Ranter's note: This is the first in a two-part series about the state defining marriage. This first article, by Johnny Peters, will argue that the state should have no part in defining marriage, and the Church should not seek permission from the government to perform the sacrament of marriage.
The second part of the series will take the opposing viewpoint, that the state has a vested interest in defining and promoting marriage between one man and one woman. That piece will be published within the next week or two.
As always, I appreciate your comments. Ad hominem attacks, and gratuitous swearing will not be allowed.
The second part of the series will take the opposing viewpoint, that the state has a vested interest in defining and promoting marriage between one man and one woman. That piece will be published within the next week or two.
As always, I appreciate your comments. Ad hominem attacks, and gratuitous swearing will not be allowed.
It seems that
some people may never learn. One would think that after the HHS Mandate,
Catholics would be somewhat reluctant to enlist the aid of a government that
sends armed men to shut down children's lemonade stands.
But it seems
many Catholics are worried about the repeal of DOMA. Apart from the question of
whether or not the Federal government has constitutional authority to define
marriage (short answer: No), we can see what yet another big government
interference in family has wrought. More protests, more resistance, and
reinforcement of the assumption that the government should be involved in
marriage in some positive sense.
What worries me
most is the replacement of DOMA. With the level of agitation we have, and the
utter freedom from serious consequences face by our representatives (we are not
permitted to resist. Unless we like being arrested for ignoring the commands of
our Wise Overlords), I don't believe that popular opinion would be enough to
prevent expansion of marriage rights. I find it bothersome that government is
involved in marriage, at all. I want it entirely out of the marriage business.
It really needn't have the role it does.
I could
acknowledge that, on some level, government will have to be concerned with
marriage: property titles, child custody, taxes, worker benefits—all the
various things into which our government (rightly or wrongly) sticks its nose. And,
to me, this tendency should give serious pause to those asking our government
to involve itself in social issues. We do not live under a relatively benign,
inactive government. We live under the rule of politicians with the mindset of
omnipotent moral busybodies. We have, in various locales, governments that seek
to control:
· The feeding of the homeless (Houston, TX)
· Private growing of crops for private consumption (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942 Supreme Court)
· Size of soft drinks sold (New York, NY)
· Smoking (everywhere, USA)
· Alcohol sales (they used to shoot people over this)
The Federal
government has, of course, already defined marriage. States are free to choose
individually. As a Catholic, I don't want states to expand the definition of
marriage. But then, states don't limit themselves to a mere definition. It's
not even a matter of court recognition. It is (surprise, surprise) a permission
slip issuer, with the attendant fees, of course.
It's not too
large a fee, if I remember correctly. More significant is the effect on the
Church. The Church will not (save under special circumstances) marry a couple
without a piece of paper from the government. Imagine if you had to get a
Baptism license from the government (I know there are no legal concerns in
Baptism, don't bother). Since when does a bureaucrat—a lay, probably
non-Catholic bureaucrat—hold the keys to sacraments? In what insane universe
could this possibly be a good
thing?
That our Church
will meekly await a permission slip from the government before bestowing a
sacrament should be a warning sign for how far we've gone in elevating the
power of government.
There are
objections to removing government entirely from the marriage business. In a
terribly abrupt transition, I'm going to go to a vaguely Socratic approach to
responding to these objections, using panicky strawman opinion that I don't
find intellectually intimidating.
Okay. But why?
For divorce? For inheritance? For taxes?
There is nothing
in the legal aspect of getting hitched that requires government involvement.
The entire thing could be handled by the services of a private attorney. It
seems to me that the principle of subsidiary fairly demands that our current
system be scrapped in favor of the much, much smaller relationship between
attorney and client.
But it's
obvious that people cannot handle this privately. If we took your suggestion,
then anywhere and everywhere, people will live together in same sex unions, and
have gay sex, and think they're married!
True. But guess
what? They're already doing that. Curse you, internal beliefs! One of the
Defenders of Traditional Marriage ™, National Organization for Marriage (NOM.
Yes, really)
breathlessly reports that Ron Paul is wrong on marriage, providing this quote (among others):
There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary
definition of marriage.
— Ron Paul's Book, Liberty Defined
The
horror! I don't know how (om)NOM(nom!) proposes to counteract the voluntary
definitions of marriage. I don't think we yet have the technology to
efficiently police the populace for unapproved individual definitions of
marriage. Also lost on NOM is that the Church's definition of marriage isn't
the current one blessed by DOMA's Holy Writ that will surely save society.
What
is really being proposed, here? I see amongst Government Definition of Marriage
(GDM) folks a consistent appeal to Federal power. As a believer in that old
canard about a limited Federal government of enumerated powers, I get a mite
concerned about that. But when organizations desiring to harness the power of
the thing that gave us the Japanese Internment lament the freedom of voluntary
definitions, I become very
concerned.
It's
one thing to attempt to get government to provide a generic description of
marriage. I already don't want them doing that—for the same reason I disagree
with giving psychotics or toddlers control of a battleship—but I have to
question just how much control a group like NOM is in favor of when part of
their campaign against a politician involves citing quotes about voluntary definitions. Ain't nothing voluntary about the
government, so we ain't talking about legislation.
In a
way, it begins to remind me of Prohibition. Drunkenness and alcohol abuse is a
serious evil. The evils that came with Prohibition were worse. Granting
government the right to kill people over beer is insane. Aquinas recognized the
need of the State to tolerate some evils in the name of avoiding greater ones.
Pope Leo XIII recognizes this in Libertas.
Government does not have to be a force committed to stamping out all sin. It's
impossible, and it would lead to greater evils.
Of
course, we don't want government taking an actively evil stance, either. No
Catholic can support expanding the government definition of marriage to include
same sex marriage. Or polygamy. And so on.
But
considering the state of society as regards marriage (gay marriage allegedly
enjoys 50% support
in the US), and the degree to which our government feels it may interfere in
private matters, it's imminently defensible to support getting government
entirely out of the marriage business. Posthaste.
With
the HHS mandate, it should be abundantly clear that today's politicians view it
as well within the government's rightful authority to compel groups to act
against their religious beliefs, and require them to participate—to
fund—gravely evil activities.
History
is on this side. The Church has been engaged mostly in the struggle against
state intrusion on Church matters. Now, I don't imagine we'll have to deal with
Nanny Bloomberg attempting to use his private army
to make himself Archbishop of New York, but I can easily imagine other
interferences, such as (if the 'traditional' side wins) forced annulments to
alleviate the suffering of those who wish to remarry (and the forced remarriage
within the Church), or, if the same-sex marriage side wins (and I believe they
will), enforcement of the civil right to get married in a really cool Cathedral
with statues and pretty windows. It's established that we haven't the right to
discriminate, and homosexuals are a protected
class.
Government definition of marriage
in our current situation is a house built on sand. Explosive sand that carries
guns. Point of fact, government cannot define marriage any more than it can
define 'tree'. At best, it can recognize a definition of marriage. This it will
not do. You will find no such humility in word or spirit in whatever
legislation is finally crapped out of Congress. The government is already
starting from a deranged view of itself as the issuer of rights. Most citizens
will speak of being granted rights by the Constitution. To a man, we are
infected with positivism.
In our current world, enlisting and supporting government intervention in
marriage isn't rightful submission to lawful authority: It's madness.
Related: Part Two
Thought provoking, but his punctuation is poor. Perhaps Johnny Peters, should visit the website "theOatmeal.com" for remedial instuction.
ReplyDeleteAny punctuation errors that were left would be my fault, as "editor" of the piece.
DeleteBTW, he loves The Oatmeal. ;-)
Your face is poorly punctuated, anonymous.
DeletePart of me agrees with the "get government out of marriage" idea. It would make things easier for we who support Sacramental marriage. It would (at least theoretically) inforce our belief that marriage is primarily a Sacrament and a matter for the Church. It would free us from the hassle of trying to explain what natural law is and why some relationships abide by it and others don't.
ReplyDeleteHowever...we are speaking of natural law here, not simply Divine Revelation. Marriage--even Sacramental marriage--can exist outside of the Catholic Church. I fully believe that the government should understand, abide by, and promote natural law. Many governments are doing a very bad job at it, but nevertheless I think that a government does have the authority to make laws which reflect natural law, and furthermore has an obligation to do so. The Catholic Church agrees.
The family is the building block of society, any society, every society. A society cannot function unless it values this building block, any more than a pyramid can stand if the foundation is abandoned. I do not see how getting the government out of marriage will help us value the family and natural law. You could argue that, conversely, it might prevent us from valuing unnatural unions so highly. "If it can't promote anything good, at least it can't promote anything bad, either." But the whole get-government-out-of-marriage things says, basically, that the government has nothing to do with the family and natural law. That mentality, I think, will harm our society on two levels; abandoning the family *and* giving us a distorted view of the purpose of government and its relationship to natural law.
If we had a government that was not as all-encompassing as this one, perhaps. I'm afraid our servants have gotten too big for their britches to entrust them with promotion of natural law as regards voluntary, non-violent interaction.
DeleteI feel I should also point out that government is already involved, and it hasn't kept the concept falling apart "nationally". Government =/= society.
DeleteTally, you are quite right, marriage can exist outside of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean the State has authority over marriage. Civil marriage is a modern secular State invention and did not exist until the invention of a State which separated itself from the Divine and Natural Laws. The State has no business issuing permission slips for marriage, and the Church has no business imposing its view of Marriage upon those who are not Christians. Even at the height of the Power of the Inquisition, the Inquisition did not claim authority over the Jew, or Mohammedan, only over the Baptized Christian.
DeleteWhile the family is the building block of all societies, all societies have not agreed what that was. It is patently false to say that the marriage of one man, and one women, for life, was or is the building block of society, it has in fact never been the foundation of any society I can think of except the Christian civilization which rose after the Fall of the Roman Empire.
The Government's purpose is to maximize justice, without violating others rights or being unjust to some to do it. It does not require the authority to administer civil marriage to do that.
I believe the less government the better. That said, I believe the government should encourage marriage through tax breaks, etc., b/c marriage benefits society. If so, then government would need to define what constitutes a marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhich is possible if we're not talking about a government that feels it can tell people what size soft drinks they may buy.
DeleteI do agree the government in place today is not capable of defining marriage, much less protecting it. But in principle, I believe the government should do what it can to encourage and build strong marriages/families. I am definitively not for the government redefining marriage.
DeleteSorry for the anonymous above. I did not realize I was not signed in.
The government, according to Catholic doctrine, has a duty to promote the common good by defending the institution of marriage from those who would attempt to promote a form of sexual perversion as its equivalent (see the CDF Document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons). As the document I referenced above states:
ReplyDelete"The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself."
The purpose of that document is too oppose legal recognition of Homosexual unions, having the State completely removed fro the administration of marriage achieves that goal. We need to recognize that we are no longer at war with the Secular State regarding the Church's role in society, we lost that war. We are now at war with the Secular State about the Church's right to exist as a Church at all, reduction of the States influence in all things is the only way we can maintain a civil relationship with the Secular State, because she has shone over and over that she will ot side with Mother Church. If we do not get the State to stop making pronouncements regarding what we can and cannot believe then there will be only on option for the faithful Catholic, and well Civil Wars are nasty.
DeleteRead the document more closely, it is not simply saying that Catholics must oppose same-sex unions (it is saying that), but it is also saying, as the quotation I provided indicates, that the State is required to give legal protections to the institution of marriage.
DeleteI must say that I am disturbed by the growing trend among some Catholics to confuse Catholic doctrine with Libertarian hedonism.
I am not a Libertarian and certainly not a hedonist. But i do understand being disturbed by Catholics confusing Catholic Doctrine with things hostile to Church teaching. For example I have a real problem with Catholics understanding that universal public education by the secular state is condemned by the Church, and that belief that it should exist at all is a condemned error. Or that the State has the right to meddle with Church affairs, which has been condemned as an error, or that Priest and Bishops are subject to civil law, without the Church turning them over to the Civil power for punishment after trial in Church court, which has been condemned in Council; or that in the case of a conflict between Church and State that the Civil power and law prevails, which has been condemned as an error. Or that the Sacrament of Marriage can be separated from the Contract of marriage, and therefore held justly by a secular state, which has been condemned as an Error.
DeleteThe State SHOULD be a confessor State, not a Secular Humanist State, the Church and State Should not be separated, and the State SHOULD defer to the Church in all issues of morality and Faith. But the fact is , the modern secular state has only two states of being with regards to the Church, Apathy, and open warfare. Since there is little hope of making the Untied states a Catholic Confessor state anytime soon, we need to embrace the State's Apathy, and encourage its departure from the moral order. The Secular and Civil power has not Authority over morality, and cannot have such authority, thus, since it will not obey the one who does, it should be eliminated from the equation entirely.
You may not be, but the author of the essay above is, and your position is - at least based upon what you have posted so far - not that different from his. The Church, on the other hand, teaches that the State has a duty to defend the natural moral law, and to enact legislation that enforces the natural principles designed by God for man's own good, and one of those natural principles is marriage, and the procreation and rearing of children that flows from marriage.
DeleteIf the State should - as you put it - be a "confessor State" then it follows that you should not surrender to secularism by allowing marriage to be denigrated by equating a moral evil (i.e., homosexual activity) with the conjugal act, but should instead redouble your efforts to oppose immoral legal enactments. I guess you and I simply approach things differently, because I am unwilling to give up on trying to instill Gospel values into American culture, while you appear willing to compromise by accepting the un-Catholic notion that the State should simply say nothing about marriage.
As far as civil authorities having "no authority over morality" concerned, I agree that they do not have authority over morality, but at the same time I hold that they have a duty (in other words, they are required) to enact legislation that reflects the natural moral law as it can be discerned through the use of right reason. The Catholic Church has never said that civil authorities have power over morality, but the Church has always taught that civil authorities have a responsibility before God to protect and defend the common good of society, and that responsibility includes legally defending marriage and the family.
Your understanding of Power vs Authority is lacking,the civil power have always had power over morality, but that is neither here nor there.
DeleteThe State is a secular state,it is inherently inimical to the Church, if I am not going to surrender to secularism then I have to overthrow the government, I am not sure that defense of the legal definition of marriage as between men and women, when we could peacefully get the state out of such definition entirely is proportional. I mean, if people question the use of violence to protect the unborn, would it follow that that defense of a definition is not proportional.
That the state should say nothing about marriage is not an un-Catholic it is the norm for all of history, that the Church claims sovereign power over marriage. The claim of that authority means that the state has none, States that were obedient to the Church have always been silent on marriage, as they simply passed laws as they were told to by the Church. However this State is evil and so they should have no role in anything of the kind.
Further, any acknowledgement of Civil marriage as valid, or good or even existing is heretical and un-Catholic, the contract of marriage cannot be separated from its Sacramental nature, and the Sacrament cannot be regulated by anyone but the Church. Acceptance of either is already defined as Erroneous. As such I cannot see how any Catholic can accept marriage being administered by any secular institution as being anything but Evil and the work of the Evil One. Support of such things is both Heretical and Evil.
My understanding of power versus authority is founded upon the teachings of the Cappadocians and St. Maximus. Power (dynamis) is a potency, while Authority (exousia) is a moral / legal approval. No one but God has power over morality, for He is the source of it, while authority - the ability to approve of those things that conform to nature - has been given by God (shared if you will) with various human authorities.
DeleteAs far as the State being secular is concerned, the right approach is not to simply give up and allow those who are in error to undermine the common good, but instead to stand up for the truth and help to alter the existing society by helping to make the moral principles put forward by Christ during His earthly ministry the foundation of the social order.
Civil marriage is simply the recognition in law of natural marriage by civil society. You seem to be confusing the terms "civil" and "secular." Be that as it may, the Church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the State is required to recognize the good of marriage and to defend it from distortion through proper legislation. At least that is what the CDF reaffirmed in the document I quoted from earlier (i.e., the document you ignored).
States are required to do many things Good states at least truly attempt to do them, Evil states do not, or attempt to pervert them. Our state is an evil state, since we are not at this time capable of altering that fact, it is better to simply take the States ability to pervert away by taking its affirmative power over the topic. The only other option is to try and change the state to one which looked to the Church as authoritative, that would require revolution.
DeleteAnd no, that is not all civil marriage is, All of the Societies in the West, before the Enlightenment acknowledged marriage in law, yet non had civil marriage, none claimed the state could acknowledge or institute marriage. That is a claim that only came with post Enlightenment secular states.
I stand by my statement, Acknowledgment of Civil marriage, is acknowledgement of a separation of the Contract of Marriage from the Sacrament. This is a defined Error and is support for Evil.
And I didn't ignore it, I simply put it in context. Its purpose is to oppose legal recognition of homosexual marriage. It references duties of the state in that declaration, I do not deny that States have such duties, but when dealing with a State which has rejected God, the Church, and morality in general one should remove them from regulation of anything which they could pervert rather than allow them to continue to work against God and Mother Church.
Deletesecond acknowledge obviously should not be there in my first post.... changed the sentence and missed that.
DeleteThis is very interesting. Thank you for your insight.
ReplyDelete...Semi-sweet frustration...I especially liked that dude's comment that government has the authority to promote/enforce natural law...that's priceless...What the hell does that mean? What is natural law if it requires government promotion/enforcement? If natural law is natural, why would government need to enforce it? Where does government get its authority to promote natural law? Biggest question of all...why would anyone, who claims to believe in Jesus (a Catholic), believe the government should be involved in violently enforcing anything spiritual? WWJD?...probably not point guns at people and tell them how they should get married.
ReplyDeleteThe government has the right to promote and enforce the natural law, it is in fact the primary thing that the government has the right to do. Persons have the right to live, so the government forbids homicide, Natural law demands that people have the right bodily integrity, so one cannot rape or mutilate others. Defense of these things is the point of government. Where does government get the authority to promote Natural Law, all people have he inherent right to promote Natural Law, there is no need to have a special authority to do so, so the origin of governmental authority is immaterial to that discussion.
DeleteFor instance, I do not need any special authority to prevent the murder of someone, All humans have to right to defend the natural law.
Regarding whether the government has rights, should have rights, or doesn't have any rights; I believe government does not have rights and should not have rights. People have rights, not governments.
DeletePeople have rights (natural, god-given rights) to life, liberty, and property; and people have the right to ask another entity to help defend their rights to life, liberty, and property; but the government is not "needed" to enforce those rights, and the government does not have "the right" or natural authority to enforce an individual's rights. The government only has the authority to assist in enforcing an individual's rights, when commissioned by the individual (implicitly or explicitly).
Regarding natural law, I would say natural law is law that has its own natural consequences. Government does not create natural law, and government is not needed for natural law to persevere.
However, defending life, liberty, and property has nothing to do with imposing laws for marriage on individuals (as far as I can tell).
How does "natural law" and governments' rights (or lack thereof) to enforce natural law pertain to marriage?
If there are natural (or God-given) consequences to marrying someone improperly, then why would government be necessary to enforce those consequences? Aren't those consequences self-enforcing (or natural)?
And, how is one person violating the rights of anyone else (thereby invoking the authority of government to enforce those rights) by marrying improperly, or not in accordance with the teachings of a religion?
Is it implied that government has the obligation and authority to enforce the laws of God on people, regardless of people's will? In other words, should the government be an agent of God or the people (by and for the people)?
If government has the right/authority/obligation/need to enforce God's law, then what does that say about the God you believe in...that he doesn't have the ability to enforce the laws himself?
Oh my, were to begin... You obviously do not understand Natural Law, which considering your Lockean view of the world is unfortunate, as Locke was heavily influenced by Natural Law theory. Natural law is not merely law which has natural consequences, but the universal law that is applicable to all men, in all times. Positive Law should be made in accordance with and in support of Natural Law. Governments make Positive law.
DeleteAS for defending peoples rights, I disagree wholeheartedly, one does not require anyone's permission to protect another's rights, the violation of someones natural rights diminishes everyone's rights and humanity in general. The government too does not need to have anyone's permission to defend the rights of those under its protection. In fact as soon as one is subject to the rule of any government then that government is obliged to protect them.
The relation to the definition of Marriage to the defense of life, liberty, and property is one open for debate. However,these are not the only natural rights. And there defense is not all of the natural law.
The role of government in their defense is open to debate, I obviously do not agree with Mr. Kaster about that role, I do not trust government, particularly not democratic government to use positive law to protect and support natural law, so i would rather simply have them as far from most issues as I can. I would rather live in an evil anarchy than an evil order.
Government has the right,/authority/obligation/need to enforce God's Law because it is the right thing to do, and we are all obliged to do the right thing. It says nothing about God at all, except that He has allowed us to have free will and not to be puppets of His pleasure. Regardless, because we have free will, and because it is possible for people who have chosen to abuse that right and victimize others governments are obliged to protect people and make laws which restrict the right to do evil.
Exactly. Well stated. The Catholic Church acknowledges we are not in a perfect society, this is all what the government should do, but we all know that it won't.
DeleteHilarious Crusty.
DeleteI'm not sure I agree or disagree, because I'm not sure what the author's point is, except that government should not have all the power that it has. I agree with that.
ReplyDeleteShould the state be able to define marriage? Intellectually speaking, I don't know. For our current government, however, I think it's become a necessity. Society is way too far down the toilet to be able to recover enough that we might entertain the notion of limiting that portion of government. Perhaps if the economy actually collapsed AND a new government was somehow magically put into place (not going to happen).
"We need government to uphold the norms of morality, I am told by people who specialize in the unintentionally funny."Thomas Woods
Delete