BeenaBobba Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Of course, I'm against gay "marriage" in all shapes and forms. (I would definitely oppose any legislation that would legalize gay "marriage.") The question is, would a lot of problems be solved if state and federal governments didn't recognize marriage at all? In other words, do you think it would be better if the government left marriage to religious groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 The problem with this is that marriage really needs to be regulated because in a marriage union there are financial and legal issues that come into play. What happens to the children if one spouse dies and there is no marriage in the eyes of the state for instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 31 2005, 10:36 AM']The problem with this is that marriage really needs to be regulated because in a marriage union there are financial and legal issues that come into play. What happens to the children if one spouse dies and there is no marriage in the eyes of the state for instance? [right][snapback]666107[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, couldn't issues of adoption and inheritance be dealt with seperately? If one spouse died, for instance, the children could go to their surviving parent. Marriage in and of itself doesn't [i]need[/i] be recognized in this instance, right? It would seem that it'd be parentage that'd need to be recognized. And the names of our parents are usually written on our birth certificates. P.S. Actually, I don't have a cemented view on this. I'm just thinkin' things out ... publically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jul 31 2005, 09:46 AM']Well, couldn't issues of adoption and inheritance be dealt with seperately? If one spouse died, for instance, the children could go to their surviving parent. Marriage in and of itself doesn't [i]need[/i] be recognized in this instance, right? It would seem that it'd be parentage that'd need to be recognized. And the names of our parents are usually written on our birth certificates. P.S. Actually, I don't have a cemented view on this. I'm just thinkin' things out ... publically. [right][snapback]666128[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Jen, They can be. One doesn't need to be married in order to adopt or to inherit....otherwise, I would be screwed......not the adoption part, but in the inheritance part. See, I have no intention of getting married any time soon.......I have a friend of mine in Minnesota who has adopted 2 boys without being married, so those are most certainly not requirements. It is an interesting question that you pose......is it necessary for the state? I suppose that for economic reasons it might be, but for any religious reasonings, no it isn't. I think that the moral ramifications come from a religious standpoint, so I don't think that the state should enter into that, unless it compromises the common good. Here is another thought. The Church teaches that a marriage is not valid unless it is established by God himself. So, with that being said, it would seem that the state doesn't ordain the marriage, only ratifies it. Perhaps that would be a starting point.....what do you think. Again, this is nothing in stone, but simply a starting point for the conversation. Good to see you someplace other than Xanga......YAY!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 A friend of mine, who happens to be pagan, had the same idea. His idea was to let people draw up contracts between each other regarding inheritance, shared property, gurdianship, health issues, etc, as they like, and forget the boilerplate regulated marriage stuff that the government obliges people to. Then civil "marriage" would just be a particular application of contract law. Churches, of course, would be free to define marriage as they want. It was an interesting concept, but I didn't see it working out, myself. I don't think it's in the best interests of the state to allow that. (OTOH, with democracy anything is possible...) I will have to tell him that someone else has had the same idea on a conservative Catholic Forum. He will be tickled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Marriage exists on the level of natural law and belongs to man in general, not any particular religion (although it is fulfilled and perfected in Christ). The arguments in favor of the existence of civil marriage are so vast I wouldn't know where to begin.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 seperating marraige and state completely would not be in line with catholic social teaching, which teaches only the correct and proper seperation of church in state (not full seperation) although these teachings are not dogma just strongly recommended, but you really shoulden't seperate the two...like the two lungs of the body...they don't hinder one another but work in union while still seperate as the church and government should be...the proper authority of one cannot trespess upon the other so for example the church cannot regulate where stop signs should go the government cannot regulate what marraige is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 one reason i can see the civil union and church union are in conflict a friend of mine is dating a guy who goes to a military college they really wanna get married however its illegal in the federal laws but not by the church, in this case civil marraige is not immedietly imperative it doesn't seem, however its still a wise action later on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Marriage needs to be recognized by the government. Even if with legalized divorce, many people in government positions still see marriage as an important part of human society. With out marriage a true family cannot be developed (true meaning married mom and dad and kids) I am a believer that the government still has some sort of knowledge of the value of marriage and its importance as the cornerstone of civilization. If we eliminate marriage as such in the eyes of the government it will be like the separation of Church and State thing happening now. Just my thoughts...Meg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jul 31 2005, 06:07 AM']Of course, I'm against gay "marriage" in all shapes and forms. (I would definitely oppose any legislation that would legalize gay "marriage.") The question is, would a lot of problems be solved if state and federal governments didn't recognize marriage at all? In other words, do you think it would be better if the government left marriage to religious groups? [right][snapback]666070[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Civil society has a moral obligation to recognize the good of marriage and to give it legal and even financial support (through taxation that takes marriage into account). The family is the fundamental cell of the social order, and to fail to recognize and protect the natural good of marriage in civil law involves a dereliction of duty on the part of civil authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now