Covenant Marriage Contracts Vs Gay Marriage

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353607920' post='2514819']
whatever the reasons are for easy access to divorce, there should be the option of a form of marriage that doesn't have easy access to divorce, we should demand the right to such a form of marriage that we can voluntarily enter into if we wish to.
[/quote]
Some countries allow employment contracts to be written on an individual basis, defining things that used to be held across the board for all people of that society. It appears to me that you are advocating a similar thing for marriage contracts.

Of course this will mean that people will tailor their own marriage definition based on their own wants, needs, desires, beliefs.
The result will be much more liberal than marriage contracts of today. This will open the door for polygamy and gay marriage (which to me is desirable for society, but I know Catholic church won't like it)

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353608237' post='2514820']
I know you don't want there to be any government at all
[/quote]
That's incorrect, I am not an advocate of anarchy. There are laws that are essential for a peaceful society, e.g. laws against most forms of murder, theft, physical assaults etc. All though I don't want to be oppressed, I also don't want to be harmed.

[Aloysius]

stevil,

well, ultimately what I am for is for us carving out a real recognition of real marriage in society; other forms of sexual relationships that we deem to be sinful (that go on anyway with or without state recognition, of course), how they carve out their place in society is relatively irrelevant to me, except that I do not want those things to be on an equal setting with what is true marriage, and I want people to have the right to voluntarily choose to contract marriage in terms of the same type of legal perpetuity that it used to hold. if some loon also puts up a contract for a 2 year marriage as a renewable contract as the joke so often goes, well that person is a loon who would easily qualify for an annulment in the Church as the Church would certainly not recognize any proper intention but such an agreement (as a contract agreeing to be a single unit for a couple years in terms of finances, medical situations, housing, etc), if some folks make up some sorts of gay or polygamous contracts, well I do not think those things should be promoted and I think the only part of those things that should be recognized would be the basics: you should be able to make a contract that establishes your next of kin and/or who has rights to your medical records and maybe even creating a type of unit for tax purposes, the point is that the state should not promote or reward those types of sexual behaviors, but loose contract recognitions, so long as covenant marriage contracts were also recognized (and by their very nature as indissoluble, quite distinguished from other contracts), it makes sense to allow people to enter into them as contracts, from a civil perspective. it promotes indissoluble true marriages, which is the big thing that the Church wants to see done by the state: the promotion of the common good, allowing for those particular provisions (the perpetuity of the contract would be peculiar as most contracts are dissoluble in some way) is what promotes marriage as a union until death set apart from all other types of contracts.

next to such a covenant marriage contract, any other contracts that might be contracted by deviant sexualities might as well be little mini corporations devoted to themselves, they're basically just incorporating themselves. a gay couple forms a partnership in a company whose goal is basically the same as the goal of long term roommates, who could also establish a contract if they so wished. if we want to preserve and promote traditional marriage and ensure that it is distinguished in civil society against other deviant relationships, establishing covenant marriage contract law is a good way to do so (and opposing gay marriage or gay civil unions is likely the losing way to do so, no matter how noble a losing battle that I support it may be). I can't imagine they'd be pounding at the doors to demand to be allowed into the "not allowed to divorce" club that covenant marriage recognition would represent.

Era Might, I do welcome your input but I just don't know how to proceed with it without getting too far off topic. I hope you see I value your perspective here and it is interesting, but just like with many other understandings that basically question everything, all they do is devolve into a discussion of the basis of questioning everything rather than discussing the topic. I think debating this issue under certain premises and definitions of terms is important, but it's always valuable to question those terms a bit, but going too far and all we'll end up with is deconstruction of historical continuity in social institutions that have changed over time and while that's an interesting topic in and of itself it doesn't really speak to the heart of the proposal I'm bringing up.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353615244' post='2514853']Era Might, I do welcome your input but I just don't know how to proceed with it without getting too far off topic. I hope you see I value your perspective here and it is interesting, but just like with many other understandings that basically question everything, all they do is devolve into a discussion of the basis of questioning everything rather than discussing the topic. I think debating this issue under certain premises and definitions of terms is important, but it's always valuable to question those terms a bit, but going too far and all we'll end up with is deconstruction of historical continuity in social institutions that have changed over time and while that's an interesting topic in and of itself it doesn't really speak to the heart of the proposal I'm bringing up.
[/quote]
I wasn't trying to deconstruct everything...just the opposite, my point is that marriage is just one aspect of the entire society that actually exists. I understand what you are saying about wanting to advance the vision of churchmen today (as expressed in the catechism, etc.) but one problem I have with most Christian proposals for society is not that they are too idealistic, but that they are usually just the society's terms dressed up in clothes like "traditional marriage" and "pro life." These proposals are usually pragmatic rather than prophetic, prudent rather than radical.

I find the entire Christian premise on marriage today wrong. Churchmen today want to create a "civilization of love." Okay, it sounds nice, but is that what Christianity is about, and is such pious talk based in worldly reality? We don't have to dissect this in this thread, I only bring it up rhetorically. I wasn't trying to deconstruct everything, simply trying to say that your proposal is rearranging chairs on the Titanic. To me, St. John the Baptist in the desert and Dorothy Day on the bread line says more to me about Christianity than bishops hyperventilating about "saving traditional marriage." I'm less inclined to save civilization and more inclined toward finding ways around it.

And I will add, finally, that I don't think you personally fall into the trap of retreading conventional talking points in Christian disguise. I think you appreciate radicals like Dorothy Day as much as I do.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Era Might

[stevil]

I have no problems with redefining current marriage law. I think it is faulty at the moment as it is bigoted against gay people and it is over prescriptive with regards to polygamy and incest.

I think there must remain some essentials which cannot be overruled by an individually agreed contract. E.g. I think there will be much conflict in my society if some Sharia based groups decide to marry girls under ten years of age. There is the potential for people to sell their daughters off or to coerce them into marriage. But otherwise, I do like the idea of individuals being able to negotiate and agree on the terms of their marriage.

With regards to some Christian groups wanting their own marriage to appear superior to secular marriage (which ought to include divorce, gay marriage, polygamy etc) then I certainly don’t have a problem with these Christian groups developing a qualifier. E.g. A Catholic certified marriage, of course to certify a marriage the Catholic church will want to add additional conditions.

With regards to government enforcing contracts, the issue religious groups may find is that interpretation of contracts will be defined by common law as conditions are challenged in court. This legally binding definition will likely fall out of alignment of the intent of the religious organisations whom presumably drafted the contracts. Thus the religious organisations will no longer support the arrangement. If they are not getting what they want, they will then be opposed to the extra liberties that secular marriage has gained, so from a desire to control perspective they have taken a step backwards.

[Aloysius]

Absolutely we should keep in place laws that protect minors from exploitation, and contract law must explicitly allow only for the voluntary uncoerced agreement of free individuals, in the Church any coercion in state of life is illicit and would likely corrupt the intention of marriage to the point of nullity (ie it wouldn't be a real/valid marriage, the free consent of both parties is essential to the sacramental form)

as regards interpreting contracts differently? I suppose they'd have to be written correctly but I can't imagine it'd be too hard to write up something simple to establish the marriage contract as totally indissoluble, it's a straight forward enough principle, I don't think any state principles should interfere with that: a couple has the right to make the decision to enter into that type of binding lifelong arrangement if they wish it, all I would fear is the courts trying to let people out of such contracts when they change their minds: the point of recognizing/enforcing covenant marriage contracts should be that if you change your mind, you have no legal recourse to legally dissolve the marriage; unless there's something provable in the provisions of the covenant marriage that requires triggering a legal separation clause or an annulment is granted by the accepted authority (in the Catholic's case, the Church)

but yeah, some sort of legal "Catholic Certified Marriage" in the form of a covenant marriage contract with provisions the Church has approved or required for marriages in the Church would be the ideal way to restore marriage to the civil status it ought to be in. and I think fighting for that, even if it did coincide with certain undesirable precedents in other types of contracts, would actually gain the defense of marriage crowd more credibility. as it stands, there's a lot of public perception that the Church is only sticking their head out to squash the possibility of gay unions; personally I think we'd have a lot more consistency and integrity that could be respected if we were sticking our heads out demanding the right to have real indissoluble marriages.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Aloysius

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353619407' post='2514866']
as regards interpreting contracts differently? I suppose they'd have to be written correctly but I can't imagine it'd be too hard to write up something simple to establish the marriage contract as totally indissoluble
[/quote]
Common law is organic, its not prescriptive, the government cannot dictate on this.
I don't think that anything is simple when it comes to law, especially common law.

I feel a Catholic Certificate on marriage is a good idea but for the Catholic church to maintain control, they need to keep it out of the legal domain.

[Aloysius]

well the Church already has something outside of the civil legal domain, she already has the Code of Canon Law governing her view of marriage, canon law requires that the state's marriage license be simultaneously filled out except in extreme circumstances of secret marriages (if a state is oppressive or there is some other grave reason), but the Church has her own tribunals and canon lawyers to sort everything out. While canon law does grant rights to people, it is also governed by expert commentaries rather than precedents as in the civil law system, and also allows for hierarchical chief legislators to be the final word on what the law means, so at a certain level it is impossible for canon law to be interpreted in any way other than the way the Church wants it to be interpreted, the Apostolic Signatura and ultimately the Pope get the final say and sometimes for better and sometimes for worse the legal system of the Church is much more of a fiat justice than a blind mechanical justice.

honestly I think the point is that if someone signs such a contract and is of legal age to do so and was not under coercion, they should be held to such a contract. give us the right to bind ourselves in marriage for life, I don't think common law should in any way interfere any more than it should interfere in any basic contract between two parties; obviously the particularity here is that the contract is uniquely indissoluble. I suppose the legal question of whether one can really enter into such lifelong binding on a legal basis comes into play, because from some perspectives they would view that as being oppressive... personally I think it is liberating to have the capacity to engage in such a lifelong marriage contract, it is oppressive that such a contract is not currently enforceable. but there would be legal issues that would be hashed out by precedents eventually, for better or worse, because you'd have people who enter into it in the Church and then later claim they didn't know what they were doing or they've converted or changed their mind and the state must free them from the oppressive bond that they placed upon themselves earlier in life... yes, there would be legal questions. I wonder if anyone in one of those three states has attempted to break out of their own covenant marriage without one of the extreme conditions having been met, and what the courts have said if that has happened.

I could imagine an argument ad absurdum even being made about how one is not free to sign a contract placing themselves into lifelong slavery even if they freely chose it at a particular time. I think this is different but I could see where the snaffus would come up.

of course canon law governs what we see as real marriage anyway, even to the point of what non-Christian marriages we'd regard as natural unions, what non-Church Christian marriages we'd regard as sacramental, and all that, and none of that would change even if the covenant marriage framework did not prove as much of a restoration of the civil status of marriage bonds as marriage once was.

[4588686]

I don't like the idea. So an 18 year old gets married and then realizes that her and her husband are just fundamentally incompatible and she's stuck in the marriage for life? No. The Catholic Church already has its marriage ceremony and it's teachings. There's not reason to get the state to make sure that Catholics are good Catholics. If the threat of eternal damnation doesn't bother them then they aren't serious enough to merit being forced to remain married for the rest of their lives.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353625927' post='2514908']
give us the right to bind ourselves in marriage for life,
[/quote]


You already have that right. What you're really asking for is the right to force the other party to remain in the marriage since otherwise the whole idea and silly and redundant.

[Aloysius]

the 18 year old has the choice to either get married in a covenant marriage or a regular marriage that has the out. she would only be requiring it of herself. I suppose my idea to require it by canon law might then make it less of a choice since they would have to do it if they wanted to get married in the Church, maybe going as far as to require it by canon law might be extreme... I actually envisioned people simply not getting married in the Church at all unless they were committed about it, but I guess that's not really what would actually happen since many people just view the Church's requirements as hoops to jump through so that they can please their families by marrying in the Church and having a pretty venue for the wedding. If she was too rash in her decision to marry, she can look into whether she can qualify for an annulment, otherwise her only possible option if there was absolute misery would be to separate but not have the option of marrying again, because of that decision that she made she would have that marriage hanging over her for the rest of her life. marriage is a permanent thing, so if you got married in a covenant marriage, you would know without a doubt that before the eyes of the law you will be married until death, you are supposed to be signing away your right to ever leave your spouse, this would just make that signing away official.

marriage is meant to be that contract that forces you to stay even through the times that you would not want to. why not have the ability to make a lifelong binding contract that cannot be broken? if two consenting adults wish to sign away their right to ever part in the future, the choice to do so should be recognized. the marriage contract is not supposed to be breakable except for extreme circumstances (the Louisiana covenant marriage, for instance, allows for it if adultery can be proven, or if a serious crime can be proven, or abandonment by the other spouse, the kinds of high standards that used to be required for divorces once upon a time. I envision that you could have your own provisions to it and then if you wanted to separate, you'd have to prove to the courts that those conditions had actually been met)

[quote]The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender...
If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.[/quote] -GK Chesterton

The point is that we should be able to make an unbreakable vow and have that unbreakable vow enforced like any contract (since we don't have magic that would make you die if you broke your unbreakable vow). right now the state will not enforce an unbreakable vow, it will allow it to be dissolved even if you sign off that you agree never to dissolve it, I think you should have the option to sign it up to never be dissolved; and then if the Church were to actually require that, we could warn away all those who want to be married with the possibility of a future 'out' that they'd better not get married in the Church, because Church marriages cannot be gotten out of easily. It would still be the couple's choice to make, it's a choice that you can't change your mind on, the freedom to be able to make a choice that you can't change your mind on is not currently granted because the state currently views marriages as something that you can change your mind on.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353650116' post='2515147']
the 18 year old has the choice to either get married in a covenant marriage or a regular marriage that has the out. she would only be requiring it of herself. I suppose my idea to require it by canon law might then make it less of a choice since they would have to do it if they wanted to get married in the Church, maybe going as far as to require it by canon law might be extreme... I actually envisioned people simply not getting married in the Church at all unless they were committed about it, but I guess that's not really what would actually happen since many people just view the Church's requirements as hoops to jump through so that they can please their families by marrying in the Church and having a pretty venue for the wedding. If she was too rash in her decision to marry, she can look into whether she can qualify for an annulment, otherwise her only possible option if there was absolute misery would be to separate but not have the option of marrying again, because of that decision that she made she would have that marriage hanging over her for the rest of her life. marriage is a permanent thing, so if you got married in a covenant marriage, you would know without a doubt that before the eyes of the law you will be married until death, you are supposed to be signing away your right to ever leave your spouse, this would just make that signing away official.

marriage is meant to be that contract that forces you to stay even through the times that you would not want to. why not have the ability to make a lifelong binding contract that cannot be broken? if two consenting adults wish to sign away their right to ever part in the future, the choice to do so should be recognized. the marriage contract is not supposed to be breakable except for extreme circumstances (the Louisiana covenant marriage, for instance, allows for it if adultery can be proven, or if a serious crime can be proven, or abandonment by the other spouse, the kinds of high standards that used to be required for divorces once upon a time. I envision that you could have your own provisions to it and then if you wanted to separate, you'd have to prove to the courts that those conditions had actually been met)

-GK Chesterton

The point is that we should be able to make an unbreakable vow and have that unbreakable vow enforced like any contract (since we don't have magic that would make you die if you broke your unbreakable vow). right now the state will not enforce an unbreakable vow, it will allow it to be dissolved even if you sign off that you agree never to dissolve it, I think you should have the option to sign it up to never be dissolved; and then if the Church were to actually require that, we could warn away all those who want to be married with the possibility of a future 'out' that they'd better not get married in the Church, because Church marriages cannot be gotten out of easily. It would still be the couple's choice to make, it's a choice that you can't change your mind on, the freedom to be able to make a choice that you can't change your mind on is not currently granted because the state currently views marriages as something that you can change your mind on.
[/quote]


You can make it official without incurring state coercion.

You should be something you can change your mind on. You get one life. There is no God and there is no heaven. Most people know, or maybe it would be better to say sense, this even if they still go to church. Forcing somebody to share their life with somebody against their will is just barbaric. Ok. Ten years ago they were in love. Now they're not. That was ten years ago. Why in the world would you use the state to force them to remain based on their choice ten years ago?

[Aloysius]

if people look at marriage the way you do, they should not get a covenant marriage. it is they that are forcing themselves by signing onto the contract, the state's just enforcing a contract.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353651749' post='2515156']
if people look at marriage the way you do, they should not get a covenant marriage. it is they that are forcing themselves by signing onto the contract, the state's just enforcing a contract.
[/quote]


You're skirting around the issue which is unlike you.

Why should the state enforce it? The state is forcing somebody to share their life with somebody they no longer wish to. They no longer wish to share their life with somebody. Why do you, as an adherent to numerous libertarian tenants wish to force somebody to remain in an association against their will? How would you punish somebody to force them to remain in a loveless marriage? Jail time? Fines?

[Aloysius]

no jail time, no fines, nothing like that at all; you simply don't qualify for a divorce and thus are not able to ever get married again. you can separate of course, but there remains the legal attachment to your spouse for the rest of your life. you have to deal with the reality that the other person is your lifelong spouse in the eyes of the law, which even if you separate will still follow you around in all kinds of financial and legal matters.

I believe that the state should enforce contracts, and I believe this is a particular kind of contract that you should be allowed to sign onto for life. if you sign onto a covenant marriage, you are agreeing to be entangled with that person for better or worse for the rest of your life (certainly with provisions to sever those ties in cases of abuse and such). the state enforcing that for life is the state respecting your free choice to bind yourself then at that moment, I see no conflict with freedom there. this is in no way granting the state more power, it's granting people the power to make a binding lifelong contract that the state will recognize as such.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Aloysius