djf, I wanted to comment on the topic you brought up, about a
definition of marriage. I'm not
quite sure I've gotten this
quite right from a Catholic point of view (which is the point of view I want to develop) -- so if somebody I've pinged wants to jump in and correct me, I'll appreciate it.
As I understand it, there are two basic legitimate kinds of marriage, and they are Natural Marriage, and Sacramental Marriage (Matrimony).
Natural marriage is something every known society recognizes, in every century and in every culture, whether it is religious or not, whether there are legal regulations or not, and is rooted in Natural Law. This means, it's what we know is best for human flourishing. Natural marriage involves the realization that
- Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (the procreative act) establishes a bond between them, and a responsibility to their offspring.
- Such a bond should be durable and based on consent.
- This consent involves a commitment to provide for each others' well-being, and that of their children.
- The consent is public in nature.
This is regarded as a natural good, even if there are no further legal, ceremonial, or theological implications.
Then there's Sacramental Marriage (Matrimony), which is like Natural Marriage but taken to a higher level. Matrimony includes all of the above points, plus:
- The husband and wife are both Baptized Christians;
- The marriage is monogamous
- the bond is permanent (until the death of one of the spouses);
- Its ultimate goal is the eternal and supreme joy of heaven, which is what the spouses want for each other, and for their children.
- Ordinarily it involves a priestly blessing and two witnesses, but that's not what makes it valid. Nor does "a ceeremony" make it valid. What makes it valid is the consent of the man and the woman, and the act of sexual intercourse, defined as, sexual union of the procreative type.
I don't think the Church gives a hoot about legality in the secular sense. There was a time when the Church was
against civil (secular) marriage --- licensing by the State --- because neither Natural Marriage nor the Sacrament of Matrimony
need licensing by the State in order to exist.
To put that a different way: the State can (and should) acnowledge marriage as an institution; but the State is not the source of marriage, cannot define (or redefine) marriage, and must not degrade or impede marriage, because marriage is the more fundamental institution. Marriage is prior to the State, more essential to human well-being than the State, and could even be said to be superior to the State.
Is that 'bout right?