Propose versus impose.

[MoreCoffee]

In Australia there's a debate going about the Federal Marriage Act which has an appendix added in 2004 called The Definition of Marriage Act. The definition of marriage in the act says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The debate is about removing the 2004 definition so that the Act will allow for two men or two women as the "two persons" contracting a marriage. This kind of marriage is civil marriage not sacramental marriage.

My archbishop sent a pastoral letter to all the parishes in the archdiocese making the case for a "no" vote on the proposed change. He was at pains to state that as Catholics we have a right to participate in the debate. He argues that he was within his rights to propose but not within his rights to impose. So he proposes that we vote "no" but he cannot impose. But I got to thinking. The Federal Marriage Act is the law of the land so it does in fact impose a definition of marriage on the community. Do you think it is right to impose a definition (one man and one woman) in law on the whole community when it is known that some (possibly many) would want to avail themselves of marriage but cannot fit the definition because they want to marry a person of the same sex?

 

[tango]

In Australia there's a debate going about the Federal Marriage Act which has an appendix added in 2004 called The Definition of Marriage Act. The definition of marriage in the act says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The debate is about removing the 2004 definition so that the Act will allow for two men or two women as the "two persons" contracting a marriage. This kind of marriage is civil marriage not sacramental marriage.

My archbishop sent a pastoral letter to all the parishes in the archdiocese making the case for a "no" vote on the proposed change. He was at pains to state that as Catholics we have a right to participate in the debate. He argues that he was within his rights to propose but not within his rights to impose. So he proposes that we vote "no" but he cannot impose. But I got to thinking. The Federal Marriage Act is the law of the land so it does in fact impose a definition of marriage on the community. Do you think it is right to impose a definition (one man and one woman) in law on the whole community when it is known that some (possibly many) would want to avail themselves of marriage but cannot fit the definition because they want to marry a person of the same sex?

You raise a good point here.

Almost by definition, anything that has the force of law behind it is an imposition on those the law restrains or compels in some way. Hence it seems good that such imposition is kept to a minimum, which in turn lends support to the notion that the government that governs best is the one that governs least. Anything other than this involves imposition over and above what is necessary.

Of course "necessary" in this context is a matter of opinion rather than fact. I doubt many would object to legislation against obvious impositions on others such as murder, rape, robbery etc. In situations where it is hard to argue that anybody is harmed or has another's will imposed upon them without their consent it should also be hard to justify legislation to prohibit or compel certain types of behavior. When considering whether legislation is relevant the benefits of the legislation should be considered alongside potential downsides, unintended consequences, and potential future abuses. To give an example, when groups (usually Christian groups) believe homosexual activity should be outlawed I disagree with them, simply because if we grant the government the right to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults in private there's no way of knowing where it will stop, so a future government could theoretically use the same power to outlaw heterosexual activity.

As far as marriage is concerned, the fact that this word "marriage" is used to describe both a secular contract in which two persons exchange secular responsibilities for secular benefits, and also a religious construct in which two persons come together before the god of their choice (small g intentional, as non-Christian faiths have their own religious versions of marriage). The state has the power to structure the nature of the secular contract in whatever ways it sees fit while at the same time the spiritual construct of marriage can only be defined by the relevant spiritual groups. In other words, the state can offer its own blessing to any union but only God can decide what he will bless.

One obvious question regarding whether or not marriage should be broadened to allow same-sex marriages is why the broadening should end there. From a purely secular perspective is there any reason why three people should not enter such a contract, why family members should not enter such a contract, and so on? Traditionally marriage was about an exclusive sexual union but is there any reason why sex has to be a part of it at all, when seen through a purely secular lens? If two brothers are willing to exchange secular responsibilties for secular benefits is there any reason why they should not enter into such an arrangement, regardless of whether or not there is any sexual activity between them?

Where secular benefits are concerned a related question has to be why they cannot be granted in the absence of a specific secular contract currently restricted to specific groups of people. If I can leave my estate to my wife without inheritance tax, why should my siblings or my children pay inheritance tax? If I am allowed to refuse to incriminate my wife in a court of law, why should I be barred from such an arrangement with others? Why should I be anything less than entirely free to nominate the person of my choosing to be my next of kin, especially in cases where I may be estranged from my blood family but have a far closer relationship with someone who is unrelated to me?

Of course there will always be people who want to be married (however they interpret the term "married"), but perhaps if we could address some of the government imposition upon our lives there would be less demand for secular marriage in the first place, and at least some of the issue would go away.

 

[TurtleHare]

In Australia there's a debate going about the Federal Marriage Act which has an appendix added in 2004 called The Definition of Marriage Act. The definition of marriage in the act says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The debate is about removing the 2004 definition so that the Act will allow for two men or two women as the "two persons" contracting a marriage. This kind of marriage is civil marriage not sacramental marriage.

My archbishop sent a pastoral letter to all the parishes in the archdiocese making the case for a "no" vote on the proposed change. He was at pains to state that as Catholics we have a right to participate in the debate. He argues that he was within his rights to propose but not within his rights to impose. So he proposes that we vote "no" but he cannot impose. But I got to thinking. The Federal Marriage Act is the law of the land so it does in fact impose a definition of marriage on the community. Do you think it is right to impose a definition (one man and one woman) in law on the whole community when it is known that some (possibly many) would want to avail themselves of marriage but cannot fit the definition because they want to marry a person of the same sex?

I was always brought under the impression that God imposed his definition from the start and now whenever we vote on government issues as these we aren't putting our own voices behind that vote but God's which has already been spoken. Now I see it as instead of me saying here's what I think I repeat what God says and say Amen!

 

[MoreCoffee]

tango, I think that monogamy is inherited from Roman law rather than from the holy scriptures because the Romans had laws restricting a Roman man from taking more than one woman as his wife (he could have slaves and concubines to his heart's content but only one legal wife at a time). The Romans more than likely followed other European cultures in their practise of monogamy. The Greeks appear to have had a similar view. Even the Gauls and Britons may have had similar cultural rules regarding one wife to one man at one time. The Hebrews explicitly allowed multiple wives in the Law allegedly received from God by Moses. The story in Genesis which Jesus Christ refers to speaks of how "a man shall leave his father and mother and take a wife and the two would become one flesh" which Jesus used to point to both the indissolubility of marriage and to imply that marriage was between a man and a woman but Jesus did not explicitly give a law prohibiting polygamy. So it looks like many of our laws and accepted cultural norms about marriage are inherited from Roman and European culture rather than having explicit roots in holy scripture.

You are right that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, animists and others likely have their own cultural and legal perspectives on marriage and that their perspectives may differ from European views.

You are also right that in principle nothing in civil thinking (except cultural norms) excludes the various things you mentioned. Incest, polygamy, polyandry, various kinds of inheritance rights, various kinds of protected testimony in law suits and so on.

But I started this thread to differentiate between proposing and imposing one specific view on the definition of marriage in a civil context where the definition becomes part of the law of the land and is enforced by the power of the state through its police and courts.

 

[tango]

But I started this thread to differentiate between proposing and imposing one specific view on the definition of marriage in a civil context where the definition becomes part of the law of the land d is enforced by the power of the state through its police and courts.

Sure, although you still need to decide where a boundary is going to be imposed unless you're going to allow anyone to marry anyone else.

From a purely secular perspective it is hard to see why a couple should be denied the right to pass gifts and inheritance tax-free, refuse to incriminate each other in court, gain next-of-kin rights and the like merely because the have the same anatomical structure. But as soon as we start going there, where does the boundary get drawn? As I mentioned before, from a purely secular perspective why shouldn't I marry my brother or my daughter, and why shouldn't I enter into such a secular contract with my sister, my brother, my brother's wife and my next-door-neighbor, all at the same time? If we collectively decide that we wish to be viewed as a single entity in the eyes of the state, why should someone else's view that such things are unacceptable be imposed upon us?

As a general rule I think the whole of the Christian faith, the whole of the call of Jesus Christ, is a proposal rather than an imposition. His "follow me" call is an invitation rather than a command - we are free to choose to follow him or to decide not to follow him. The only imposition comes when we face the consequences of our decision.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure, although you still need to decide where a boundary is going to be imposed unless you're going to allow anyone to marry anyone else.

If it were up to me that law of the land would have a very light hand on definitions of marriage. I'd allow culture and community to decide the matter as far as the law goes and then allow individuals to decide the matter as far as their bedroom behaviour goes. But culture and community tend to make law and law imposes so it is hard to arrive at a general declaration of where a line is drawn in fact the idea of drawing lines implies imposition and that is always going to be a hard thing isn't it?

From a purely secular perspective it is hard to see why a couple should be denied the right to pass gifts and inheritance tax-free, refuse to incriminate each other in court, gain next-of-kin rights and the like merely because the have the same anatomical structure. But as soon as we start going there, where does the boundary get drawn? As I mentioned before, from a purely secular perspective why shouldn't I marry my brother or my daughter, and why shouldn't I enter into such a secular contract with my sister, my brother, my brother's wife and my next-door-neighbor, all at the same time? If we collectively decide that we wish to be viewed as a single entity in the eyes of the state, why should someone else's view that such things are unacceptable be imposed upon us?

As a general rule I think the whole of the Christian faith, the whole of the call of Jesus Christ, is a proposal rather than an imposition. His "follow me" call is an invitation rather than a command - we are free to choose to follow him or to decide not to follow him. The only imposition comes when we face the consequences of our decision.

 

[Albion]

We need to remember that the purpose behind the push for same-sex marriage is to have the country officially acknowledge that these unions are equal to traditional marriages.

Same-sex marriage is not needed in order to allow any two or more people to do what they want in the bedroom, pass along inheritances, etc.

 

[tango]

We need to remember that the purpose behind the push for same-sex marriage is to have the country officially acknowledge that these unions are equal to traditional marriages.

Same-sex marriage is not needed in order to allow any two or more people to do what they want in the bedroom, pass along inheritances, etc.

To pass along inheritances and gain other secular benefits of marriage some form of secular contract is required, otherwise inheritance tax can devastate survivors at the time they are most vulnerable.

You are right that people can do more or less what they want in the bedroom regardless of whether they are married.

ETA: In England some years ago there was a news story about two elderly sisters who lived together. They grew up in the same house, neither ever married, and in their old age they lived together under the roof they had always shared. They shared ownership of the house but both knew that as soon as one died the other would be forced to sell the house to pay the inheritance tax on the other's share of it. Had they been a lesbian couple they could have entered into a civil partnership and avoided the issue but because they were sisters that avenue was closed to them. Since the abolition of inheritance tax (which would make a lot of sense in its own right) appears to be politically troublesome, perhaps an easier option would be to allow anyone to enter into a marriage-like secular contract with whoever else is willing, without restriction.

 

[tango]

If it were up to me that law of the land would have a very light hand on definitions of marriage. I'd allow culture and community to decide the matter as far as the law goes and then allow individuals to decide the matter as far as their bedroom behaviour goes. But culture and community tend to make law and law imposes so it is hard to arrive at a general declaration of where a line is drawn in fact the idea of drawing lines implies imposition and that is always going to be a hard thing isn't it?

Why let culture and community have a say in it? If you're the only black guy in your community and your white girlfriend wants to marry you but the community frowns on that sort of thing, should they be able to stop you getting married? What if you're the only gay couple in an area broadly hostile to gays? What if you want to marry two other people but you live in a deeply religious area?

Drawing a line does involve imposition by its very nature - it imposes a centralised desire to prohibit behaviors on one side of the line. The question comes back to where the line is drawn but a better question might be whether the line needs to be drawn at all.

 

[Albion]

To pass along inheritances and gain other secular benefits of marriage some form of secular contract is required, otherwise inheritance tax can devastate survivors at the time they are most vulnerable.

Certainly. But legislation OTHER THAN the legalization of same-sex marriage can take care of that (and already has done so to some degree).

You are right that people can do more or less what they want in the bedroom regardless of whether they are married.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One does not "let" culture and community define laws they do it and one is stuck with what they do until they are convinced to do otherwise. That is what the postal survey in Australia is about. We'll know what the community decided some time in November and then it up to the parliamentarians to decide what the law will be.

 

[tango]

One does not "let" culture and community define laws they do it and one is stuck with what they do until they are convinced to do otherwise. That is what the postal survey in Australia is about. We'll know what the community decided some time in November and then it up to the parliamentarians to decide what the law will be.

Sure, all too often one is stuck with "the tyranny of the majority". I remember a few issue where slogans read along the lines of "97% of people disapprove of this, why isn't it banned?", totally failing to provide any reason why the remaining 3% shouldn't be allowed to continue doing it.

Hence the question of whether a line needs to be drawn at all has to precede any discussion of where the line should be drawn.

 

[Josiah]

IMO, the PROBLEM is that modern secular government took over marriage..... the whole thing is a confusion of and blending of church and state.

For hundreds of thousands of years, in every culture and land in which homo sapiens lived, MARRIAGE was a very fundamental institution which was a matter of family and religion. And generally, it was seen as a life-long bond of one man and one woman, although there were notable exceptions (although there is virtually no support for "marriage" ever being seen as between two persons of the same gender; regarding such as specifically and technically "marriage" is a VERY, VERY new invention)

The "problem" is that often, marriage includes the issue of property and child support. And as the secular state gained political and legal power, the state was permitted to by religion and families to get more and more involved in the issue of marriage, specially the beginning and ending of such. Originally, the point was not to "take over" the Sacred Institution of Marriage (most Christians even regard it as a "Sacrament") but simply to LEGALLY state who is and is not "married" for the sole and only reason of being able to legally determine financial and care issues.

SIDE POINT: A Danish coworker of mine tells me that the Danish government has OFFICIALLY gotten out of the whole marriage issue: They ONLY govern "personal corporations" (noting that any two persons over a certain may enter into a personal corporation - which the Danish government designed to have the legal and financial equal of what used to be a legal "marriage" - it is essentially what we in the USA call a "civil union." They no longer issue "marriage" licenses and no longer are involved in "divorce' (those issues being given back to the church and family) there is just the formation and dissolution of a personal corporation. If you want to get MARRIED, well.... the State stays entirely out of that. It's possible to have a personal union without ever getting married, and possible ot be married without having a personal union. One is an issue ENTIRELY for family and church, the other ENTIRELY for law and economics. Some sense there, IMO.... And such MAY be preferred to the mess we now have

This "take over" of Marriage, ripped from the hands of family and religion, means that now the secular State is in the religion business, governing what we see as a sacred thing even mandating a religious ceremony which it itself may conduct and which only it itself may authorize (so much for "separation of church and state"). And of course, only the Secular State may tell the church and families what is and is not "marriage" and who may and may not get "married." And since this now has nothing to do with human culture or history, nothing to do with family or religion.... since it is the creation and property of the Secular State, the State can define it any way it wants. There's really no reason why it can't (and perhaps shouldn't) define it as "any gathering of people who pay the fee to be married" so the cheerleaders at a high school can all be married (perhaps only for a season), it's all meaningless since it has no connection to history or culture or family or religion..... the word "marriage" has no meaning or importance...... heck, if a little old lady wants to "MARRY" her Pekingese, why would the State care? If all the residents of California want to be married all to each other (perhaps for some tax or health insurance reason), why not? After all, this has nothing to do with history or culture or family or religion.... this has no meaning. It's just the State exercising the absolute power it has been given to control all this. And if family and church decry this.... well..... who let it happen? The State didn't TAKE this, it was GIVEN this.


- Josiah



.

 

[tango]

This is an interesting point, and reminds me of an Arabic guy I knew a few years ago who married the same girl three times in the space of a month. It sounds odd but makes sense when you consider the details. Firstly he and his bride were Muslims, so they had an Islamic wedding ceremony. That wasn't recognised under British law so they had a quick marriage in a registry office to ensure they were married in the eyes of the law. Then they flew to their homeland and had another Islamic ceremony for the benefit of family members who couldn't attend the first one.

A lot of the issues surrounding questions of just what marriage entails come down to just what version of marriage is meant - whether the spiritual construct or the secular legal construct. I like the idea of the "personal corporation" you mentioned, just don't see why it should be restricted to only two people.

 

[Imalive]

Your archbishop is proposing? Aww he's gonna get married! Congrats!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your archbishop is proposing? Aww he's gonna get married! Congrats!

I suspect that getting married is against the rules for an archbishop

:smirk: