The ultimate Constitutional amendment to protect Biblical marriage...
...can be found here at this very cool blog.
Although I consider John Kerry to be, overall, about as exciting as overcooked broccoli, the comments discussed here make more sense than anything else I've heard on the subject.
Indeed, why not separate civil unions from the marriage ceremonies required or accepted by various religions? Must the things of God be yoked together with the things of Caesar?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Carlos @ 10:19AM | 2004-02-11| permalink
"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1943).
email | website
S./Anon @ 11:48AM | 2004-02-11| permalink
(I've decided to merge my personalities - after this, anon is no more)
Why should the state be involved in marriage at all? Can't people just make contracts that are enforcible by law (why does this sound so familiar?) All of conflicting incentives and disincentives for state-sanctioned marriages (which might cause a couple to rush and have a wedding by the end of the tax year when they should have waited till spring or summer) are confusing and problematic.
The only problem I see with abolishing state-sactioned marriages is child-custody in cases of divorce. Any suggestions?
email | website
Yam @ 5:38PM | 2004-02-11| permalink
Hey S, check your email
email | website
Trebor @ 12:03AM | 2004-02-17| permalink
Shucks, and I thought that was my idea. OK, so state sanctioned civil unions would then be based upon the state's interests without respect to any religion. For example, I can see why the state has an interest in inheritance, child custody, child support, divorce, alimony, etc.
However I see no reason to preclude marriage between adult couples of any gender.
I think that before the state preculdes multiple marriages, they'd have to study the matter. How well does this sort of thing work in practice? The Koran approves multiple wives, but only in extreme circumstances. The Koran precludes multiple husbands, but it's based on the assumption that women are subserviant, and it just wouldn't work out having more than one boss. One mullah also suggested that paternity would be difficult to determine, but I think science has pushed us beyond that argument these days.
The Rabbi responsible for modern monogomy basically said he got tired of dealing with all the problems that arose from multiple marriages. I suspect the state may feel the same way as well.
At any rate, at least the state wouldn't precule multiple marriages - they'd leave it to the church. The state would simply not sanction a multiple marriage (if they indeed chose this course). This would mean that only one spouse would receive death state sponsored death benefits, etc. Naturally, such family units could resort to contracts (as suggested above) to sort out how they want to manage their affairs.
It's gonna happen sooner or later. We may as well start sorting out the details now.
Oh, and my wife said I could marry as many women as I wanted so long as she always had final say over my choices. Hmm.
~ Trebor
email | website
Post a Comment