbyterian, that you're argument leads to the creation of homosexual marriages?
The best defense of heterosexual marriage is a good offense - passing a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a heterosexual institution.
Contracts drawn up at the beginning of a marriage cannot possibly forsee every possible eventuality of a marriage. For instance, if a contract had been drawn up to share custody of children in case of a divorce, but years later one of the parties becomes a chain-smoking, hard-drinking opposite-sex-chasing individual, then of course the other party won't want to share custody and the case will wind up in court. That's what happens with a lot of pre-nups anyhow, so your solution doesn't make things much different than they are now, other than everyone needing lawyers before they get married.
Besides, your proposed solution opens the door to homosexual marriages anyhow, which is what we're trying to avoid!
Quite the opposite. My argument is simply to return Marriage to the same institutional status as under the Biblical Patriarchs of the Faith.
It would allow homosexuals to form "partnership contracts" if they really wanted to (and there is nothing stopping them from doing that now), but it would be impossible to have such contracts defined as "Marriages" in Law because the State would not be involved in the definition of Marriage at all, and so could not mandate that any such contract be legally considered a "marriage". "Partnership contracts" would be recognized as "Marriages" only by, and within, such Churches as conferred that blessing on the contractors -- just as, given our First Amendment, anyone who wants to can walk down the street calling themselves a "Communicant Member" of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but unless the Church says so, they are not anything of the sort in Fact. And because "partnership contracts" would only be binding on the parties themselves, there would be no grounds for "discrimination lawsuits" against organizations which refused to respect the partnership (whereas, under the State definition of Marriage, churches and religious organizations have a legal obligation to treat as "Married" anyone of whom the State says to do so).
The best defense of heterosexual marriage is a good offense - passing a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a heterosexual institution.
By the same token, is the best defense of the Institution of the Church a Constitutional Amendment defining as "Christian" only those individuals who qualify by the standards of the Church? After all, we have a lot of wackos running around claiming to be Christian now... should we get the State involved, so that Jesse Jackson could no longer make this spurious claim of himself? "The best defense is a good offense"?
On the contrary... if the State defines Marriage as a heterosexual institution in Constitutional Law, it has permanently destroyed the power of the Church to enjoy Civil Enforcement of canonical standards for heterosexual marriages -- such as the canon law against the Marriage of Believer and UnBeliever. Right now, the Church is unable to strictly enforce this canonical standard because the Church has a legal obligation to treat such "unions" as being actual "marriages" because the State says that they are. You would make this devaluation of canon law -- and all the State's other devaluations of Church canon law for heterosexual marriages -- the exclusive and permanent province of Caesar, by Constitutional Amendment.
Private contractual partnership, OTOH, would allow Churches to recommend only "partnership contracts" which conformed to their own canon laws -- and the State would not be in a position to water down such canon laws, being external to the definition of the contract in the first place.
I'm not religious and I will not tolerate the state being involved in my marriage.
I will never ask the state permission to marry, and I will never allow it to dictate the terms of my relationship. I do not recognize nor respect any authority for it to do so.
It's as if I had to go ask my neighbor if I could be married, and have him tell me how its going to work, and pay him for the priviledge of his meddling in my private affairs.
Listen people, you are not the state's pets. You are free individuals, and you don't need anyone's license to be married any more than you need a birth certificate to be alive.
So you don't care if homosexuals can be "married"?
Besides, if I were to wish evil on them, what could be worse than a divorce between two catty gay men?
Actually, everyone would need a partnership contract -- 90% of which would be more or less standardized, like the standardized Wills and Business Partnership agreements anyone can buy at OfficeMax for a few bucks.
And, just like Business Partnership agreements include pre-emptive clauses against Fraud, Embezzling, Malfeasance, etc., even the most basic "partnership contracts" would generally include clauses penalizing breach of Contract for -- at the very least -- the four "A"s (Adultery, Abuse, Addictions, Abandonment) statistically common to divorces with cause. You've just covered about 90% of the "Divorces for Cause" right there, and pre-emptively reduced the legal wrangling in case of dissolution (as the penalty terms for breach of Contract would be specified in advance).
Besides, your proposed solution opens the door to homosexual marriages anyhow, which is what we're trying to avoid!
No, if the State has no power to define a contract as a "marriage", then (by definition) no "partnership" could be legally required to be respected as a Marriage. Churches and Businesses could choose to recognize whichever "partnership contracts" they pleased, and not others, as the terms of a Private Contract are binding upon the Parties themselves, not parties external to the contract. State Law, on the other hand, is binding on Parties external to the contract, which is exactly why we are in this mess.
Like the IRS penalty ?
That's true as long as you do not wish legal status of any kind for your 'partner' over and above what a stranger would have. Otherwise, the government does have business defining what marriage is.
IMHO, you recall incorrectly. Abraham and Sarah met many Kings (i.e., Chiefs of State) on their journeys, but did not require a "marriage license" from any of them.
And in Juridical Israel, the priests could certainly offer their blessing on a marriage, but the civil Judges were not involved except in cases of Divorce. The same more or less applied in Kingly Israel; civil Judges would adjudicate in case of a Divorce, but the establishment of a Marriage was Private and Religious institution even then -- and I can find nothing in all the Pages of the Bible (Old Testament or New) which commissions the licensing of Marriage to the authority of the State. Modern state-worshippers have usurped this authority to Caesar, but Biblically it is a case of rendering unto Caesar that which is not his.
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.